Best Libertarian Speeches?

[djdellisanti4]

I kinda just wanted some oppinions. One of my favorites is Ron Paul's "What If?" speech. Despite it's simplicity, it conjurs up shocking images and accuratly potrays our foreign policy. I wouldn't call it the best though, but its very good.

Any other favorites anyone?

YouTube - Ron Paul: What if the People Wake Up? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHfdSi-GDo)


Oh and this one kicks ass...

YouTube - Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs)

[heavenlyboy34]

Do lectures count as 'speeches'?

[djdellisanti4]

Do lectures count as 'speeches'?

I feel they could. Although if we were voting on the best speeches it would be hard to compare a lecture to a speech, but were not going that in depth so i dont think it matters.

[0zzy]

Do lectures count as 'speeches'?

nope.

lets look for old old speeches, like the first speeches to be recorded on video relating to liberty. now THAT would be interesting!

[djdellisanti4]

nope.

lets look for old old speeches, like the first speeches to be recorded on video relating to liberty. now THAT would be interesting!

I'm looking for some Robert Taft ones right now, but they seem hard to find.

[heavenlyboy34]

Here's a good one YouTube - Murray N. Rothbard: Libertarianism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONS33ukkTtE)

[djdellisanti4]

Some of you may not count this as a "speech" but I always liked it

YouTube - Power of the Market - The Pencil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8)

[heavenlyboy34]

Frank Chodorov on the Individual
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=LFHfjFZKTko&feature=related

[djdellisanti4]

Rothbard always had a nice sense of humor...

This has a libertarian tone, right?

YouTube - Martin Luther King, Jr.: I Have a Dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEMXaTktUfA)

[WaltM]

YouTube - The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4)

[heavenlyboy34]

Some of you may not count this as a "speech" but I always liked it

YouTube - Power of the Market - The Pencil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8)

FYI, Friedman got the idea for that from Leonard Read. ;)

http://fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/

[djdellisanti4]

FYI, Friedman got the idea for that from Leonard Read. ;)

http://fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/

Oh yeah I know. Read about it in "Radicals for Capitalism"

But I don't believe Read ever made a video like Friedman did.

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh yeah I know. Read about it in "Radicals for Capitalism"

But I don't believe Read ever made a video like Friedman did.

True that. :( R.I.P., Leonard.

[johnrocks]

I'm looking for some Robert Taft ones right now, but they seem hard to find.

Here's one I found that I like.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=857

Why did I vote against the Atlantic Pact? I wanted to vote for it-at least I wanted to vote to let Russia know that if she attacked western Europe, the United States would be in the war. I believe that would be a deterrent to war�. We issued just this warning in the Monroe Doctrine, and though we were a much less powerful nation, it prevented aggression against Central and South America. That was only a President�s message to Congress, and there were no treaty obligations, and no arms for other nations. But it was one of the most effective peace measures in the history of the world. I would favor a Monroe Doctrine for western Europe.

But the Atlantic Pact goes much further. It obligates us to go to war if at any time during the next 20 years anyone makes an armed attack on any of the 12 nations. Under the Monroe Doctrine we could change our policy at any time. We could judge whether perhaps one of the countries had given cause for the attack. Only Congress could declare a war in pursuance of the doctrine. Under the new pact the President can take us into war without Congress. But, above all the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia� A joint military program has already been made�. It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace. A third world war would be the greatest tragedy the world has ever suffered. Even if we won the war, we this time would probably suffer tremendous destruction, our economic system would be crippled, and we would lose our liberties and free system just as the Second World War destroyed the free systems of Europe. It might easily destroy civilization on this earth�.

There is another consideration. If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia from Norway on the north to Turkey on the south, and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and. Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed�

How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border; Mexico, for instance?

Furthermore, can we afford this new project of foreign assistance? I think I am as much against Communist aggression as anyone, both at home and abroad; certainly more than a State Department which has let the Communists overrun all of China�. But we can�t let them scare us into bankruptcy and the surrender of all liberty, or let them determine our foreign policies. We are already spending $15,000,000,000 on our armed forces and have the most powerful Air Force in the world and the only atomic bomb. That, and our determination to go to war if Europe is attacked, ought to be sufficient to deter an attack by armed force.

We are spending $7,000,000,000 a year on economic aid to build up those countries to a condition of prosperity where communism cannot make internal progress. Shall we start another project whose cost is incalculable, at the very time when we have a deficit of 1,800,000,000 dollars and a prospective deficit of three to five billion? The one essential defense against communism is to keep this country financially and economically sound. If the President is unwilling to recommend more taxes for fear of creating a depression, then we must have reached the limit of our taxpaying ability and we ought not to start a new and unnecessary building project.. .

But, finally, I believe there is only one real hope of peace in the world to come�an association of nations binding itself to abide by a law governing nations and administered by a court of legal justice. Such a judicial finding must not be subject to veto by any nation and there must be an international force to enforce the court�s decree. Such a plan can only succeed if the public opinion of the world is educated to insist on the enforcement of justice.

The United Nations looks in this direction but it can be improved and should be. This pact might have set up such a system between the nations of western Europe. It unfortunately did not do so. We should undertake to make it a model to which the United Nations may later conform. But as set up, it is a step backward�a military alliance of the old type where we have to come to each others� assistance no matter who is to blame, and with ourselves the judges of the law.:)

[djdellisanti4]

Wow, I loved that. Its as if Ron Paul stepped back in time and gave this speech. I think you can see a little how Dr. Paul was influenced by Taft.

[Anti Federalist]

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

[libertybrewcity]

YouTube - Peter Schiff debates David Epstein of Columbia University -- Nov 11 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM23TZxzOw8)

I have my favorite Schiff video of all time. :) Debate against David Epstein of Colombia University.

[emazur]

I don't know if they're the best, but a put some good ones on my youtube channel:
YouTube - The purpose and origins of public education - John Gatto (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8cr0p9HaG8)
YouTube - Harry Browne: War, torture, and humanity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CQ6qUprxbY)
YouTube - Alexis de Tocqueville - the tyranny of the majority (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp-L7ILlieM)
YouTube - You might be a socialist if... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElkhHUK-7jk)

[Liberty Star]

Not a speech per-say but this shocking UN Resolution slash speech seems pretty libertarian:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2802504&postcount=6

[djdellisanti4]

Washington's Farewell Address

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

[james1906]

YouTube - "A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY)

[LibertarianfromGermany]

If you're posting speeches of Rothbard, don't forget this one from shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union.

YouTube - The Future of Austrian Economics | Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWdUIuID8ag)

[robert68]

YouTube - The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4)

That’s interesting. His testimony is a good lay out of the thinking behind intellectual property rights, which Ayn Rand strongly favored. It’s the subject of increasing debate/discussion in libertarian forums.

[djdellisanti4]

^Reagan did a great job preaching the rhetoric, i'll give him that.

Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."


Rest of the story is in the link below if you've never read it. Apparently he didn't actually give this speech, but its still a nice story.

http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

[ibaghdadi]

bump!

[djdellisanti4]

bump!

I figure I should gather the top 5 or 6 and turn it into a poll. I still want to see a couple more though.

[heavenlyboy34]

This thread makes me miss Harry Browne very much :(

[Liberty Star]

This amazing Bush speech, courtesy of another forum member:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=255392