The principle that the majority have a right to rule the
minority practically resolves. All government into a mere
contest between two bodies of men, as to, which of them shall
be Masters. And which of them slaves.
Welcome to Keith's Nike don't tread on anyone and the
libertarian Institute today. I am so happy to be reunited
with Isaac Morehouse. It's been a couple years since I
met him at the IHS Retreat. He is the CEO of Crash, the
career launch platform and the founder of Praxis a start-up
apprenticeship. I am Isaac.
Where's the best place to find your work?
Probably just Isaac more house.com.
You can you can find the company as I'm involved with the books
and podcast and all the different stuff.
I'm up to or Twitter at Isaac Morehouse.
I'm very active there as well. That's awesome.
So, I was looking through your podcast and saw that you did a
straight read of a number of things that I was really
interested in. Some of my favorite works on
libertarianism one of, which was the obviousness of Anarchy by
John has this please give me the thesis of that essay and why you
think it's so important. That as I say is one of the
absolute. I mean it is a gem.
It is one of the absolute best essays on.
I won't even say on anarchism on libertarianism and I'll get into
what I mean by that in a minute and I reread it like every used
to like every year. It's probably every couple years
now, but because when I first came across it It opened my eyes
to what I would call hayekian, anarchism which is, which is,
you know, it's an understanding of the great game that's being
played is the conflation of the concept of government with the
concept of governance or the concept of law with the concept
of order. And it's a very orwellian thing
in it, and I think That limits our thinking so much.
And so when I, when I sort of came to libertarianism and then
I'm following all the great awesome libertarian, arguments,
both economic and moral to their logical conclusions.
And it's dragging me more and more into anarchism.
I'm feeling very uncomfortable about this and I have the
classic the classic garbage, you know?
Back when I was a teenager like, but but who would build the
roads but how would things like the brains inability to imagine?
Ajan, like how would it work? And that's what this essay the
obviousness of Anarchy really does, is it?
It makes you realize that that is actually an absolutely absurd
question because it's already working.
So that the the nutshell version of the obviousness of Anarchy is
anarchy is all around us. In fact, Anarchy is the backdrop
of everything. All the order we see around us.
The heavy lifting is being done by non-government institutions
norms and ideas and the order that we appreciate and enjoy
everything from property rights to the fact that people don't
walk around naked in the shopping mall.
That's not because of law. That's because of society, which
precedes law. And I hasn't, it says, in one of
those essays logically and historically Society precedes,
the state. Right, and it must it must, you
can't organize into a state unless you're something that has
the ability to organize already. Right?
And so that concept that like, Anarchy is the backdrop and the
Order of I mean, right? Like you can look at language.
You can look at money, these emergent things and that's why I
call it hayekian the understanding of kind of
emergent order and you realize social norms, you know, property
rights, common law itself, which is what most of our legal system
is legislation, gets tacked on after the fact, and takes the
credit for it. So, a great example, I always
use the the, you know, naked in the Shopping mall, example.
I used to give lectures at foundation for economic
education in different places and I would always ask the
students, you know. How many of you if indecent
exposure laws were overturned today?
How many of you would go running naked in the shopping mall
tomorrow? Of course, nobody would.
There's always some kid that raises his hand being a jackass.
You know, I would read everything.
Nobody would write, nobody would and I say, why not?
And then people start to think all the sudden, why wouldn't I?
Well, I'd be embarrassed their social norms around it.
I probably get kicked out of the mall because they have private
property rights. There's Cops that are private,
you know, my parents might get upset with me.
My friends wouldn't want to be around me and you and they all
of a sudden realize. That law is not what's
preventing people from running around naked in the shopping
mall, at all. And and what happens is these,
these things arise these norms and institutions they arise
without the state and then, the state comes later codifies it.
So they can have a big ceremony where they announced I passed
this law. That does something that's
already being done and that everybody likes and supports and
I'm going to take credit from here on out for this bad thing
never happening. Child, labor laws are another
great example, you don't ever get child labor laws in really
poor countries, or at least you don't get them.
Enforced, you get them once. Child, labor is all but
eradicated because people don't want their children to have hard
labor. That only is it?
That's a matter of survival. And once it's already eradicate.
I mean, you can look at the statistics of child Labour.
It's basically has disappeared and then child labor laws are
introduced to make it illegal and all they really do is make
it illegal for the tiny, tiny fraction of very Or people who
are still doing that. If you go to a very, very poor
country and try to enact child labor laws and really enforce
them, you'll cause people to die.
You'll cause them to starve and die, right?
Because they're doing that because they have to.
So Society tends to take care of these things in a very, the
market does in a very subtle ways and the law takes credit
for it. And once the law is passed
within a generation, if that it may be even less, we forget, we
forget that it, there didn't used to be a lot and that if
there wasn't a There wouldn't be people.
You know, this hobbesian idea that without the state.
Everyone would be murdering each other.
All the time is just absolutely absurd.
Like, I think Hobbs is probably the single most damaging
political philosopher, you know, in the last, several hundred
years. Because this idea, if there
weren't the Leviathan, this great mythical Authority.
Everything would be utter chaos. And that's what the obviousness
of Anarchy is pointing out that like the, the main line that
the, that the essay comes back to over.
And over again is look around. Well, how would we how would we
take care of this? Look around?
How is it already being done? The vast majority of law
enforcement is private already today.
Lawn for public law enforcement didn't even exist until the
1860s was everyone murdering each other for the first 100
years of this country's? History constantly, No, in fact,
it got worse after publicly police forces were introduced.
So just this idea that like, it's already there.
It's the backdrop is just so mind-blowing to me.
Yeah, there is a Great article by Alfred kuzon called.
Do we ever really get out of Anarchy?
Dad, and and you and I didn't talk about it.
So I gotta plug. There's nobody.
Nobody ever references that article, it's so obscure.
I'm like so excited that you know that article it's so
underappreciated because it is a very it's a great academic way
of saying, who watches the Watchers, another words, if we
as a society can't, you know, really organized by ourselves
sort of ignorant, corrupt, and barbaric.
What we Need is a state. Well, first of all, a state is
just a subset of the very humans, you're saying our evil
corrupt, stupid and ignorant and, you know, can't be trusted
with any Authority who regulates them.
Eventually, you have to justify a world government cuz countries
are in a state of Anarchy, but even then, who checks the world
government who gave them the license to be a world government
who gives people a license to get licenses, so it's not that
there's no, there's a system of, you know, And Regulation and
then there's no credibility and no regulation.
What you instead have is voluntarily funded competing
credibility agencies or a coercively funded Monopoly one
and it's what Hans Hapa says is the greatest contradiction.
Monopolies are terrible and we need a big government to stop
monopolies. Also, the state should have a
monopoly on taxation law, conscription War, the currency,
and then they just list all the things, the state should have a
monopoly on it. It's so wild.
When you it's like once your eyes have been opened, you
can't, you can't see the world, the old way again, and it seems
so absurd that you ever did, like, like, take gun control.
I mean, I'm flummoxed and blown away.
When I see people like, we need the government to make sure
that, you know, nobody can own guns or everybody has to
register. Blah blah.
And you think about what that means, this single institution
that has murdered like Actually more murdered raped imprisoned,
you know, exponentially more people than any other
institution, you can add up organized crime and you know,
petty theft and individual mass shootings and every
non-government type of violence in world history.
Add them all up, hop in the bucket compared to what
governments have done to their own people.
Not let alone what they've done in war to other people and you
think that entity you want to entrust Scent of the tools of
violence of self-defense and, you know, initiation but you
want to entrust them with, with all of it and give people
nothing. This entity.
That is the most murderous entity in the world.
Like, it's so absurd to me. Even if you hate guns and you
hate violence, well, I would you concentrate them in the hands of
the most brutal assholes in history.
It's wild. So, so that's where I think it's
really that conceptual game that pits that were relly and thing
of Government is government is not a fact of Nature.
And I think that is the thing that must that we must make
clear and understand that people have this idea that it's a
necessary evil. They already know that it's
evil. Nobody actually likes
government. They know that it's shitty.
They might as things for them, but the concept itself.
Nobody's like, Yay. It's a necessary evil is what
people believe, once you realize that it's not necessary.
That's where the real power comes in.
And you have to understand, the reason it's not necessary is
because there are other institutions and mechanisms that
are already doing the things that you believe governments
doing. So.
So government is a bad belief. Governance is a necessity of
human nature. Like it's just wired into the
fabric of the world that govern in some mechanism mechanisms of
solving disputes even even hierarchies people becoming
Leaders in certain areas, and having a higher degree of
specialization. These things.
Are these things are all part of the fabric of the world.
The way Society is built, but if you can conflate, Government,
which is an unnecessary, belief and, and conflated with
governance, which is a necessary part of, of all Society.
Then you've won already. You just have the two terms
interchangeable in people's brains.
And when you say no government, they can't think otherwise than
no governance that those. Those two things have been so
conflated and so the separation of those Concepts I think is the
single most important thing to reduce the role of Of the state
and the role of violence and people's preponderance to look
for it to solve problems. Exactly giving the government a
monopoly on guns to solve violence that, that really is
wild. It's like saying husbands are
bad. Therefore o j--, Simpson should
control. All men who get married and
parents are bad there for Casey. Anthony should be everyone's
babysitter. And I mean, it's so ridiculous.
I can't believe anyone. It's well, that's why they get
you in in the schooling system. Then we need people, like,
practice to work to help us get out the second thing, you, and I
spoke about was also by John has nest called the myth of the rule
of law. What is the thesis of the myth
of the rule of law? And what lessons did you learn
from it, man? This one?
This one is one of those that it's not really that valuable to
like, let's say a liberal part, like, a modern liberal, because
they're sort of it. They already, they already sort
of. Don't think about the rule of
law as some, you know, Ironclad thing.
It's not it's not an altar. They worship at conservatives
and like constitutionalist Libertarians.
You know, Ron Paul types, very often.
Justin Amash types, very often can really get caught up in this
idea that If only we abide by the rule of law.
If only, we get the laws, right, and we enforce them properly and
abide by them, and they're very, very focused on.
You know, the Constitution we got to abide by the
Constitution. And I think what, what this
essay, the myth of the rule of law is making clear, is that
there is never an escape from the rule of individuals when you
have a A state. I mean, now absent estate,
you're going to have the rule of some sort of individuals in a
competitive market process. Right?
So, an individual still has to make decisions or the only one
that can make decisions say you had competing, you know,
competing protection. Agency's some CEO somewhere has
to make a decision about something and employee has to,
but they faced the competitive pressures of the market.
So in the over, over the over time, the process is going to
have a better outcome than the state but it but it's still the
rule of individuals within a market.
Text the rule of law when people are like, well, you have to have
a government as long as it's, you know, sticks to the
Constitution. Then it's going to be fine.
It's not possible. That's what has.
This is pointing out. It's not possible.
Forget about whether it's desirable.
Sure. Maybe it's desirable, maybe.
If you get, if you have some perfect definition of, you know,
whatever the Second Amendment and it's like somehow this piece
of paper can constrain everyone. Maybe that's desirable.
I don't know. It's hard to even imagine
because it's not possible. So that's the Whole point.
He's like look, it's not possible and he walks you
through some of the things that you might think of stop your
head or very simple. Very common sense.
Okay, here's a case of, you know, somebody doing something.
Does it violate the First Amendment and it's like,
impossible to come up with an answer that that you can even
agree with yourself on let alone.
Two different people can agree with right?
And he does this over and over again and he's showing he's
trying to reveal that you. It is a misplaced.
Hope to say. If we just Make a piece of
paper. I mean, any libertarian, who
thinks that the government today in the United States is in any
way bigger or more intrusive than what was intended by?
The founders have already refuted the power of the rule of
law by admitting that right like well, they wrote it down.
They put it in the Constitution. They got the rule of law and
that its most of the stuff in there.
Sounds pretty good. At first glance.
Certainly, the Bill of Rights. Sounds pretty good.
None of it, none of its ever. It doesn't constrain anyone and
you know, has it gotten worse probably but it never did even
in the beginning. I mean, you can go back to the
earliest president's they were doing all kinds of this shit.
They were throwing people in prison for writing bad articles.
Bottom. And, you know, I mean like this
is like a from like the earliest times.
You can't constrain human actors with words on paper, because it
requires human actors to interpret and enforce them
period. And so once, Realize that once
your disabused of the notion that you can be saved by better
laws or better interpretation of laws or better enforcement of
laws. Then you have to say, well, what
can we look to? And that's where you ask, what
process is more likely to lead to better outcomes one with
Mission and no consequences for police officers, you know have
legal immunity or 4G, you know judges or whatever.
We're politicians can you know concentrate benefits dispersed
costs or one where there's competition?
Where there's a more competitive Marketplace and you look at the
process itself and say which one is more likely to give us the
more peaceful outcomes, the more prosperous outcomes.
And so, I think it's really powerful to help people the
conservative-leaning types or those who came from conservatism
as myself. Like, I used to be very much in
this Camp. It was like just you know, just
follow the Constitution, you know, or like let's just get you
know, whatever. That doesn't mean anything.
At the end of the day, at the end of the day.
It's always going to be political determinations.
So you have to remove politics changing.
The laws is not going to cut it, reducing the the and putting
thing more things in the marketplace only option you
have. Yeah.
I think that's a really
important Insight getting into, you know, voluntarily funded
competing organizations because for all the regulation that the
state says, As we need to regulate the entire economy and
every aspect of life. Well, the vital regulation that
the free market has that the state doesn't is the freedom to
disassociate with Bad actors. So therefore, it's not even like
a level playing Ground cost-benefit analysis.
There really is 11 strength, the voluntarist Libertarians have
that the status really do not end up.
I think that really is the heart of what were disagreeing with
them about. Here, the other one you
mentioned was Human Action by maysa, very short book for some
bedtime reading. What is the most important
takeaway from Human Action by Ludwig?
Von mises. Oh my God, the heart that book.
I've read it cover to cover and then I've read sections of it
many many times. I mean, to me that's like that's
like the best book in all the social sciences to me.
It's just, it's so good. It's so clear.
It's so well written. It's so how do I get?
What is the main takeaway from? I mean, I guess.
The main takeaway is probably more methodological than
anything and it's that there is a science Of Human Action that
you can that you can understand and build from and what and what
does that mean? I mean, especially now with the
prominence of like what are called behavioral economists.
It's very very popular to say. Oh, well, if people were
perfectly rational robots, then We could say we could make
predictions or we could understand things about the way,
the economy works, but people are crazy.
They're irrational. They have biases.
Therefore. You can't understand anything
about how they're going to behave which is which is there's
a ring of truth to it because what they're really what they're
reacting against is a very cartoonish, neoclassical model
of homo economicus, which is sort of like, you know, oh
people will maximize their like money profit.
In all situations and it doesn't take into account.
Really anything larger, any other preferences and a lot of
those models are ridiculous and they don't play out in the real
world and they get criticized for good reason.
What what mises says in Human Action.
He establishes economics on a rock-solid foundation that I
don't think anyone else has come close to doing, which is, let's
start with only what we can prove with a priori is he says
with just reason alone? And before we go start, looking
at the empirical data and observations, let's start and
let's let's lay out the fundamental axioms that are that
are provable with logic alone. So, you know, man, acts.
That's the fun. That's the first premise that
the first Axiom in the book humans, take purposeful action.
And if you try to refute that, it's self reinforcing.
Trying to refute. It is a purposeful action,
right? You can't.
You can't escape it. Great.
People are like, yeah. So what that's?
That's a tautology, right? But he builds from that when
people act, they choose whatever that is, according to their own
subjective preferences, their highest valued action.
Now, that right there is really, really powerful.
It doesn't say anything about whether or not they're
misinformed, whether they might change their mind later.
But by the fact that they chose something it reveals to us that
they believed choosing that thing was preferable to To all
of the other things they could have done or could have chosen
in that moment. And as you see like from this
you start to get you. Basically you get supply and
demand curves. Eventually you're a few steps
away from supply and demand curves because you get the
concept of marginal utility, right?
You choose your first best option, first?
And then your second best option and then your third best option
and you get, you know, you can kind of build the basic laws of
Economics on this. Now, it's very, very like,
people will say well, so what that stuff is, so stripped down
that it Not capable of telling you very much about the real
world, because the real world is not, you know, is not ceteris,
paribus. It's not all things equal.
There's all kinds of other there.
But the same people that will tell you that, you know, like
the idea that you can't have interpersonal value comparisons.
So because value is subjective. I can't compare.
You know how much utility I gain versus you gain from?
You know, let's say let's say Somebody, you know, paints a
picture and gives it to us as a gift and if we had say, well,
the one of us that values, it more should get it.
There's no way we can make that determination that possible.
Now we can have a market where we each bid for it and pay for
it and then we can determine who values at more in dollars.
That's not necessarily. Get a tell us because we value
dollars at different amounts. Right?
So people will say well, this is all tautological.
What's the big deal? And then they'll go on to create
an entire field called welfare. Economics that tries to Maximize
the utility of all these people, which they just admit.
I mean, I would have debates with people back in the day
about they'd be like, I, I lay out these axioms and they'd be
like, yeah, of course, I agree with all them.
They're all, they're all tautologies.
They're just so what? And then they'd be like, so, I'm
studying welfare economics, and I'm like, that's not possible.
You just said, you can't, the whole thing is bullshit.
So I think that's what's so great about mises is like, and
that's why economists don't like the Austrian School.
Largely as Hayek said, it's it demonstrates to Man how little
they know about what they imagine.
They can design. It's very humbling.
It really tells you like. Nope, can't make that claim,
can't make that claim. Either, you can make these very
humble set of claims are very powerful.
But then, from here on out, it's a lot of, you know, that's when
you get into the actual empirical part and start looking
at what's happening in the world and try to understand it things
can't violate these very, very few laws.
But when they appear to violate them, you got to figure out what
is going on that you're missing and it's a very, it's a humbling
task about knowing what you're wrong about, rather than Nice
sweeping predictions that you can make exactly.
And of course, you see this on both sides.
It's okay for us to invade the country.
Kill civilians, install a dictator because in 10 years,
the people will be better off. Okay.
First of all, you don't know that second of all the
intelligence probably based on a lie, and third, you're not going
to bear the cost of funding it, or you won't go to jail if it
goes bad so you have no incentive.
So I remember at its at the end of democracy, The God That
Failed. And Hans Hapa said, people will
sort of justify government on utilitarian grounds, which
relies on interpersonal comparisons of utility.
So that's scientifically impermissible.
And he just dismisses the and dismisses like the primary claim
that these people make. But you see it all the time.
Bro. Khanna is talking to Ben Shapiro
and Ben Spiros. Like, so the Congressional
budget office said, if the minimum wage is increased to x
amount that 1.4 million jobs would be lost.
He goes. Well, yeah.
You know, think of all the other people, that that would help
without appreciating the other people who won't be able to
start up a business, the oligopolies that would create
the fewer products and services people would have access to the
fewer employment opportunities. The higher prices, less access
to goods and services less investment because more is being
put into employees. I mean, it's just amazing how
and this is where the Austrian School is.
So maddening to people because even free market types of kind
of the non Austrian bent. And they love those sort of
debates about the minimum wage and they'll come out with their
own study and they'll say, well, look, the minimum wage is going
to cost, you know, X number of jobs to go under.
And then people will, you know, they'll debate the data.
Or maybe they'll go a step back from that.
And they'll say, well, when you raise the price of something
people purchase less of it, there you raised a price of
Labor, people are going to buy less labor.
So more, you know, low-skilled labor is going to be out of jobs
in a general sense without putting numbers forward and like
Generally speaking. That's true.
Generally speaking. That's the way it plays out.
But what's what's so powerful? And maddening to others with the
Austrian School is you can't really tell me what's going to
happen. There's no way to know exactly
what's going to happen because again value is subjective.
So there may be some people who like this is theoretically
possible that if the minimum wage is raised and you know,
you're making ten bucks an hour and I legally have to pay you
15, I decide because I'm a nice guy that I'd rather pay you 15
then fire you and you say wow. I'm so honored by this.
I'm going to work harder like that's possible, right?
And with the austrians. You don't have to pretend that
that's not possible. But what you can say, is look,
we don't know what's going to happen.
But what we do know is that when you introduce the use of force,
you will get an outcome that is less optimal by people's own
subjective preferences than if you didn't introduce the use of
force because I can't say to you, here's a group of people,
and they want to do certain things with their money.
And the only way, we know what they want to do with their
money. We can't we can't decide by
asking them because People will say stuff, that isn't true,
right? Stated preferences or not.
Very useful. We got to watch what they do,
whatever they choose to do with their money.
That is what they valued most at the time of choosing.
Now, we may disagree with it. We may dislike it.
We may try to persuade them to do something else.
But according to their own preferences, that's what created
the most value for them. So them being free to choose is
by definition. Creating the maximum value
return on those resources for them individually.
And therefore if you group them into a collective and an
aggregate on the whole the minute, Say that choice isn't on
the Queue. I have by definition reduced,
the value in society because now they can't choose that.
I don't know how many of them would have, but I know that
there is some sub optimal resource allocation because I
have taken away a certain set of choices.
And so now we'll never know. We know that people are not
allowed to put money to and if you take money from people and
spend it on. On you know a road and say oh
look, I created more utility. It's impossible for you to know
that you can't tell me that all we know for sure is that
whatever people would have chosen freely would have
maximize their utility and now that they can't choose freely.
They have less utility than they used to, that's really it.
Like you can, you can come up with scenarios and say, it's
likely that there's a lot of unemployment here because of
this and these because of these laws, it's probable, but there's
so many other variables, the austrians even like strip away.
A lot of the fun from the other free market.
People who want to make like very Specific claims about the
exact unemployment rate that will result, you know, yeah, the
interpersonal comparison of utilities just so dangerous, and
it's really seen in a article titled, or a short book by
bastiat that would just seem. And that which is unseen.
What is the thesis and most important takeaway from that
which is seen and that which is unseen.
Dude. That is the book that got me
hooked on. Comics.
I came across that it was probably. 2002-2003 maybe long
time ago and it was like, oh my gosh, it just blew my mind.
I couldn't wait for every next chapter.
What? How's it going?
How's it going to tell the story
of this, right? Because like on a gut level.
I was kind of a free market guy anyway, I sort of on a gut level
was like, you know, I don't think Government funding for the
Arts is a good idea or, you know, subsidies for this or
whatever, but when people come at you with these arguments
about, oh, well, look at the benefits that it creates.
I remember I had a professor at the time.
That was like, well, the good thing about, oh, no.
He said, he said the old line that WWII.
Got us out of the depression. And I remember being like,
Blowing up a whole bunch of resources made the world more
like wealthy, like that just seemed weird.
But I think I didn't quite like, know how to respond.
So what is seen? And what is unseen is the
fundamental text for the economic way of thinking, the
basic idea of what economics does, which is to help you
understand causal relationships. And see exactly.
The title says, what is unseen, so the book opens with the
broken window fallacy with, you know, the idea that somebody
breaks a window and oh, well that's really sad, but it's
actually good for the economy because now you've employed the
window guy and he's got to fix the window.
And bastiat says well, that's only what's what's unseen the
guy who had to pay the window guy.
What was he going to do with his?
You before again, he would have put it to fixing the window was
not his highest valued use because he didn't need to fix it
before. He would have put it to
something that he valued more, previous to that window being
broken, which would have returned him more value.
Right? And like understanding the
again, the like, what would have happened, hasn't this uses the
phrase that I've borrowed since then, it's like my absolute
favorite phrase, in all sort of political philosophy and
economics compared to what like, Compared to what?
Oh wealth was created compared to what certainly not compared
to if the window was never broken because then you'd have
that same amount of money that went to one guy in the hands of
the original guy. It would go to someone else.
And by definition, what what he did with it.
Then he would have valued more. You can't create value by
destroying resources. Right?
Like he would have had a window and instead of just having, you
know, the window and no longer having the money right?
Like that. Simple concept, and then,
bastiat goes to explain it in all different examples.
He talks about subsidizing, RT talks about trade restrictions.
He talks about all kinds of, and he's so witty.
And like the most clear speaking French person I've ever read.
It's, it is a phenomenal book and Henry, hazlitt economics.
In one lesson is basically an updated version of that and I
love hazlitt, but I'm telling you, nothing comes close to
bastiat that original book and like for somebody who's kind of
a normie Who falls prey, Way to sort of mainstream arguments
about well, you know, it's actually building a sports
stadium with tax dollars is actually good for the local
economy because it stimulates the economy.
Right? Like Give them Basquiat or read
it yourself. So you'll know how to answer
them because it's just it untangles the confusion that and
helps you understand why your intuition if you think
intuitively it's like well taking my money to give it to a
sports Stadium. How is that going to make me
more money? It feels weird.
But when some Economist is like a boost the economy, we got
people coming in about you. Just you kind of get like
mesmerised and bastiat breaks the spell.
Exactly. Yeah, it's the equivalent of
saying, if the government didn't prearranged all marriages, no
one would ever be married and we wouldn't be in relationships
because let me point to all the marriages that the state has
pre-arranged. Well, yes, they have coercively
arranged to these, but in the absence of this coercive
Arrangement, you wouldn't have people sitting around.
Expiring, like, the camel standing between two pails of
water and just dies and expired before he could go to one.
You would have people acting voluntarily.
Achieving their ends with, you know, any resources, they
acquired through original appropriation or voluntary
exchange bastiat. So, valuable, did you read
economic harmonies? You get through the whole thing?
Oh, absolutely. Yeah.
I feel like it's been a decade since I've read pretty much it
thing. I could get my hands on him,
boss the ayats and I just love that.
He's so witty. So it I think my favorite
individual thing is a short essay the candle makers petition
its assets. Lyrical s.
A candle makers are petitioning, the government to blot out the
sun, because it's unfair foreign competition for their sales of
candles. It's so it's so good.
You know, what's interesting with bastiat, the seen and the
Unseen cons? I like so immersed, myself in
that in like got that mindset clicking, that it applies in so
many areas outside of what you typically think of as economic.
So when I'm talking with people about schooling and freedom and
choice in education, so many parents, you'll run into will
say, well, you know, look, I was forced to go to school and I
hate but I learned this really He valuable thing that right
therefore it was good and I'll say to them.
I'll say look, I could in my basement for a year and force
you to listen to The Beatles everyday chained to the wall,
couldn't do anything else. And at the end of that time, the
odds that you gain, something you could not have gained
without having that experience are very, very high.
You are. Of some understanding of The
Beatles or some appreciation for music or maybe just a greater
appreciation for Freedom. After that that you couldn't
have had without that experience.
Does that mean that I ought to impose that experience on
everyone, right? Like, whatever experiences you
had in, life are so unique that the things that you have, you
couldn't have had without that experience, that doesn't justify
The Experience being imposed on everyone else.
It's absurd. What are the costs?
What would have happened without that?
You know, like, I just that just Suffocation that you know, well,
I was treated like shit by teacher out.
Okay. Therefore I better do it to my
kids like it's the scene in the Unseen all over again in
different context. I use that logic only with
previous teachers. So when I see them Marching for
higher wages, I make sure to comment on all the Facebook
feeds. You get what you get and you
don't throw a fit is what you Pricks told me 15 years ago.
So you better start embracing your own principles here.
All right, but before Get too upset about that the
intellectuals and socialism by Friedrich Hayek.
What is the main thesis and thing?
You learn from the intellectuals and socialism by Hayek, man.
So what I would say, the thing that I've been the most obsessed
with in the last 20 years, which is sort of my entire kind of
career, professional life and intellectual life has been
trying to understand how social change happens because I'm I'm
like, a, you know, I'm a philosophical guy and I'm really
interested in Big Ideas. But like, okay, the ideas of
Freedom. They're awesome.
They're beautiful. They're compelling.
They have so much to offer, but I want more than to understand
them. Like, I want to live free and I
want to maximize the ability for others to live free.
So how do we bring that about? And so that's kind of been my
career trajectory first. I was like, oh, we going to
politics and I learned the hard way politics is not where you
get, you know, social change from It's all my career
trajectory and my intellectual journey through parallel to each
other. Like I went into politics and
then I discovered public Choice Theory at the same time and
realize why politics can't work? And then then I go into policy
and like policy. Advocacy sort of Think Tank work
and you know, I'm kind of diving deeper and understanding more
about bureaucratic. So I remember mrs.
Bureaucracy when I read that I was like, oh no wonder
nonprofits, have such a hard time, but like, as I've gone
through and eventually sort of Did with entrepreneurship but
Hayek's the intellectuals and socialism the first half of
understanding and there's a second half that came later to
me, which is how in terms of how social change happens.
He lays out essentially this theory for social change.
That says, You have this kind of it's almost like the structure
of production in the economy, right where you have capital
goods that sort of and their value is sort of imbued from the
from, I don't want to get too complex.
But anyway, you have capital goods and intermediate goods and
then consumer goods in the world of ideas.
You have the beliefs of the public, the popular ideas, but
those are sort of disseminated to them.
Through what Hyatt calls secondhand dealers of ideas and
you can add additional strata to this pyramid and get more
details. But secondhand dealers and ideas
are sort of popularizers spreaders of ideas, podcasters,
people who make TV shows and right, popular books and you
know, Talking Heads on the news, whatever pastors.
But they are getting their ideas, sort of original
thinkers. And you know in Hayek's model.
There's very few original thinkers, right?
John Locke has his Second Treatise very very influential
or Hobbes as I mentioned before but no no person on the street.
Like in America, John Locke's ideas about property rights,
like my home is my castle and you know, the king doesn't have
a right to come in there very much.
People hold those beliefs, but they don't know that they come
from John Locke. They wouldn't you.
Has his terminology. They've never read John Locke.
Somehow it's been true. It's trickled down.
It's been imbued to them lock rights.
This Treatise a lot of nerd, study it and they start teaching
it in universities or whatever else.
And talking about it writing books about it and those books
or to make their way down and those eventually make it to the
popular belief. And so reading Hayek's
description of this, sort of structure of production in
ideas. It helped me identify higher
leverage, activities than arguing.
Someone on Facebook and trying to convince them about something
and I thought I don't want to give a man a fish.
I don't even want to teach a man to fish.
I want to raise the capital to build the factories to make the
rope, that makes the Nets that help people catch millions of
fish. Right?
I want to be way up in the structure production because I
want maximum leverage. I've always been attracted at
like, what's the maximum Roi? I only live on this Earth for so
long. What activities are going to
have the greatest impact and so that the intellectuals and
social Come help me. Look at the world of ideas and
say if I can focus on maybe what Albert J.
Knock would call The Remnant and his masterful essay Isaiah's
job. And those people who are
disproportionately likely to be potential either in generating
ideas or in being second-hand dealers of ideas.
And those ideas will influence the broader public.
I'd rather focus on them and go directly to the broader public
and that's what led me to IHS. Have you read the the elephant
in the brain by Robin Hanson? Yes, that's just so sad.
I had them on my show and we talked about it, how it
basically discusses the hidden motives in everyday life.
Where as opposed to people acting rationally, what
eventually, what they actually say is actually their conscious
acting as a press secretary for their subconscious, which is
giving us different motivations. The pointed me mentioning that
is, when you see, You know, what politicians talking about things
that end up coming about. You say, well, then the
politician is making that change happen.
Therefore. I must occupy politics in order
to have said, change. When just, as you said, that is
not exactly how it goes and Hayek, I think does a very good
job, explaining it in that essay.
But Robin Hanson decades later. Just comes and brings the
numbers with regard to Art, charity consumption, religion,
politics, and all these other fields.
Verifies. What?
I understood Hayek to be saying many years ago.
Let's go to, I, okay. So let me let me jump on that
real quick because I did, I loved, I loved Robin Hansen's
book and I think I might have interviewed him about it as
well. I can't remember.
But, um, That looks sort of is a good example of where I said,
Hayek, gave me the first half of my understanding and that's, and
at one point. I was like, cool.
That's how social change happens.
Okay, you got to change beliefs. And, and again, if you go back
to like public Choice Theory, I'm very much influenced by the
Overton window of political possibility, right?
Like at the end of the day and and mises himself says this that
like, you know at the end of the day, there's no ruler whether a
dictator or democratically-elected, who can
defy the beliefs of the public. Not public, doesn't get what
they want. But they Yet?
What they'll tolerate, right? They get something in between
what they want and what they'll tolerate right?
Like like really shitty politicians, will push it to the
max of what they'll tolerate, maybe, you know, any better
environment. They're getting something closer
to what they want. Now, maybe what the public wants
sucks, too. But, um, but they'll get what
they, tolerate the end of the day.
The beliefs of the public are The Binding constraint and so
I'm like, okay, great. And again, myth of the rule of
law, all this stuff plays into that.
It's not what's written down on Law at the end of the day.
It's what politicians can get away with period.
That's what they'll do and That's determined by what people
will. Let them get away with and so
I'm like, great. So you gotta change their
beliefs through this structure of dealing and ideas.
And after several years of working in that I had this
Epiphany and when Uber first came out, it really helped me.
I wish I was like something is missing here.
I feel in my gut like, I'm overvaluing My Own role in this
and my own role was to sort of raise money for and create
programs for sort of the future. Jules who are going to help
disseminate the ideas of Liberty.
And I saw who Burr come out and all these people start using it
and then cities start to try to ban it and then a bunch of
people who don't give a shit about property rights or dead
weight, economic losses or the morality of cartels were like
don't take Uber away and they cities had a very hard time
Banning it and in most cities that ended up sticking around
and I thought there were Decades of second-hand dealers and ideas
writing papers and talking about deadweight, losses caused by
taxi cartels. Talking about the Ality of
making it illegal for some guy to start selling his taxi
services. None of that made a dent in
people's beliefs about those things.
The minute they experienced an alternative their beliefs
shifted. And that's when it clicked that
I had the top of the pyramid ideas flow down to shape
beliefs, but experiences flow up to shape beliefs.
And I would argue that experiences shape beliefs
probably like 80% of the time and ideas like, Most people's
beliefs explicit or implicit are formed in a subconscious way by
the things they've experienced and they might come up with ADD
hot like post-hoc arguments to justify them later.
Very few beliefs are shaped by ideas where someone you read
things and you consciously consider them and said, wow,
this is a good argument. I will now change my belief like
most people's beliefs about God. For example, are based on their
experiences more than sitting down.
Or whatever it is government. And so that Epiphany is what led
me to ultimately, leave the sort of activist and education world
to go be an entrepreneur and say, look, I don't want to argue
with people about government institutions that suck.
What if I create one that's better?
And I sell it to them and they don't need to believe any of my
ideology. Once they've experienced it and
say, wow. This is better, practice is
better than College. Cool College isn't very
necessary. And if College isn't very
necessary, neither is high school.
Public school is not dead. Important, right?
Like if they taste Freedom, then they will want more freedom,
their beliefs will change. They will start to justify
freedom in their belief system because they don't want it taken
away from them. Not because I got them to read
Milton Friedman. And so, that was a big Epiphany
that helped put the sort of final piece.
Ideas are still very important, they play a part, but I think
experience eight ways for people to experience alternatives to
the state. That's when they'll shift their
belief and say like show them that it's possible.
Right. Show them that.
That here's a here's something that's preferable to you know,
whatever shitty service, the state is trying to offer.
So anyway, and an elephant in the brain, I think is a good
example of how people will very quickly change their arguments
to justify a belief that they want to hold because it benefits
them. It benefits me to use Uber.
So now I used to argue that taxi cartels were really important
whatever because people paid for those medallions, but now I
don't want you to take away Uber.
So I'll quickly change my arguments and say, oh well, it's
really important. Contrite, like people will
justify them. So you got to give them the
experience that they want while we're on that topic.
I just want you to introduce us to your company's.
What is Praxis? Yes, so I started practice in
2013 and it's a college alternative.
It's a one year program. You do a six-month boot camp,
which is all remote on, you know, basically just kicking
your ass and helping you learn how to be a value Creator in the
market. And then a six-month
apprenticeship at a high-growth startup where we place you.
It's a paid apprenticeship. So what you pay in tuition you
actually earn more than that during the course of the program
and then at the end of the year, 96% of our grads, get hired
immediately after the program. This is not a technical
bootcamp, not like a coding bootcamp.
It's like non-technical kind of Hustler.
People are getting placed in roles.
Like Marketing sales, design operations, at startups.
Most of them have no degree. They're doing instead of
college. Some people do it after college.
But so I started that in 2013 and kind of been been growing
ever since and then I actually I moved on is to launch my second
company a couple years ago. And now it Cameron sores be as
the CEO of Praxis. Now.
I'm still on the board, but he's cranking away taking the helm
there and and crash very briefly.
It's like we peeled off one very small sliver of this very
intense practice experience, which is just the process of
winning jobs because we found we were getting people who are like
17, 18 19 with no degree. They were getting hired in jobs
that said four-year degree and two to three.
Of experience required the way. They were winning the interviews
and getting hired was by, not applying through the traditional
process, not sending in a resume, not clicking, apply and
filling out a form. They would find the email of the
person, their email them directly a pitch.
Say, here's what I'm going to do for you.
Here's what I'm all about. Here's what I love about your
company here. I created something for you.
I already made you a project. I saw an issue on your website
and here's my version of fixing it.
I would love an interview and those get like 80% response
rate. And so Crash is just that it's
helping people anyone on the job.
Create video, pitches and pitch pitch employers, instead of
going through the traditional application process.
And so that's that's my full-time gig right now.
And again, it's, you know, for me, it's all rooted in my
philosophy of Liberty, like not being passive, not being like,
well, I got my degree by following rules now, I'll just
follow the rules on the job hunt and click submit.
And then cross my fingers, and my fate is in the hands of some
Our bought. It's going to scan my resume.
Good luck to me, you know, like no.
Take the, take the reins like you've got value now.
Prove it, put together a compelling signal, go out there
and turn the job hunt into an active process, where you're
hunting down, people you're sending them stuff, that's
valuable to them. You're demonstrating your value,
creation, ability. And that's just really
empowering, right? If you start your career,
feeling empowered that you went out and won that job that sets
your life on a trajectory of personal empowerment and freedom
and responsibility. Possibility, versus I followed
the rules. I did all this stuff and then
like somebody gave me a job and I just kept following the rules
and like, life just happens to me, right?
So that's kind of, that's kind of where that all spring from.
I love when you were wrong Tucker Carlson talking about
your company crash. Because Harvard had just said,
they're not cutting tuition and everything is going to be over
Zoom for the next year. So you just went on there and
you didn't, you know, take some, you know, Community College what
you could have, you know easily pointed out the flaws.
You went to Harvard University and went up against them.
So great stuff you are doing now with those organizations.
I want to talk about a couple more essays and books.
You when I spoke about what is the main message and thesis of
the call of Christ to Freedom. By Stephen legate.
This is a really obscure essay from the old magazine.
It was called Liberty magazine and used to come in like a like,
like gray paper, not even glossy.
Asean, paper like that gray, like really cheap stuff and a
friend of mine. I was like 19 at the time had it
and he was an atheist. But he knew that I was a
Christian and he was like and I was like, libertarian but like
still wrapping my head around some stuff and still like like I
was sort of dragged Kicking and Screaming to libertarian, is
when I wasn't yet Anarchist and I was still trying to understand
some these arguments. He's like, oh you might like
this essay now, I don't know nothing else about this guy.
I've never been able to find anything else that he's done.
It's very hard to come up. Find it.
I think I linked it on my website, but the essay is
basically just laying out. Why, if you are a Christian and
you take the example in Words of Christ, seriously, you have no,
you have no option other than I would say anarchism and I think
Leo Tolstoy took this position and some other, but it's not,
it's not very common. And essentially he's making the
argument that Non-violence that if you use the initiation of
violence to accomplish your ends, that's completely
antithetical to everything that Christ stood for.
And he uses the example in there that I'll never forget, is a
quote in there. He says, when the rich man came
to Jesus and said, what should I do to be saved?
And Jesus said, give all your stuff away to the poor and the
rich man walked away dejected. And then the story ends and
Stephen legate said, Jesus didn't send No, Peter and John
after him and say go take your swords and threatened to throw
him in prison. If he doesn't give his stuff to
the poor. He didn't send the Romans.
After him. He didn't try to enlist.
He didn't he didn't enlist any use of force or law at all.
And so the idea that we should mandate good behavior by force
of law or prohibit bad behavior, by force of law is completely
antithetical to the message of Christ.
And that was really that really hit me at the time was very, it
was It was really important for me, not just for myself, but to
be able to help, explain my libertarian beliefs to people
who were coming from a very sort of Conservative Christian
background. Excellent, Isaiah's job by
Albert J. Knock thesis and lesson from
Isaiah's job. This is the one that keeps me
encouraged when I'm feeling totally beat down.
Albert J. Knock is referencing, the
prophet Isaiah in the Old Testament.
How he's out there and he just keeps peeking his message.
And speaking, as message and speaking as message, and he's
like getting angry and frustrated.
He's like nobody's listening, nobody's doing anything and
basically God tells him, there's a Remnant.
There's a tiny. Remnant of people who are
listening, who are on the same wavelength as you, you probably
never know. They are, you probably never
meet him. Your message isn't for the
masses. It's for them.
And that hits me every time like when you just feel like you're
beating your head against the wall and you're like, man, and I
mean you can, you know, go on Twitter for five minutes and you
start to feel like all the work you're doing with Libertarians
to all this stuff and you're like, God, even people who call
themselves Libertarians are out here calling for violence and
statism and a bunch of, you know, technocracy and whatever
and you can just start to feel like what's the point?
What's the point of all this? This and the message in that
essay is, it's not for the masses there.
Someone out there. There's a hidden audience.
You'll probably never meet them, but they're listening.
It's exactly what they needed to hear.
And this was really bolstered. When I heard For the First Time,
The Story by Larry read, and, I know you've interviewed him,
Larry Reid, who used to be the president of a fee.
He went to communist Poland when it was still under communism.
He smuggled in free market books, and he did crazy stuff
back in the day. For the Berlin Wall fell.
And he was, he was they're smuggling in books and helping
this. There was a whole underground of
people who were, you know, resisting communism and this
sort of this underground. And he said, this, this couple,
he was with they'd both been thrown in prison several times
and just been out again. They had this underground radio
broadcast that they would do every night and they had no
idea. He's like, well, you just do it
every night. Do you know if people are
listening? They're like idea, you know, do
you know how many people are out?
There are part of the resistance.
We don't know because it's too dangerous to like meet in large
groups or whatever. So like we don't really know.
We just keep doing it and he said one night and went on the
radio and they said if you're listening to this and you value
Freedom blink, your lights and they looked out the window and
all of Warsaw was blinking and it was only like a year later
when the Communist dictator literally just walked away.
He just said you people are ungovernable and he left and it
was just Like peacefully at felt because the underground became
bigger than the above ground. And I think that's an incredible
story of someone who just kept doing it.
Kept spreading their message of Freedom, not knowing if there
was anyone listening and they actually did get a chance to see
that the remnant at that point was actually really huge but
like that Isaiah's job is just so inspirational for me to know
that even when I don't know who's out there, even when I
post some something in a million people attack it, there's
someone there. Someone out there.
That that message is for and that's who matters more than
sort of winning popularity contests.
What is the thesis and Main lesson from on doing something
about it by Frank shoulder of man?
That's the one that like finally was the nail in the coffin.
For me of any kind of political activism as a means to changing
changing the world. The I had already started to toy
with this hierarchy and idea that politics is a last is a
last is a lagging indicator of changes that have already
happened in the realm of beliefs in a realm of Shifting, the
Overton window and all those things Sheriff says.
Is basically like, look, if you play the politicians game, you
always empower the politicians. You make them more important.
If you show up even to protest them, your get your basically
assenting to the game that they're trying to play.
Ignore them. What if they rented a hall to
give a speech? And no one showed up, no power,
100% rests in the attention. You give them.
That's kind of the theme of that short essay.
And I think it's really powerful.
I always like to use the analogy like You know politics is like a
big nasty casino. And if you say to me, I hate
that casino. It's evil and corrupt.
I'm going to put it out of business.
I say how you say I'm going to go there and play Blackjack
every day until I win all their money.
That's what that's what trying to do.
Political activism is to in terms of trying to bring down
the state. Now.
There are there are ways in which you can use the podium of
politics to get a message across because politicians get a lot of
attention from the media and whatever, right?
Like, I'm not saying that there's No way that you can,
like, I think Ron Paul is a good example of this like he was
never gonna win presidency or anything like that and his
policies didn't really get past as a congress person, but
because the role of politician in our society is also the role
of celebrity Ron Paul as a celebrity spread the message of
Liberty in a lot of ways, right, but not Ron Paul as a political
activist trying to, you know, if he wanted to be good at
Politics. The only way to do that is to be
bad at being principled, right? So the fact that he was bad at
politics is why he was able to have a message.
So anyway, that on doing something about it is just like
I would say it's an argument for political atheism.
Excellent. And finally, what is the thesis
of and Main lesson of how I found freedom in an unfree World
by Harry Brown? Oh baby.
Such a good book. It's out of print.
So if you want to buy it, it's like super expensive.
You got to buy it used on eBay or Amazon sometimes.
This is an incredible book. It really, I would say it set
the stage for all the books that I've written.
And even the companies that I've built since then, because Harry
Brown, says look. you value Freedom, if you're libertarian
and But you're not living free and I found myself in this
position when I came across the book.
I was very much in this position.
I valued freedom, but every day I was a slave to the things that
I would see on the news because they had the power to dictate my
mood. I followed politics and
political news and I would get into debates with people on
forums and the the stupid stuff that they decided to cover and
the stupid opinions. They decided to spout was like
enslaving me. It had the power to dictate my
moods and I was not living and I was angry.
I was frustrated. That's not the, that's not the
attitude, you have, when you feel free, right?
And I thought, man, I'm not living free on the individual
level, right in, any time. You find yourself feeling like a
victim. Oh like my boss did this to me.
I'm so trapped in this or I'm trapped in my, you know this
relationship or whatever you feel like a victim, you feel
angry. Like those are not the signs of
someone who's living free and Harry Brown's book is like, this
is how you bring freedom into your own life as an individual.
And in to put it, in other words of, of Leonard, read the founder
of fee, like Being a light, letting your freedom be a light
is the most is the best way to attract other people's to it.
It's like Live Free Yourself. Yeah.
Camus has this quote let you know live so free that your very
existence is an act of rebellion.
Yeah, and I and that Harry Brown book like whoa, this is how he
brings it down, like really practically like, okay, how to
be free in relationships, how to be free with your personal
finances, how to be free, with whatever, and it just like
translating this concept of freedom and saying, look, what
does it matter? If I'm trying to make the world
free when I'm living like it, like I'm in shackles in myself
if I'm a slave to guilt or shame or doubt or the opinions of
others or any of those other things.
And so that like myself emancipation realizing that it
starts with me. If I can't even be free myself,
how can I expect to help help the world be more free?
Really, really powerful book in that regard?
Excellent point on the media using repetition as a way of
controlling the narrative and thus, Rolling the mind of the
populace. I had a Former Intelligence
officer Chase, use on the show not too long ago.
And he said, if I could describe mind control in one word, it
would be repetition. So every time we turn on the
news cases are up. There was a shooting this, this
terrible war zone happened and you know, the u.s.
Is looking into it. It's like well there were
supposed to go to war with North Korea who was supposed to invade
Guam. The ozone layer is supposed to
be melted. Saddam I guessed or know.
Assad was gassing the Kurds Putin hacked, our democracy, and
had a puppet president. So like why would I have wasted
all that time worrying about something that didn't even come
to fruition it b equal. I don't even respect well and
that's where like, you know, I have a lot of respect for, you
know, some of the work that like you guys are doing and we're
talking earlier about like Scott Horton, doing a lot of stuff on
the internet because that's It takes like another level to be
able to immerse yourself in like keeping up on the news of a
particular area without letting it take away your freedom,
without letting make you go crazy.
So what after I read Harry Brown's book about 15 years ago,
I stopped watching the news and stop following it all together.
I haven't read a newspaper. I mean, I don't know newspapers
even exist, but back then, they did, right?
I stopped all my subscriptions to newspapers and I haven't
followed the new sense. Now, in the age of Twitter, I
end up seeing more and more news items come across my Twitter
feed. Because People are talking about
them than I used to, but that just utterly Set Me Free.
And I used to think why I need to be up on things.
I need to understand what's going on because I'm especially
if I'm trying to spread the ideas of Liberty.
I didn't lose a thing by not knowing.
In fact, if anything it gave me so much Freedom, when people
would be like, oh, so you're like libertarian.
Well, then you probably think what, you know, Mitch McConnell
did is like some blah blah blah, and I'd be like, I don't even
know who Mitch McConnell is, I don't care about any of that and
I got a smile on my face and then they're baffled.
And they're like, well, you're so like free your like free from
stress and worry and you don't even care about pot.
Like I don't get it. I'm confused.
Then they want to learn more, they want to learn more because
you don't you don't even know what these debates are.
Let alone take a side in them. And so that was that was very
freeing. But but I think getting to the
the like Master Level of freedom is when you can when you can be
in the airport when CNN's playing and it no longer makes
your blood boil boil like and I'm like, Sort of that than I
used to be. I can I can see and take in more
news and just laugh at the absurdity of it or even find the
silver lining or the Hope or have some righteous indignation
without letting it ruin my day. But if I immersed myself in it
all the time, I think it would just it would just destroy me
again. So it's a dangerous game.
I say if you're mad about stuff and, you know, turn off the
frickin news don't ever. Like, I mean, I don't think
people are watching TV these days but block freakin block it
from Twitter, like, worked work so that you never see a single.
Petitions face or hear what they say or hear anyone report, about
what they say. Try that for a year and tell me
everything about your life, didn't get better.
Yeah. I've tried that a couple times
where I've just not been in the mood and I've wanted to sort of
throw an argument from intimidation at people.
Nobody like so. Well what, you know, what do you
think about John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell doing that and I
go, I'm actually not part of the religion of statism.
So I don't focus on what the high Priests of that religion,
discussed. And they don't even know how to
respond to that. And it's just the belief that
this group writing words on paper, puts a positive
obligation on, 330 million strangers on what they have to
fund, and what they have to do. And they're like, they're like
waiting for me to say what MSNBC was saying or what Fox was
saying and it totally disarms them.
And, you know, sort of plants the seed, when I think of, you
know, people being under free in their mind, so it's not just
well, no one was initiating violence against Harry Brown on.
On September 12 2001, but he was so intellectually free that he
wrote a book. Oh gosh.
I can't even remember the article the day after 9/11.
He wrote. What did you expect?
He goes? Well, the media of course covers
up the crimes of the state while focusing on the petty crime,
creating, you know, a fake enemy at home.
And, you know, we've invaded countries, like Libya.
There's been a blockade on a rack for a decade.
Bill Clinton was bombing them at an average of two to three.
Times a week for 10 people today.
Don't realize the balls you had to have to write that article on
September 12. Oh my God, everybody and I
remember everybody was bush. Bush had a 91 percent approval
rating or something, literally like 90%, which is so typical of
the state to fail at their most basic thing.
And then get like the best. It's like right after Kim
Kardashian gets robbed in Paris. I have the best security ever.
I mean it was like the the palpable energy and I was like
coming away from conservatism and like early on libertarianism
at that point. But even me the minute that
happened, I had this thing rise up in me, like I wanted blood, I
wanted Vengeance. I was, I was in a mirror, all
these collectivist ideas, all they like dangerous, dangerous
stuff. Now, there's a part of like any
tragedy where you have solidarity with Humanity.
It's mixed with a good impulse, but this other Vindictive
patriotic military can do no wrong like that shit, just
snuck. I mean, it was everywhere.
So, Harry Brown, definitely he practiced, he lived it.
Man. He was not afraid.
Check the description below for Isaac more house.com.
Isaac. Thank you for coming on and
thanks to everyone for watching. Keith Knight.
Don't tread on anyone in the libertarian Institute.
Thanks so much, man.