Podcasts about freedom of association

Aubrey converses with Galeboe Modisapodi, Employment Relations & Employee Benefits Consultant, Accredited Commercial Mediator who’s Partnered with Molatudi Advisory Services (MAS), about freedom of association and its limitation in employment law.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I believe there are generically three pillars to libertarianism that can be used to defend most any of our policy positions: self-ownership, the non-aggression principle and freedom of association.This episode focuses on freedom of association.S H O W  N O T E SLocalsDeseret NewsWait Song: Smoke RisingMusic by: CreatorMix.comVideo

As Murray Rothbard often noted, freedom of association is a fundamental right, what he called a “subset of private property rights.” Unfortunately, our modern cancel culture has taken aim at this right, taking away the voluntary nature of human interaction.Original article: Freedom of Association and Cancel Culture

As Murray Rothbard often noted, freedom of association is a fundamental right, what he called a “subset of private property rights.” Unfortunately, our modern cancel culture has taken aim at this right, taking away the voluntary nature of human interaction.Original article: Freedom of Association and Cancel Culture

Future of Freedom President Jacob Hornberger joins Gard Goldsmith to discuss why liberty isn't just optimal but also moral as well as the Libertarian answer to immigration. Go to www.theDavidKnightShow.com for more, and watch Gardner each M-F with Liberty Conspiracy, at 6 PM, on Rumble, Rokfin, and Gard's X @gardgoldsmith For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver

Future of Freedom President Jacob Hornberger joins Gard Goldsmith to discuss why liberty isn't just optimal but also moral as well as the Libertarian answer to immigration. Go to www.theDavidKnightShow.com for more, and watch Gardner each M-F with Liberty Conspiracy, at 6 PM, on Rumble, Rokfin, and Gard's X @gardgoldsmith For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver

This evening on Legal Matters we look at the issue of Serving two masters: the right to freedom of association and ethical  dilemma of senior employees belonging to trade unions.' In short, we will be looking at the question of how to balance the right in section 18 of the Constitution with the rights & duties resulting from sections 22 & 23 of the same constitution. In practical terms, for example, the question is what legally would happen if the CEO of a public institution, eg-hospital, is also a member of the NEHAWU negotiating team that is part of the wage negotiations with the Ministry of Public Service & Administration. What does the law say in such an instance? Is this allowed or not? To educate us further on this we're joined by Galeboe Modisapodi, Employment Relations & Employee Benefits Consultant, Accredited Commercial Mediator who's Partnered with Molatudi Advisory Services (MAS).See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joining me this week to discuss one the most consequetial cases in years on the freedom of association for religious groups is two Christian Legal Society attorneys, Kim Colby (Of Counsel) and Steve McFarland (Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom). This case was years in the making and came out of the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc, which gave it increased weight. The opinion can be found here. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento. A special thanks to Nick and Ashley Barnett for their contribution in making this podcast possible. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY.

Essay 83: Principle of Freedom of Association, Undissolved and Unweakened, Either to Associate or Not, and Neither under Coercion nor Force by George Landrith.  Click here to explore our 2023 90-Day Study: First Principles of the American Founding.

The Supreme Court hearing a case on if a web designer has a right to refuse services to same sex couples.//More chat about KIRO's Holiday Magic campaign and Matt points out an irony about "flat earth" theories.//Spike talks about the FX version of "A Christmas Carol."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. On this episode of Law & Behold, we tackle Freedom of Association in particular, with Firdaus Husni, the Chief Human Rights Strategist at the Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (MCCHR) and Kee Hui Yee, a lawyer with Kanesalingam & Co. Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty guaranteed to every citizen under Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution, and the same rights are enjoyed under Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Why do discussions on anti-hopping laws inevitably involve arguments about freedom of association, and how is the Societies Act 1966 inconsistent with the principles of human rights, particularly the right to freedom of association? We discuss this and more with Firdaus and Hui Yee.Law & Behold is a monthly series which aims to arm Malaysians with constitutional literacy, and is done in collaboration with The Malaysian Bar, the University of Malaya's Faculty of Law, and the Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (MCCHR).

Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association. On this episode of Law & Behold, we tackle Freedom of Association in particular, with Firdaus Husni, the Chief Human Rights Strategist at the Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (MCCHR) and Kee Hui Yee, a lawyer with Kanesalingam & Co. Freedom of association is a fundamental liberty guaranteed to every citizen under Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution, and the same rights are enjoyed under Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Why do discussions on anti-hopping laws inevitably involve arguments about freedom of association, and how is the Societies Act 1966 inconsistent with the principles of human rights, particularly the right to freedom of association? We discuss this and more with Firdaus and Hui Yee.Law & Behold is a monthly series which aims to arm Malaysians with constitutional literacy, and is done in collaboration with The Malaysian Bar, the University of Malaya's Faculty of Law, and the Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (MCCHR).

Bend, OR- Bitcoin Magazine interviewed me and you could feel the exuberance! Learn how to send a Bitcoin and you already have more valuable/marketable 2020s skills than you would get at a Liberal Arts college (for $200k over 4 years)! We compare past bear markets to this one- 2022 is the best bear market ever! The 4 year cycle lives, but supposed BTC heroes and dogmas disappear. Bitcoin is the ultimate provider of freedom of association, but you need to be comfortable with being a confident decentralist to fully appreciate what that means. Elizabeth Warren is the worst US national politician and she foams at the mouth in joy at a potential Ethereum failure, a clear sign that this would be bad for BTC. In this crazy world I could see her endorsing a future proof of stake BTC fork as the real Bitcoin! That is the kind of scenario you will only hear about from Adam! Be a unique beast! Russia and the other countries that pretend to like BTC will only do so much until the "threat" of financial freedom for their oppressed people becomes to close for comfort. Don't pedestal fascist authoritarian leaders just because they say the like BTC. MUCH MORE COVERED! If you want to interview me and can set up all the logistics then I will gladly appear on your show and it will also appear on this channel! In motion! Thanks to Scott, Marco Esquandolez, Towers Comics, DJ Cfair, Henry Law, and Accidental Tourist we need $66 for the next 1 BTC show! BTC Magazine- https://www.youtube.com/c/BitcoinMagazine/videos Coinbeast shirts- https://coinbeast-shop.myshopify.com/ Follow Adam on Twitter- https://twitter.com/TechBalt Adam's Parler- https://parler.com/profile/BitcoinMeister All of the BitcoinMeister videos are here at- http://DisruptMeister.com Financially support the podcast here- https://anchor.fm/bitcoinmeister/support BOOKMARK SPORTSMEISTER.com DISRUPTMEISTER.com & TECHBALT.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/bitcoinmeister/support

Josh rejoins me and we discuss Freedom Of Association. This is the third of what I believe are three fundamental pillars to libertarianism: self-ownership, the non-aggression principle and freedom of association. Rather than aim for a philosophically bullet-proof argument, the goal is to help non-libertarians understand why we libertarians can be so unmovable in our position. In the process, we hope to provide fellow libertarians a different way to present our ideas to those we meet.Bill Review:Catching up from last week we discuss Alabama SB 10 (Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act) and Kentucky SB 211 (AN ACT relating to public safety)Cited Material:AL SB 10KY SB 211Photo by Jakab

I discuss the third of three pillars I believe are fundamental ideas of libertarianism. Those pillars are: self-ownership, the non-aggression principle and freedom of association. Rather than aim for a philosophically bullet-proof argument, I instead aim to help non-libertarians understand why we libertarians can be so unmovable in our position. In the process, I hope to provide fellow libertarians a different way to present our ideas to those we meet.Bill Review:I discuss Kentucky Senate Bill 211, "AN ACT relating to public safety." This bill made recent headlines as the bill that criminalizes insulting an officer.Cited & Used Material:SB 211KRS 525.060 Disorderly conduct in the second degreePhoto by David Jakab

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. It can be described as the right of a person coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights. Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join a trade union, to engage in free speech or to participate in debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association, including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs and not to be compelled to belong to an association. It is closely linked with freedom of assembly, particularly under the U.S. Bill of Rights. Freedom of assembly is typically associated with political contexts. However, (for example the U.S. Constitution, human rights instruments, etcetera.) the right to freedom of association may include the right to freedom of assembly. In the United States, since the Civil Rights Act of 1968, freedom of association was largely curtailed regarding housing, education, and business when it comes to race or ethnicity.

Petition and assembly. The Petition Clause protects the right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances". The right expanded over the years: "It is no longer confined to demands for 'a redress of grievances', in any accurate meaning of these words, but comprehends demands for an exercise by the government of its powers in furtherance of the interest and prosperity of the petitioners and of their views on politically contentious matters." The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances therefore includes the right to communicate with government officials, lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits with a legal basis. The Petition Clause first came to prominence in the 1830s, when Congress established the gag rule barring anti-slavery petitions from being heard; the rule was overturned by Congress several years later. Petitions against the Espionage Act of 1917 resulted in imprisonment. The Supreme Court did not rule on either issue. In California Motor Transport Co. v Trucking Unlimited (1972), the Supreme Court said the right to petition encompasses "the approach of citizens or groups of them to administrative agencies (which are both creatures of the legislature, and arms of the executive) and to courts, the third branch of Government. Certainly the right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition." Today, thus, this right encompasses petitions to all three branches of the federal government—the Congress, the executive and the judiciary—and has been extended to the states through incorporation. According to the Supreme Court, "redress of grievances" is to be construed broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain. The right protects not only demands for "a redress of grievances" but also demands for government action. The petition clause includes, according to the Supreme Court, the opportunity to institute non-frivolous lawsuits and mobilize popular support to change existing laws in a peaceful manner. In Borough of Duryea v Guarnieri (2011), the Supreme Court stated regarding the Free Speech Clause and the Petition Clause: It is not necessary to say that the two Clauses are identical in their mandate or their purpose and effect to acknowledge that the rights of speech and petition share substantial common ground ... Both speech and petition are integral to the democratic process, although not necessarily in the same way. The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and their elected representatives, whereas the right to speak fosters the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy as well as to the whole realm of ideas and human affairs. Beyond the political sphere, both speech and petition advance personal expression, although the right to petition is generally concerned with expression directed to the government seeking redress of a grievance.

Hubwonk Host Joe Selvaggi talks with CATO research fellow and constitutional scholar Trevor Burrus about the recent Supreme Court ruling, Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, reaffirming the right to privacy by denying the state of California the right to compel non-profits to disclose their list of donors. Guest: Trevor Burrus is a research fellow […]

This episode is also available as a blog post: http://donnyferguson.com/2020/03/23/unions-are-clearly-in-the-wrong-about-freedom-of-association/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/donny-ferguson/message

More than one hundred fifty years ago, French political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville commented on Americans' habitual practice of joining together to solve common problems. The exercise of freedom of association was, Tocqueville believed, one of the outstanding characteristics of American citizenship. Center for Civic Education

The right to associate freely with other citizens is part of living in a free society. Center for Civic Education

Richard Epstein analyzes the Equality Act, a progressive proposal that would expand the definition of sex discrimination and set the stage for a legal battle between trans activists and advocates for religious liberty.

Richard Epstein analyzes the Equality Act, a progressive proposal that would expand the definition of sex discrimination and set the stage for a legal battle between trans activists and advocates for religious liberty.

On March 7-8, 1986, The Federalist Society hosted its annual National Student Symposium at Stanford Law School. The topic of the conference was "The First Amendment: Constitutional Principles & Public Policy." The conference's final panel covered "The Freedom of Association."Featuring:Judge Frank Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh CircuitProf. Randy Barnett, Chicago-Kent College of LawProf. Grover Rees, III, University of Texas School of LawJudge Morris S. Arnold, United States District Court, Western District of ArkansasModerator: T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., Presidential Advisor, Domestic Affairs*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

The bill's supporters may talk about how it will give workers the ability to choose to organize at work, but much like the mafia, this bill will ensure that the choice to unionize is one that workers can't refuse. Original Article: "The PRO Act Is Not Just a Union Handout—It's an Assault on the Freedom of Association Itself" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon. Narrated by Michael Stack.

The bill's supporters may talk about how it will give workers the ability to choose to organize at work, but much like the mafia, this bill will ensure that the choice to unionize is one that workers can't refuse. Original Article: "The PRO Act Is Not Just a Union Handout—It's an Assault on the Freedom of Association Itself" This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon. Narrated by Michael Stack.

Universal Periodic Review is a global platform provided by United Nations Human Rights Council to the governments and civil society members to put forth human rights issues on a periodic basis. In this regard, a UPR report on Freedom of Association and Peaceful Assembly was also submitted to the thirty-seventh session of the Human Rights […]

In this episode: We discuss an issue that is well known to those involved in politics and to donors, but perhaps not as well known to the average voter. So we’re hoping to shed some light on it. The issue is donor disclosure, and we have as a special guest Jennifer Braceras, director of Independent Women’s Law Center, project of independent women’s forum, and a former member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who wrote a very sharp op-ed on the subject recently, "Freedom Of Association Is Under Attack. Will The Supreme Court Protect It?" We discuss a few cases surrounding donor disclosure that could be heard by the Supreme Court in the coming months. Read the article: https://www.iwf.org/2021/01/25/freedom-of-association-is-under-attack-will-the-supreme-court-protect-it/ Subscribe to the podcast on your platform of choice at: https://influencewatch.fireside.fm/ • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/capitalresearchcenter • Twitter: https://twitter.com/capitalresearch • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/capital.research.center/ • YouTube: https://bit.ly/CRCYouTube

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that the tyrant doesn't care if you love him, as long as you don't love one another. In this episode, I speak with Luke Sheahan about his book, "Why Associations Matter: The case for First Amendment Pluralism". Free associations are essential for political liberty, human flourishing, and for genuine community; but Sheahan argues that recent judicial decisions are increasingly subsuming freedom of association and assembly into speech rights. Free speech is essential for political liberty, but it's not sufficient -- It works in tandem with the right of association and assembly to strengthen and create venues for free speech. But the right of association goes beyond that. So, Luke and I discuss a number of things including the philosophy of Pluralism, Tocqueville's concern that individualism leads to centralization, Robert Nisbet's work on community, decentralization and the need to revitalize associations, and some of the arguments for free association from Aristotle, Aquinas, Magna Carta, the American founders, and more. We also discuss some of the problems with bad communities, racism, and the limits of association. Visit https://www.themoralimagination.com/episodes/luke-sheahan for show notes and resources.

On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel covered "Freedom of Association in the Legal Profession."The Code of Judicial Conduct for federal judges and the Code of Judicial Conduct template for state judges, as modified by the States, both recognize the propriety of judges engaging in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with their role as judges, and counsel judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in those activities. The federal and state templates differ, at least in part, because federal and state judges are selected in different ways. Put simply, we do not want our judges to hide in an ivory tower, but we also want them to behave as judges when providing the benefit of their experience. And, while we want judges to interact with the bar and the public, lawyers must be aware on the limitations on such judicial contacts. As a result, the notion of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary will be evaluated and enforced in different ways in each arena.In January 2020, a draft advisory opinion from the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct suggesting that federal judges ought not to be members of the Federalist Society or the American Constitution Society, but may be members of the American Bar Association, became public. That draft advisory opinion was based less on the actual activities of those organizations than on a belief that the public participation of judges in those organizations would further contribute to a public perception that judges are not non-partisan actors. The draft opinion was withdrawn, but its effects have lingered as lawyers, judges, law clerks, and law students have had to tiptoe around its implications.This panel will consider some fundamental questions that swirl around the extrajudicial activities of judges, including those raised by the now withdrawn draft advisory opinion. For example, what are the core values that support the federal and state rules, and how do they differ? To the extent that we focus on public confidence in the judiciary, how should we evaluate it? Is public confidence in the judiciary capable of empirical evaluation or a matter of a priori judgment? Whose judgment matters: That of an average person? A reasonable person? A reasonable lawyer? A regulator applying one of those artificial constructs? What rules apply to a judge’s membership, holding office in, or participation in an organization, or writing and speaking?Featuring:Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (ret.)Mr. W. William Hodes, Owner and President, The William Hodes Law FirmHon. William H. Pryor Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitModerator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Just my lil thoughts of the day

I recorded some songs tonight, in solidarity w/poor peaceful protesters -who have been called THUGS' by OUR own president; & law enforcement -PEACE OFFICERS-who have been told by OUR PRESIDENT to FIRE ON US!! Their fellow citizens, exercising our rights & freedoms! Btw, THERES NO SUCH THING AS UNLAWFUL PROTESTS, only our RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY! & FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION! SHame in our White House! Elect me TRISTA CHANG - Sheriff Aug 4 & I PROMISE I will #LockThemAllUp! LOCK UP THE REAL CRIMINALS IN THIS KKKUNTRY! :P stay safe everyone! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance that requires all contractors to "disclose" all of their contacts and sponsorships (whatever that means) with the National Rifle Association. In Delaware, a man wants to apply to be a Judge on the State Bench. But, Delaware has a law that says that he is not qualified to be a Judge. Why not? Because he chooses to not associate with certain groups. At the end of the day, the real question is why do governments continue to pass laws that they KNOW are not Constitutional. These Governments pay (with tax dollars) for legal advice, so it's not at all possible that they don't know this. But even were we to be charitable and assume (yes, I know what it means) that they don't know, why do they keep proposing and passing laws that restrict liberty?

..and the Whopper With Cheese!

Politics & Philosophy

Politics & Philosophy

On this episode, Vinny is joined by Chris, Lonie and Caitlin as they discuss the current state of extremes in todays political climate. From Maxine Waters calling for a boycott of republicans, to a jury deciding a death sentence is preferable for a gay man as opposed to life in prison, because apparently jail for him would just be a vacation.

Did Roseanne open a can of worms of the rules and hypocrisy of freedom of association? Should businesses be allowed to Discriminate? Also, Walter E. Williams --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mrs-pinky85/support

Let's talk about who you hang out with. . .not behind their backs or anything like that. Let's talk about how they are helping or hurting you.

We will be friends with whoever we want. Real friends don't change with the wind. Today I had my dad on and we spoke about freedom of association and remaining loyal to your friends

In a free society, each of us would be able to associate with whoever we wanted. This includes personal, professional and commercial interactions. However, the State, acting in a way it claims is for the greater good, has again interfered with our natural right to choose who to associate with and who to exclude. Show … Continue reading Sands In Time Episode 19: Freedom of Association

Alex Merced discusses several issues Support Alex Merced for US Senator from New York http://www.alexmercedforny.comSupport the show (http://www.patreon.com/alexmerced)

Show discussing news/politics/culture from the perspective of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Hosted by Amy Peikoff.    Are NC & MS "Anti-LGBTQ" Laws actually Anti-LGBTQ? Are they anti-business, as some allege? Listen and find out! (Better yet, call in and tell me what you think!)  

Stanley Lewis Cohen is many things to many people. Some from the camp of the status quo brand him a radical, a subversive, a terrorist sympathizer, a communist, an Islamist. Basically any handle that portrays Stanley as against the state. To all of which, the man proudly says that is his duty as a defense attorney. Despite the power of the system and corporate media being on that side of the debate, they have been fighting a losing battle for decades. From his long term associations with Bill Kunstler, Lynne Stewart and Ramsey Clark (among others) in extremely incendiary defense cases against government, to his outspoken views on the illegal and illegitimate use of the power of the state on the individual, to his street level activism of persons and causes he believes in, Stanley has won far more supporters than enemies in societies around the world. The list of clients is unique to say the least. Weather Underground, May 19 Organization, Mohawk Warrior Society, War Resisters League, Black Bloc, Irish Republican Army, The Shining Path, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Shabaab, the Portland Seven, Anonymous, Occupy Wall Street and others, to the nobodies represented during his service with Bronx Legal Aid. The important factor is the politics of the cause, the righteousness of the fight. Stanley joins us to discuss his career, his beliefs and his future. To discuss his troubles with the Mulroney government over the Oka standoff. To discuss how the fight for individual freedom never ends against the state. To discuss how present day pledges and promises are nothing but an illusion to continue the dominance of the powers that be. Join us for a powerful show with Stanley Cohen. Listen, join the chat room, call in and pose a question. https://twitter.com/StanleyCohenLaw http://istanleycohen.org  

Article Mentioned “” by Josh Blackman Related Episodes : Walter Williams on Nullification, Secession, and More : Libertarians Are Scary! (Jacob Hornberger) Book Mentioned , by Tom Woods Special Offers Get my FREE eBook, ! We now have 12 courses at ! Learn the history and economics they didn’t teach you, from professors you can trust and in courses you can listen to anywhere. Take 30% off a year’s subscription with coupon code SHOW (all caps).

Labor represents an exchange between free people; while corrupted with government influence, standing alone it is something worth praising.

Recently one of the country’s most famous idiots, Sarah Palin, made some some off-colored remarks about the NRA. Around the same time a man few had ever heard of before named Donald Sterling (incidentally the […]

Philosopher Dr. Diana Brickell answered questions on the social effects of economic inequality, favoritism for the genetically engineered, the value of the Ten Commandments, and more in this 20 October 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Philosopher Dr. Diana Brickell answered questions on the social effects of economic inequality, favoritism for the genetically engineered, the value of the Ten Commandments, and more in this 20 October 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Philosopher Dr. Diana Brickell answered questions on the wrong of anti-discrimination laws, Objectivism's potential to save the culture, declining to socialize at work, and more in this 10 February 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Philosopher Dr. Diana Brickell answered questions on the wrong of anti-discrimination laws, Objectivism's potential to save the culture, declining to socialize at work, and more in this 10 February 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Dave & John talk about the right we have to associate as we see fit, espcially in light of Prop 14

Dave & John talk about the right we have to associate as we see fit, especially in light of Prop 14

The Stephen R. Volk '57 Lecture "Whatever Happened to Freedom of Association?" by Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director, Stanford Constitutional Law Center, Stanford University. Co-sponsored with the Dartmouth Legal Studies Faculty Group, the Dartmouth Lawyers Association, and Dartmouth Alumni Relations.