Democracy entails people who run their business as well.
Being forced to run their businesses poorly by people who
can't run businesses at all. Welcome to Keith's night.
Don't tread on anyone and the libertarian Institute today.
We today, we have Patrick of disenthrall, check out all these
platforms, bitch, Utada, see. All of these will be in the
description below at disenthrall dot me.
Forward slash platforms. Patrick.
Where is the best place to find? Find videos and your podcast
Odyssey.com. That's ody sce.com.
We have all of our channels there and they're all linked on
that URL. You just gave it is a pleasure
to talk to you again. I always look forward to these.
Well, brother. Thank you for coming on.
So today we have Richard Wolff, enlightening us with a, an
alternative to the current system current system.
A lot of negative things. He has a solution which much
like everything else they sell us on.
Just has benefits Healthcare should be free.
That the fire department should be free.
There's no downside. So it's really nice of him to
wha show this to us. Patrick starts the video
whenever you're ready and please stop it whenever you'd like.
I'm sure you and I will have the same spots to was complaining.
All right, here we go. This is Richard Wolff with
another Econo minute. I want to talk to you.
Briefly about economics. Accuracy.
And the way we do business. I want to make a simple point if
you believe in democracy, let me stop you right there.
No, really. Yeah, the first thing that I
want to point out, because this is going to come up again, later
in this, very short video, is that we are conflating
governance of a coercive institution called government,
which in, in, in terms of the way, humans can associate, it
should be considered like the Half stupid weird guy from up
the road. Like, it's the worst way to
associate with people on the list of ways to associate with
people where he's going to compare democracy to how a
company is run. Now.
My defense in this video is going to be of a free market
capitalism. Certainly not anything.
That is in bed with that course of institution, and I don't
appreciate the conflation of the to democracy, which is a Method
of coercive governance and corporations, which is just sort
of self-governing, your own resources.
Just wanted to start there with that note.
Well, that's the great equivocation trick.
They say, you like democracy people being involved in things.
So and that's what government is.
Okay. First of all, that's wrong.
What makes government unique, as it claims the right to rule,
people who had hasn't contracted within a geographical area.
And second of all, I don't know that that's inherently.
A good thing, everyone being involved in the voting process.
I mean what percentage of people were involved in writing
Seinfeld a microscopic amount, but it was the greatest thing
ever and were able to enjoy things like Seinfeld.
What percentage of people were involved in, making this
excellent computer that has lasted me years and I enjoy so
much. A very microscopic amount,
almost involuntary oligarchy, as he would call it, but there's
nothing wrong with this. Art of specialization.
So yes, the equivocation of people voluntarily getting
together and voting as a mechanism of decision-making
versus using it as a tool of, let's say a Lynch Mob or
something like that. Well, those involve initiating
violence so that totally different.
Excellent point, as I suspect most of us do then, you know, it
means basically that if you are affected by a decision, you have
the right to participate in it. Let me stop you right there.
This is gonna be a long I disagree with like every single
thing comes out of this guy's, do you want to take this one
first? No, no, please go.
So, I think that might be the worst description of democracy
that I've ever heard. Like, just just to be frank.
Think about what that means. If you're affected by a
decision, you have the right to participate in it.
Does that mean because 50 years from now, my kid might interact
with you differently based on how I parent today.
That literally everyone around me has the right to participate
in the parenting and my children, just for one example,
but I can think of a billion that is absurd.
That is nonsense. Just but you are you affect the
people around you all the time? The thing that's important to
consider when you're affecting people is their consent.
And the property ownership involved which, you know, is a
core issue at this guy. What do you have to say?
So as far as getting the consent of things that affect me, maybe
I was absent. The day we took a vote on
whether or not he should be allowed to make this video.
It looks like he just made this video and just decided on his
selfish own self to engage in something, without putting it up
to a vote and making sure it was in our greatest interest.
Of course not. This is so Beyond ridiculous.
Everything you do, honey. I know you're saying.
You want to break up with me, but I get a vote in this round
and because you have done a number of things, you're
actually a felon and you don't get any votes.
So you're in big trouble now. Well, the the fact that
something affects you, I mean, what one of the biggest things
that affects me is the number of people who want who choose to
allocate their scarce time resources and Money to watching
other people that negatively affects me.
That doesn't mean I have the right to forcibly.
Stop these people from making mutually beneficial voluntary
exchanges. So he's not differentiating
between what you have a right to not engage in and something that
just affects you if I stop hanging out with the people of
the disenthrall channel, and I only hang out with people of the
Liberty weekly Channel. Patrick will be affected if
you're not affected, please don't say anything.
Thing just assume that just assume that, that's an example.
So yes, you might be affected when people stop hanging out
with you. That doesn't mean they have a
right to vote you to forcibly. Stop, you from engaging in those
things. Blockbuster was affected by
people making a lot of people making a decision and it didn't
have to be up to a vote. It's just voluntary decision
making. So this is his premise, and
since his premise is wrong, basically everything that doll
follows is also wrong. Yeah, but it's still going to be
fun to, you know, have some popcorn and watch it and pick it
apart. So I loved your original example
and you're saying look, he's making this video.
He didn't get a vote and it's definitely affecting me because
like I'm trying to create a world that's better for my
children and he is actively working to create a world that I
think is worse for my children. And I want I demand a say
because he's affecting and, and that would also mean that
anytime you make a post on social media and you get
ratioed, you know, when you get more disapproval, Than approval,
more thumbs down, type activity than thumbs up.
That that is the collective telling you that you had no
right to make such a post and affect them and their world in
that way. This is this, it requires no
further discussion because I think it's easy to see the
absurdity on its face, you know, that's the idea about our
political system. Since we are affected by the
decisions, made by Mayors and senators, and governors and
presidents. Well, we participate in their
This by having the authority to hire and fire them to vote for
them or to vote against them. At least we have some
participation in the decisions, but it is not that way in
capitalist Enterprises in those dumb, dumb, dumb story.
A tiny group of people at the top, the owner, the management
that the owner chooses or in a modern Corporation, the Major
shareholders, usually, a dozen or so institutions are people
who decide who is on the board of directors.
That's usually 15 or 20 people and they make all the key
decisions. They decide what to produce, how
and where, and what to do with the products of the labor of all
the people? And what about all the people
who work in an Enterprise. They have no participation at
all. You want this or do you want me
to please start us off? So he's just flat wrong that
every single person at a company has no participation and it's
just this sort of enslavement to the tiny majority minority of
people at the top. Your participation is agreeing.
Voluntarily absent coercion to show up at the office.
Every day. Your participation is agreeing
to do a job. Your participation is bringing
your skills and your training knowledge, wisdom expertise.
To Bear every day at work. Your participation is sitting
down at the very contentious bargaining table in the labor
market and negotiating, your salary, negotiating your
benefits. Negotiating, what work?
And responsibilities you're going to take on?
That is your participation. You do it every day.
Just as much as every other single person from the bottom,
to the top of a company does. Now, of course, I'm only
defending companies that are not in bed with government here.
I'm just going to I'm going to keep reiterating that.
Because we're not talking about these Mega corpse that take tons
of money from course of government.
That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about a free voluntary, what I would call
maybe a Libertarian or a free market laissez-faire company,
where everybody is there consensually you, participate in
all the decisions that affect you by showing up in continuing
to agree, to be there. That's the first thing I wanted
to say. What do you have to say?
So if I had to guess, I just want to ask you and you just
take a shot in the dark. Ark, what percentage of NBA
players? Do you think get the vast
majority of air time and jersey sales?
Oh, well, it's probably a Pareto distribution.
So 80/20, or maybe 90 10. So, 10 percent probably, it's
probably something microscopic. Like, you know, when I was
younger, it was like, LeBron James, Dwyane, Wade, and Kobe
Bryant sold like 95% of the jerseys as far as singers.
You have people like Adele and Eminem sell getting millions of
dollars for tours. And the average singer is not
only close to not being that wealthy.
They play at bars for free and are sometimes not even able to
charge, as far as podcasters go. It's something ridiculous like
1% get 95% of the listening audience as far as actors.
Go, Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio 20 million dollars a
movie the average. Extra does not get that much.
So what he's not appreciating is that this inequality is
everywhere. It has nothing to do with the
free market. What percentage of politicians,
get the vast majority of air time.
Well, AOC gets way more than I don't even know who the
congressman of Arizona are because they just don't get as
much influence. This genes Burnham referred to
this as the iron law of oligarchy said, whatever social
change. Occur, whatever happens to
economic relations, whether property is in private, hands
are socialized. Organization will remain and
through organization and oligarchical Rule will be
perpetuated. So, the example he uses is a
union. So there's a bunch of workers
and they form a union. Only about a third of the union
workers, show up to the meetings and ninety-eight.
Percent of those people are completely silent during the
meetings. One or two.
People are really persuasive. Of speakers, and they can rile
people up. And so, you end up getting 1% of
the Union making 99% of the decision.
This is the iron law of oligarchy that happens all the
time when people get together. One of my favorite memes ever is
communism is about equality and there's this giant statue of
Chairman Mao because it's what, you know, how many Chinese
people got a statue, that big none.
How many do you know? Commies are as powerful as
Stalin one out of a billion, so, Yes, the inequality arguments
completely illegitimate. Yeah.
The other thing I just wanted to
mention was that there is a vast blind spot and this makes sense
because of the Pareto distribution of people running
companies that you were just talking about.
There's a vast blind spot amongst at least 90% of the
population of what it's like to sit on the other side of the,
the of the table, in an employment competition in the
employee, in the market for skilled labor.
Everybody sees it from the employee side from the laborers
side. Not from the hirer side.
Let me tell you I have direct experience in this area.
It is visceral. It is Cutthroat.
It is so difficult to find higher to get them.
And by higher I mean get them to agree to work with me and then
retain the skilled people that you need your company's live and
die based on your decisions and your ability to compete in the
labor market. It's not Just this top-down
Emperor hat that you put on and you just you know, you said
well, it's time to hire someone. So let you know 45 fill the room
with 1,000 of the worker slaves. And you know, I'll just pick a
few of the lucky ones that is basically the opposite of how it
works. You put out advertisements.
You pay people to find to find the skilled labor laborers, that
you need with good resumes with good track records.
Because there's there's some There's no Bad actors out there
and people that lie on their resumes and I'm all of this is
to say that as difficult as it is on the laborer side.
It is, I'll just say to be fair equally as difficult on the
hiring side of the table except that on the hiring side of the
table, you have the added pressure of being responsible
for the incomes jobs, Healthcare retirement, plans of hundreds of
people, instead of just you yourself by yourself in and of
yourself, Self just something to think about one of my friends
said, he was so glad when he saved up enough money to start
his own business, this way. He would never have a boss
again. He'd be liberated from having a
boss and then started his own company only to find out that
every customer was an individual boss.
And it was way worse than just having one boss.
He had to please this one which was completely contradictory
with what this person wanted. This was a landscaping
organization. So just You things that come to
mind because I think this is really important.
If you're trying to divide people and you just say these
people do all the work and and they get very little these
people do no work and they get a ton.
That's so divisive because it's not the reality at all.
So what business owners and entrepreneurs generally do is
come up with an idea of what to sell.
That is extremely difficult. It does, if it's not difficult,
just mention all your billion dollar ideas in the comments so
I could have them. Thank you very much.
Ray, start. Up Capital Market to customers,
find a place to store the goods. Hire, good employees arranged
for shipments risk, money risk, and spend time your most
valuable resource on the planet and all the time.
You spend making phone calls, networking trying to arrange
payments Etc. So yeah, I mean, what else do
business owners do that? The status of the world, don't
don't appreciate the, they just don't understand the The risk
and of your entire life. So like you work for maybe 25
years to finally get up enough resources to hire.
Some people, to try this idea that you merely think will be
the one successful one that will go somewhere in the market and
you risk everything. Some people even mortgage and
double mortgage their houses to get enough funds to actually try
out an idea in the marketplace, to hire, a few people to get
something done and look like 95% Give it enough time.
I'm all companies fail. So there's that all companies
much like human lives are destined to end.
But even in the short term even in the 50-year 100 Year span
ninety-five percent of companies fail, 95% of people that try and
start these things and Risk Everything failed, they still
fail and it's not this. This one-sided top-down tiny
minority, making decisions and lure during lording over
everyone. That is such.
You said it, but you just said it sad.
If it's meant to divide people, to classify people into groups
to other people, so that you can then hate them.
This is grifting. This whole ideology.
I may be as it may be. I'm overstating my case to say,
so is grifting. It's dividing people hating
people and then profiting, either through social or
monetary power from the the mess that you stir up.
That's a pretty big point, that a lot of that, a lot of these
places go out of business. So the idea that they have all
the power, so they have all the power and then just choose to go
out of business. I looked up the Fortune, 500
companies in 1955, and it said in 1955 and 2016, only 60 of
these companies were in The Fortune 500 in both years.
So there's even among the biggest companies, there's
constant turnover because people have options and There's, you
know, other people entering the market, not to mention there
would be even fewer because there wouldn't be so many
regulatory hurdle stopping small businesses from competing.
And if you look at a lot of these Boeing, I know where the,
the other ones, well, Pfizer sorry good.
Oh, I was just gonna say Raytheon Lockheed Martin and
Boeing are are on this list, and they should not be on that list
if it Wasn't for the military-industrial complex.
So again that the state not only doesn't create competition.
It's the biggest hurdle to competition in 1989 versus 2021
the 20 largest companies by market cap on planet Earth were
not the same. So today the top five are Apple.
Saudi Aamco. Aramco, Microsoft, Amazon,
alphabet Facebook. And in 1989.
It was Industrial Bank of Japan sudha, Moto Bank, Fuji Bank
Exxon, Corp IBM. General Electric, turnovers
constantly happening. And I will say that I would bet
a significant amount of money that any company, that defies,
what I just said, where they survived for hundreds of years.
They're in bed with government. They're you, they're profiting
in some way from the coercion inherent in government.
In this guy's democracy. They're taking this guy's
democracy and they've manipulated it such that they
can profit and never go out of business.
They become too big to fail. Banks, would probably be the
best. Ample of the exception to what I
was talking about. Exactly.
Yeah, that's all I have to say on that, from deciding what to
produce, how to produce, where to produce, and what to do with
them prophets and the net revenue.
That's not a democratic system. But there is a democratic way of
Oregon. It's not a democratic system.
The thing he failed to mention in this video was So what?
So what's that? Why is that a problem?
In fact, I would say that a democratic system without
coercion. I mean that they exist they
exist and they typically they typically are very hard to kill.
They stick around a long time. They're very resilient to Market
forces and to Market changes, but they they also don't scale
very well. They can't grow too.
Any sizable company that requires specialization of Labor
and specialized skill sets. Some people are better than
others at some things like you said earlier and and hierarchy I
said deep so do h word. Oh my God, so someone who's been
working there for 20 years might have a bigger say than a guy
who's its first day. It's his first day on the job
though. That's that's unequal.
Oh, it's Auntie anti-democratic. My favorite things on the planet
are anti-democratic there. Run through like total
hierarchy. I mean, I was just thinking of
my favorite shows, my favorite movies, my favorite artist.
None of which came about, as the result of a large-scale vote.
The best is when, you know, companies will have like let's
vote that if you remember Mountain, Dew said, we're going
to have everyone vote on what the Mountain Dew name, what the
Mountain Dew name should be. And it's just funny.
What people came up with long story short.
They, of course, abandoned, this ridiculous investigation.
Involve everyone idea because just because a lot of people
have an idea doesn't mean it's the smartest thing.
As you know, Henry Ford, you know, said and kind of a mean,
disrespectful way. If I had asked my customers what
they wanted. They would have said Faster
Horses. So, so sometimes it's not always
best to listen to while the masses on the economy.
And it's not capitalism. It's called worker cooperatives.
And it's an old idea whose time Has come.
Here's how it works. All the people who work in an
Enterprise, all of them. One person, one vote.
They make the decisions democratically.
What to produce, how to produce, where to produce, and what to do
with the profits. That after all, they have all
helped to produce. It would change our economic
system. It would democratize, not just
the Enterprises, but the system as a whole, it's Long overdue.
It's what democracy means. When you bring it to the
economy, which we should have done long ago.
This is Richard Wolff for economic.
One of the things that comes to mind is just because you're
voting, you know, it's the idea that an ignorant person gets as
much of a say as someone who's really intelligent.
I think that's a terrible thing to do it is it stops you from
allowing people to really thrive in areas where their best?
So I went to see Noam Chomsky speak at Arizona State
University talking about Quality and he one person spoke 99% of
the time. And that was good or no.
He spoke like 33 percent. Then Glenn Greenwald ID.
And then Edward Snowden. Did he was there on camera?
But that's all I wanted to hear. I didn't want to hear what
anyone else had to say, just as they were specialization and
blatant hierarchy. Three people getting 99% of the
air time is kind of what you'd expect now.
Whenever people are free to associate.
Oppressing us, even though they were perpetuating their ideas.
They were engaged in what they would call, you know, using
their privilege and their fundamental abilities to be able
to perpetuate Society the way they want to their influence.
So what its people organizing without coercion and just
because you get a vote in, something doesn't mean you're
going to vote in such a way that improves Capital Equipment,
which improves output, which increases wages.
Which increases living standards over time, so just because the
problem in, you know, the year 1300, wasn't that enough.
People weren't voting because there had been enough capital
investment and Innovation to increase production.
So this is just very typical appealing to what the idiots.
You didn't ask the person sitting next to you at that talk
demand that the person sitting next to you have equal time on
the stage. You didn't demand a vote of all
the people have in attendance to pick the people.
That should be the ones. On stage talking exactly
exactly. What what about something like
the cost of information? So like instead of, you know,
Burnham just writing this book if he just had everyone vote on
it. It would be so costly.
This is what Thaddeus Russell says.
He says democracy is too much. Dang work.
I gotta get involved in everything.
I got to learn about it in the free market.
I just have people specialize and if and the threat of me
disassociating with them, is more of an incentive for them to
create a good product. Me getting a vote once every 10
years. Yeah, it's called rational,
ignorance. People are rationally.
Ignorant on a lot of things. Like when I chose to learn TIG
welding. I had to.
I had to choose not to spend my time learning this new
programming language that I saw pop up, right?
So I made a decision about where my resources were going to go
some might call that a higher key, but no, I think I guess I
just want to repeat kind of some of the things that you've said.
People are different. People are different.
Some are smart. Some are dumb.
Some are strong. Some are weak.
Some are happy. Some are depressed.
Some are motivated. Some are distracted.
Some are knowledgeable. Some are ignorant and nothing.
I just said, I don't think anybody would disagree with.
So why would you want to have the guy that has dumb week?
Depressed, distracted, and ignorant?
Rent have their vote on something that affects you be
equal to your vote. If you are one of the opposite
the people that are well-informed knowledgeable
motivated you care you have you know, your body into it and it
matters to you. Why would you want to work?
Why would you want to freely associate with other people in
that Paradigm? Here's another question.
Let's say you're one of the people that have Saved up your
resources, double mortgaged your house thought.
You found the idea that you think is going to make it big in
the market and then you're ready to put it all on the line.
You're ready to risk it in a venture.
Why would you then hire a bunch of people and then give them
control over all of the resources that you just work 25
years of your life to put on the line?
When all of those people, all of that they're putting on the line
is a day's work. They can quit tomorrow.
It just seems absolutely in Maine.
It just seems just eat completely irrational and non
realistic thinking it's just it's class Warfare.
It goes back to the to the grifting.
Well, how did these people explain large companies that
have gone out of business. I just looked up large companies
that went out of business and I got a Wikipedia list of defunct
department stores and defunct. That's a hard word, retails
retailers of the I did States and I was going to show the list
and list them off, but it's way too big.
Of course, the big ones, Blockbuster EB Games Hollywood
Video. Most Round Table Pizza, Sears,
the Sears parade. I mean, this is like one of the
biggest total Monopoly Starbucks is going to be a monopoly
Myspace. Of course, the first social
media Monopoly, that of course needs regulation.
If you remember Internet Explorer was going to be the
Takeover of the internet and the thing we need to regulate and
Microsoft's doing away. With it this year just because
it's not popular enough that they act like consumers, don't
influence outcomes the way voters do when it's just voting
with your dollar. What do you think about
voluntary worker coops? Like, my favorite shop place to
shop? When Co Foods in Arizona.
Have you ever you ever done any research on how those
cooperatives work? Let me just say one more thing
before I forget it and then I'll talk about the coops.
Just just going To the gay, the idea that there's a guy out
there that's working to save resources, to put it all on the
line to actually be successful and to make a return and to like
do to get somewhere in his life. Productively speaking.
That right. There is a different kind of
person. Most people don't do that.
Most people just want to be happy and and a day job and that
is what makes them happy. Just just doing the nine to five
and then having mornings and evenings and weekends free to
just Not have a care in the world about anything related to
the company. Whereas there's some people,
there's a tiny, tiny, tiny hierarchy.
Now, there's a tiny minority of people that do that.
They have the self-discipline and gratification deferral,
necessary to pool their resources, long enough to where
they have something substantial enough, to be able to employ the
people that just want to 925. So, you're to flatten that
hierarchy, you're going to kill the incentive of the rare people
that have the ability to do that in an attempt to elevate the
outcomes of the people that don't want to do that.
It's it's, it's fascism in the name of equality.
And so, I guess the next thing I'd say about the coops, the
most successful. And I don't know if this is
actually a co-op because I haven't done.
The research is REI. That's the main Co-op.
I don't know. You have it where you are.
REI is an outdoor sporting goods co-op store and they just became
incredibly silly with their covid rules.
Even to this day. Even when Texas has been open
for months. Now, they have a guy in a booth
out front in a shielded Booth outside the front of the
building with a mask and a face shield, and he liked horses, you
have for us, that's a better word, but he makes sure that you
are aware that you have. Mask in the store.
And and if you say no, no, thanks.
He'll let you walk in. But then the manager comes
around and basically holds one of those face face Shields out
of you anyway, so I haven't been there lock.
That's all to say. I just haven't been there
recently. But back when I was the net
effect of it was it was a corporation that once a year.
If I spent enough money there. I would get a little bit of it,
back in the form of a rebate, or what they would call a dividend,
but it was just basically a rebate, like, you'd get a, you
know, at your Walmart. Art frequent flyer card, you
know, like they'll give you cheaper gas or whatever.
That's kind of the the most successful example I can think
of. Yeah, I think it's important to
say they almost feel like we're stealing something or were, you
know, being tyrannical by opposing this all were really
talking about is one. There's a lot of costs and
benefits to the worker Cooperative.
It's not just this inherently good thing and if you want to do
it voluntarily no, Has the right to stop you.
If someone tries to forcibly stop you, I will.
And Patrick I know for a fact we will happily take your side if
you want to live in a place just because there's no objective
value to, you have to earn more money, more money is good.
Maybe you want more time off. Maybe you want more flexibility
in what you wear. The last place.
I worked. It was a war about the dress
code between some of the people and whether what counted as
facial hair and At what point was an earring, actually engage
would if you want to do that, that's totally fine.
But what wolf means here and he's made this very clear that
the state should step in and forcibly stop people from making
voluntary contracts and everything should be a
dictatorship of the proletariat worker Cooperative.
One of the main shortcomings in this is, well, we should be
owners and we should be voters. Good.
That's what the stock exchange in a free market offers you, but
they say, No, I want to own my company, a lot of companies
offer. What would they call it profit
sharing? And, you know, employee by back
options, but one of the best things about a free market is
you can own a company that you don't work for.
So you can diversify anyone who does investment tells you the
value of diversification, Warren.
Buffett said Ben Graham's book that discusses diversification
is like the greatest thing ever. So whether you love or hate
more, And buff at the point is don't put all your eggs in one
basket. So if I work at, you know, the
Sears, I wouldn't want to also own Sears.
I might want some and Verizon and some in can't think of a
single company. Epson the printer Center
Hewlett-Packard or Barnes and Noble you'd want to diversify.
So you wouldn't want to own necessarily the company that you
work for. Why do people who can't even see
that? Basic ideal, want to control the
entire economy. Why are most economists not
working in the market is another question.
I had a really good point, but then I got lost in your amazing
words and and lost it. So yeah, I think so.
Well, if it comes back to you, please, please let me know.
I want to get into the words of Stalin.
We got a few, we got a few more minutes here.
Think about this because wolf happily describes himself as a
Marxist. So I'm not strong Manning him
here by talking about Marxism. So this is from dialectical and
historical materialism by Joseph Stalin.
He says this means that the main feature of the capitalist system
is a most acute class struggle between the exploiters and the
exploited. How do you respond to the idea
that capitalism? This is a unique thing where
there's the Is and the exploited?
There's different definitions of the word exploit, and I've kind
of tried to tease this apart before in a way that wasn't
disingenuous to them and their position and it's just, they
usually exploit just means to fully utilize a resource.
And if you think of a person as a resource and their labor as a
resource, which is a totally reasonable thing to do, when
you, when you are managing your resources, you want to get the
most out of them as you possibly can.
You want to use them as a fish? We as possible you want to not
waste them because it's expensive.
Why is it expensive ball? It goes back to that bargaining
table that we talked about, but then there's this other version
of exploit where people see it as a wholly negative
interaction, a wholly, one-sided interaction.
Like in this may have come from like environmentalist movement
when they talk about the exploitation of Mother Earth and
the, you know, the forests that get clear cut.
And they're exploiting the Tests and exploiting the wood and then
Mother Earth's natural resources.
Well when you when you do it in an irresponsible way that is
exploiting it in a bad or inefficient or in a negative
way. And so I think the word exploit
as a bad rap and it's used in a way to sort of draw that
negativity towards this kind of connotation.
Now another maybe the last thing I'll say is that exploitation is
also Frequently talked about as if it's non-consensual, and of
course, we're talking to a Marxist here.
So of course, he thinks that wage labor is non-consensual in
general. I that's not a straw man.
That's just a basic foundational point in the plank, in their
quote, unquote philosophy. It is consensual if there's no
threat of force involved. And Mother Nature doesn't exist.
And this might be hard to explain a hard hard to
understand for some people. But it is just a concept to
describe the state of existence, the state of existence includes
suffering. It includes struggle.
It includes the need to exert effort to to prolong Your
Existence in your survival in it.
That is just describing reality that description of reality
cannot Control you act on you exploit, you coerce you in any
way. So a lot of times there's this
reification of Mother Nature on to the boss at a company and
they're like, well, I have to eat.
And this guy's got the food. So gosh, darn it.
He's exploiting Me by, by making me come to work every day if I
want to keep eating. Look, if he didn't do it, you
would have to go do something else.
You'd have to go grow some food, the hopefully, convince an
animal to come near you long enough to where you could kill
it. So that you Kate like that's
existence. And yeah, yeah.
So those are my thoughts, it's incredible.
They don't recognize explicit voluntary contracts, but they do
recognize the social contract where you have to obey the state
and it's okay to cage people for chipping in because they
actually If it it's like, well, what if I benefit from my
employer, should I be allowed to make an exchange with them?
No, you should be forced to own and forced to get educated on
things and just so you could have a vote.
Even if you explicitly, don't want a vote, you made a great
point with exploitation because you could just take that and
say, consumers exploit us all consumer doesn't consumer.
Doesn't walk into the store and say, well, well, well, I hate
the products and services. But I know Patrick Smith works
here. So because I care about him
know. It's like, hey guy, who I've
never met. Do you have a product or
service? You can give me the, this
doesn't look exactly how I want it.
No. Goodbye.
They're only using us for our products and services employees.
They don't go because they love the business owner.
They just want the money. So this is actually a good
thing, you get people to have harmonious harmonia.
Harmonized interests that otherwise would be conflicted.
So I want something and you want it, so maybe we might fight over
it. But if I am constantly
exchanging with other people and making these deals that are
mutually beneficial, well, then I get money and in exchange he
gets my labor and so long as both of us can walk away then
it's not really exploitation. Especially the way the state
engages in it. So if voluntary voluntarily
taking advantage of someone is bad.
Well then, Customers and employees are also guilty of
this. As is everyone on planet Earth.
Well, then it applies 10 folded to politicians to, which there
is no contract at all. I'd love that flipping the
script on the word, exploiting to the, to the employee.
That's that perfectly. Illustrates the subjectivity of
the grifting nonsense, like you didn't pay for that office
space. You didn't pay for that,
computer that Cube, or that internet connection or that copy
machine, fax machine unit. That's not your business.
Dear, that's not your relationships with all the
suppliers. That's not your marketing ideas.
Like none of, that's yours. You just Waltz in 925 with a 1
hour, lunch break, you know that you usually don't even take, you
know, you don't report, you don't clock out for that.
You still get paid for it or whatever you just Waltz in here.
And then, you know, half-assed your your job that you really
don't care about Waltz out and then cash that paycheck boy.
You don't forget to cash that paycheck.
May, you just exploiting the company in the company?
He's owners. What's wrong with you?
That's terrible. You just using the you don't
love me. This is horrible.
I'm not even loved. So I didn't say in that we
didn't vote on how you could spend the money.
You greedily just said, I'll say I get my whole paycheck.
I'm going to spend some here and spend some stop shopping at this
place. One of the main things is that I
think the only accurate system is original.
Voluntary contract, voluntary exchange anarcho-capitalism.
So I think we really have a solid foundation there with work
of Hans Hapa and didn't just a everyone else.
So a follow-up to this is how do we make status bear the cost of
having a bad idea. So they can, if you're a farmer
who thinks dancing will grow food, instead of planting seeds.
You're going to bear the cost and you'll be able to see
immediately, but if You're just a socialist who has no problem
cheering for Hugo Chavez like Sean Penn did and Noam Chomsky
and Michael Moore. They didn't bear the cost of
anything. How do we make socialist
stateís, conservative men Arcus? How do we make these people?
Bear the cost of their bad ideas to create a disincentive for
them to believe in them and Advocate them?
The. There's only two ways.
There's the violent way in the nonviolent way.
The violent way is that is to talk about some nonviolent ways
for peace. Well, I just mean resisting the
taxation that funds them. Right?
That's the vibe. That mean self-defense.
That's that's the Violet way. The nonviolent way would be to
go Galt. Like you stop letting the
looters have access to your productivity.
Like if you're one of the people that is productive.
Find ways to to stop letting looters in your life.
Don't also, there's tons of social answers to this question.
Don't associate with people that are looters.
I use the looter the term looter very pejoratively like, Ian, ran
did. These are these are disgusting
people that are leeches. They just live off the, the
effort and the productivity of the engines of the world.
So to speak. Don't associate with them.
Don't don't Allow them in your community, your Circles of
friends. Like there's power and social
ostriches a shin is what I'm trying to say like in the same
way that the left is so good. At hashtag canceling, people
that they disagree with. Well that's functional because
it works humans care about being parts of communities and being
parts of groups of people around them.
And so there's power to modify people's behavior through social
social behavior social. Real changes, I guess what I'm
saying. I was I had a relationship, I
thought was on the rocks. It was just a friendship.
So I tried throwing a nuke in there because she was really
pissing me off one day. I said, you know, I really think
I can only hang out. This is actually a real story.
I said, you know, I really think I could only hang out with you.
If you pay me what you believe is the mandatory living wage of
$15 an hour because it's so much work to spend time around you.
And here she is thinking, I'm joking and I said no, it is a
literal work. So I just need a living wage.
Unless you don't want me to be alive and you are stopping me
from engaging in my right to have a living wage.
You really have to hold their feet to the fire.
Trust me. They will do it to us at any
point. They get.
I had a little sneaky Progressive psycho, really pull
this on me. She goes.
Well, technically, what you're engaged in is a violation of the
voluntary contract you have with this owner and it was so
trivial. Imagine, you know, someone Says,
you can't think bad thoughts when you're in this church?
And you think a bad thought or something.
I don't want to get into exactly what it is, but it was using a
3D printer. So she was so ready to use my
own ideology against me when it barely applied?
Only technically that, I think we need to start literally
putting it in their face. What was the other one?
I had owed to just really say like like with the passion and
bitch re all that they will call us racist for?
No reason with we should literally say You never got our
vote to make that video. You never got our Collective
permission to make that sign and to have this opinion or, you
know, molyneux's great against me argument.
So you want to put me in a cage for not chipping, in for the
welfare state of the Warfare State?
And if I resist, you'll have me killed in front of my daughter,
of course, right? That's what you Advocate.
I just want to make sure we're on the same page with what our
relationship really is. So, I mean, those are things Has
anything else come to mind as far as peaceful mechanisms to
make statist bear the cost of their bad ideas?
Immoral ideas. Not just the only thing I would
add is just on the end of that, just healthy heaping load of
just discussed at the person. Like, that is just like I, I I'm
just so disgusted by people that think it's okay to use threats
to get what they want. I'm just so disgusted by people
that think they can point guns, at people to Rob them in the
street and you don't realize it. Whoever you are.
You're doing that exact same thing.
That is disgusting. Violent Thug Behavior.
Stop it. I don't want to know you if
that's how. If that's the type of person you
are. That's, I mean, that kind of
language helps. I could dance.
It does. Yeah, that's what Iran called.
The argument from intimidation. Anything that shows disapproval
not, like I'm Gonna Hurt You, intimidation anything that
shows, just disapproval God. I can't believe the dementia
patient in the white house. That's who you support.
Oh my God. Goodbye.
I can't even talk anymore. So something like that.
Couple more Stalin quotes that. I just want to ask your opinion
on the basis of the relations of production, under the Socialist
system, which so far has been established.
Only in the USSR is the social social ownership of the means of
production. Here.
There are no longer exploiters and exploited the goods produced
are distributed according to labor performed on The
principle. He who does not work, neither
shall eat. Well, look at that.
The labor theory of value is you only get it if you worked for
it. So in other words, all welfare
is a legitimate because they don't work for it.
That's litter. That is Page 39 of dialectical
and historical materialism by Stalin.
I mean that contradicts I'm a little bit mind blown right now.
I've never heard that quote before, but that's a
contradiction of so much. Wow.
Yeah, and I promise, I've read the whole thing.
I'm not taking it out of context.
So yeah, but but that's of course how you justify the
gulags and forced labor. Well, you have to or or you can
eat anyone who doesn't pay their fair share in taxes, you know,
excetera you could just take the same logic there.
Yeah, but so is, so if you have to work either way, then where's
the exploitation in a voluntary company wage labor job, like
you're still working and not eating if you don't so that,
that just eliminates that as an option for exploitation because
in both locations, you're working.
And if you don't work in, either location, you will not eat.
There's, there's something about the mindset of really caring
about incentives. So, if they'll say, oh the
business, Owners out for profit but the state does it for the
greater good. So even before you've even cared
about, you know, whether its moral and the benefits reaped.
We already have the good people, the state doing it for everyone,
very caring for the collective and then greedy selfish
individualist, even though the amazing thing is that everyone
seeking their individual interests while working
voluntarily ends up complementing each other.
So the only way you can earn a lot of money is by placing a
Number of consumers. Yeah, and I think a good book
and for the discussion is just to remind people that communes
can exist in a capitalist Society because
anarcho-capitalists refused to control people.
However, in anarchic in a communist Society, in a Marxist
Society capitalists cannot exist because the Marxist will coerce
them out of their property. If they use it in a way, they
don't like Like so in terms of which is more moral.
Well, how about the one that respects consent?
I think that is I think that's a good maybe final thing for me to
say on it. Excellent, Patrick Smith of
disenthrall. Thank you so much for your time.
And thanks to everyone for watching.
Keep my don't tread on anyone and the libertarian Institute.