Sometimes power is Right. Sometimes power is wrong.
Always and everywhere, power defines and is defined by what
you should think do. And say, if you wish to
flourish. This is the only sure way to
know whether you are a dissident or a collaborator.
Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone.
That is a quote from our guest today.
Mr. Curtis Jarvan. You can check him out at gray,
mare. Dotsub stack.com sir.
Is that the best place to find your work?
That is the best place to find my current work.
You can Find my archives of my old blog which is a very large
amount of material and unqualified Dash.
Reservations dot-org. I'm actually also my sub stack
is currently although this will probably change accessible
through the sub stack a homepage.
I'm Number 15 in politics. The, you know, I don't expect,
I'll stay on that page, but you can find me from there for right
now. So so yeah.
Thank you for having me on. And happy to talk about whatever
you whatever it is. You want to talk about.
You wanted to talk about Hans Hermann.
Hapa was that one of the goals, but I'll let you, I'll let you
lead here. So I'm going to clip this into
three separate videos. I want to start off with a
discussion on Democracy. The God That Failed a collection
of works by Hans hop up and he opens up talking about time
preference. What is the important of
importance of Time preference. Well, you know the thing is if
you know, if you know meets us, of course, you know, I expect
you know, I don't know your podcast well, but I expect most
of your listeners are Libertarians and it certainly
sounds like a Libertarian podcast.
So if you know the thinking of Muses and rothbard, you know,
the course of the concept of time preference, you know, this
is really a my season kind of core Austrian economic, you
know, definition and Essentially, if you have low
time preference, you're willing to say there's a test actually,
the sometimes given to Children which is a test of pride of time
preference, which is do you want one?
Marshmallow now or two marshmallows in an hour?
And the kid who can say I want to marshmallows in an hour is
more likely to go on to be a nefarious, International Banker.
Yeah. Or more generally.
More likely to succeed in life or you know, this this thing
that we call life these days, right?
So so that's time preference and you know time preference, of
course indicates your ability to you know, sort of prefer the
future, you know, to the present or discount, the future less
than others. Might now one way to understand,
you know, the role of time preference in a like The way you
use a piece of property is, let's say you rent a car.
In a sense. You don't really care what the
condition of that car is in a year or six months.
You care that it not fall apart while you're driving it, and you
not get billed for anything. So, you know, no one has ever
changed the oil in a rented car ever.
And that's what that demonstrates is.
It demonstrates the benefits of ownership for the property.
See that is owned. You want to be controlled by
someone? If you're a car.
Just imagine for a second you're a car.
Try to kind of compose yourself. Think like a car.
Do you want to be a rented? Car?
Answer is no, do not want to be a rented car, because the person
who drives the red a car is like who gives a crap, right, you
know, and and so that's that the experience of being a rented car
is a fairly rough one. When you're basically controlled
in a way by people, who don't really care, what happens to
you. They have more and more of an
incentive to essentially behave in ways that indicate High Time.
Preference High tunnel preference being bad.
They basically want to like, you know, treat you like a car that
they just stole enjoying, you know, got to Joyride in for a
couple of hours until the gas ran out.
And then the You know, the key expired or whatever, right?
And and you know, those cars are not treated very well.
And so the analogy of that that's interesting is when you
say, okay? And this is a very simple
comparison that Hapa makes let's compare.
And in some ways, it doesn't really compare very well to
Modern situations because of the reality that our system of
government is more an oligarchy than a democracy, but let's
Compare very, very pure democracy, where you elect a
president with absolute power. Every four years compared to
electing a king with absolute power every four years.
So, the amount of power over the government, though, the men of
power over the country, that the government has is exactly the
same. And actually, the structure of
the thing is exactly the same, the monitor, the Monarch is just
elected, you know, for four years versus being hereditary.
Terry, right. So the Monarch who is elected
for four years. Let's say you could be real
elected for another four years. I don't know where I got that.
But the that Monarch basically has high time preference because
his incentive is to treat the country like a car that he's
rented for four years. Whereas, to the Monarch and
especially to the hereditary Monarch.
The country is much more like this prized family.
The heirloom that has been in the family for centuries and
will be in this family for another Century.
So, you know who is likely to plant a tree that's going to be
a beautiful tree in 50 years. Is it going to be the Monarch?
Whose like, I might not live to see this, but I might know my
kid, you know, probably well or is it going to be the guy who's
only there for four years? And so that was a very, you
know, seeing that kind of argument, you know, in Hapa
really like it sort of transcended libertarianism for
me. No in a number of ways, but as
you see, it's built on this core, a Libertarian concept,
makes sense. Yes.
Now if I am looking at the Monarch versus the president, at
least, I a member of the proletariat class have some
leverage against the president. He fears that I will vote him
out or as the Monarch can just say, screw me.
What is hop has General response to how public opinion can sort
of change? The Of politicians, whether they
be presidents. I'm sorry, owners or temporary
caretaker. Well, you know, two things.
One thing is when you look at public opinion in that sense,
you're looking at it as an independent variable and an
independent variable is to say, this is an ultimate cause this
is not caused by anything else. Now in a world where you know,
you're sort of definition of public opinion may vary in.
Various ways in how that's sort of defined as an interesting
question, but if we identify a force over, which there are
levers, and there's sort of a clear path of control or the
force changes in a predictable way.
We can essentially say, well, you know, this is not an
endogenous force. And one of the things that we
see certainly in the 20th century is, we see that it's
generally fairly easy for. Government by controlling or
not. Not just a government, but more
broadly of force by controlling the press that gets into
people's heads, can control their heads and does control
their heads. And so the result is, if you're
in a situation where public opinion is sort of no longer an
ultimate cause then you're just like that's like saying the, you
know, who's really in charge the Electoral College because they
allow Like the president. Well, we all know that the
Electoral College is a bunch of doofuses and they have no
discretion or whatever. They're just, you know, they're
to like, you know, put it on their obituaries or something.
Right? It's a completely meaningless
role, you know, but technically, if you look at the process,
yeah, they picked the president. The president is in charge of
the military. There are four, you know,
theoretically, they could get together and do a coup, right?
We could have, you know, the Electoral coo like, you know,
kind of this kind of, you know, people are a lot of people are
talking Koozies days. This is kind of a dark horse
that comes out of nowhere, right, you know, the Electoral
College strikes turns out they've been in cahoots all
along, you know, like they have ties to everything right, you
know, the rush Shields are in bed with the electoral college,
right? Um, yeah, I mean the thing is
that to say that the public is in power, is not really
meaningful unless it's sort of actually has that power in any
clearer sense. Since and there are many, many
indications that it's not only, does it not have that power for
structural reasons. It has the structural reasons
that it doesn't have that power exists because it doesn't really
have enough energy to have power if that makes sense.
And so the thing is that, you know, once you say, well, this
is not an once, public opinion is not an Ultimate Force, but
you look at him it empirically. And you're basically like, here
are the mechanisms by which Public opinion is guided
informed out, you know, which is of course the standard
perspective of the Press today. I mean, everybody reads Walter
lippmann's public opinion from 1922 in journalism school,
right? You know, they know perfectly
well, that there's a sort of neoplatonic kind of Guardian of
the public thing that you know, is supposed to be carried on
what we've seen that degrade into especially in the past few
years or arguably even the past few weeks.
Is, you know where the Guardians of the state now, and I'm really
going to enjoy it watching, you know, this system, turn into any
kind of negative cognitive comment about, you know, our
president trying to Joe or his wife.
Dr. Jill. You know, it's gone into
harassment, right? It will turn into hate speech,
like if you say, dr. Jill or doctor Professor, you
know, Frau Professor. Dr. Joe right, you know, and
some kind of, I mean, that's like, I mean, I imagine if I did
that about, Protected class, right?
I mean with that same expression that would be horrifying, right?
And so it's really easy to just sort of transfer that kind of
protection from mockery sort of ultimately to nominal Government
powers. And at that point sort of it's
very easy to see. Like the mask is very hard to
put back on. So, you know, that's one of the
reasons I'm so providing but you know to to get back to that.
So you're basically saying, So, you know, okay, this President
is accountable and that's kind of an empirical question that
can be stated. Are they in any way accountable?
You know, what you would say of the Monarch is, you know, how
is, how is the absolute monarch accountable?
Or how do they, how do they feel accountable?
Number one? These were all religious
motherfuckers, right? You know, they were fucking
religious. And so they thought that God,
like existed in was there. They believed in God and did
they consider themselves accountable?
God. Yes, absolutely.
When you look at like the great, you know, dictators of the 20th
century, you know, they Hitler's the Stalin's, the FDR's, they're
all atheists and, and, you know, like, really.
I don't, you know, FDR that's debatable.
Right? I'm not sure if he was an
atheist, but, you know, the but I would like my looking into it.
Like he would never come out and say that he was an atheist.
But I think Frances Perkins as Secretary of Labor was like,
yeah, Franklin base. Luckily only believed in himself
as to Stalin and Hitler. There's no question about that.
Right? And so, you know, that's a sort
of accountability that, you know, if you feel accountable
you are incredible. It doesn't have to be like, you
know, oh I'm doing this, you know, but it's not real.
So God would strike wouldn't isn't going to strike me down
with a bolt of lightning. So I'm going to do whatever I
want. Feeling accountable is entirely
enough, you know, the second, you know thing that of course,
you know these monarchs Are is they're woven into this Social
Web of accountability, which is very, very deep.
And so, you know, they feel accountable to their families in
this kind of very deep futile, kind of way.
Do I think that a hereditary monarchy?
Is the absolutely best way to do this?
No, I think that there are arguably better ways to do it.
That are sort of shape more a little more, like, corporate
governance, you know, but that's sort of tricky to transpose that
to The Sovereign layer, but that's That's that's sort of
where you're sort of going. I think, in a 21st century,
absolute monarchy, but, you know, of course, again, you know
to, you know, and so the theory of public opinion, holding, you
know, sort of the president responsible requires the
president to actually be in charge of the government, which
is very much, not the case. It requires public opinion to be
and an ultimate cause which is very much, not the case.
So you have this thing, which is mainly a cardboard mechanism and
that's why I don't really believe in it.
There was a really interesting part where he says that
democracy can actually increase the amount of power that the
state has which at first just blew my mind, but now makes
total sense. Of course, the explanation is
owing to these restrictions regarding entrance into
government and the exclusive status of the individual ruler
and his family as king and Nobles private government.
I meant ownership monarchism stimulates, the development of a
clear class Consciousness on the part of the Govern public and
promotes opposition and resistance to any expansion of
the government's power to tax. So, from that, I get the, he
calls it, the elimination of the distinction between the rulers
and the ruled that if you see the Monarch as a guy ruling,
you, you're less likely to Grant him power.
Whereas if he is an extension of you Bonaparte has Or something
like that. Well, then you're much more
likely to let him get away with atrocities.
Whereas you otherwise wouldn't am I reading that accurately.
Well, I wrong. Yeah.
Yeah, I would I would I would, I'm not sure I would agree
necessarily with cops sense of causality there.
You know, I think he pleat and who is a French, Victorian
writer, you know, put a very well when he said that, you
know, democracy issued every man with with, with a, with a, with
a ballot, a nap. Sack in a musket and you know,
it it drafted them into armies as it.
And so, you know, I would say that one of the causes of the
expansion of the State under, you know, even even bonapartism
which is a sort of interesting transitional form in a number of
ways. Certainly, when you see as what
another political scientist, Katana Muska called the
political forum. You see, when you see democracy,
what you're seeing is sort of not as a kind of political
mechanism. But as an ideology, what you're
seeing in a democratic ideology is it says there's power flowing
from you to the state. Right?
And it's very easy to say. Well, this is actually I'm you
know, once you have the sort of the theory that I am in power
over the state, you're basically like you're like, oh yes, that
is the purpose of this wire. This wire is for me to base.
Basically, exercise power over the state.
Well, actually the current flows in an entirely different fucking
direction, right, you know, and so, you're sort of sort of
hooked by your sense of ownership over it, and that
gives it a way to feel ownership over you.
And, and so, you sort of have this deeper emotional engagement
with it in some ways. And this is why you don't really
notice that it's actually much more intrusive than, than you.
I think, I mean, you know, for example, there's a great, you
know, if you want to, if we can diverging to history over theory
for a moment, you know, for all you Americans out there, who
believe in the Declaration of Independence, lovely document,
of course, but you know, there's a great American historian and
Statesman whose work is absolutely worth reading, whose
name is Thomas. Hutchinson.
He he actually had his house burned by a leftist mob in the
1770s a believes 70s or 60s. He was one of the last Royal
Governor's, Massachusetts, and he wrote this interesting piece,
which is his responses to the Declaration of Independence.
And so, basically, the Declaration of Independence if
you've read it, it's a very high tone document.
It's very, it's very gassy, you know, it's full of very large
bubbles of very, very hot and Powerful wind, right?
You And, and what Hutchinson does, which is very clever, is
he basically takes these kind of bubbles of wind and he's like,
in this letter to a friend of his back in England.
He's like, let me explain to you what these people actually mean
by this stuff, because I'll bet you're baffled and so as
essentially he goes through each of these, you know, examples of
purported tyranny, you know, and where the Declaration is like,
you know, he is obstructed, useful schemes to, you know, You
know, improve the Commerce of our nation or of our Colony or
whatever because all Massachusetts stuff, you know,
he's like, yeah, you know when I got here they had this paper
money thing that they were doing total scam.
I shut it all down or, you know, he's like, you know, he's like,
swarms of officers here. And he's like, well, you know,
like I know of since I'm sure the referring to this is, you
know, as you may know. Actually started enforcing the
anti-smuggling laws. So we needed like 20 guys.
So we have like, yeah, we have like 20 guys for like three
million people, right? You know, and like this is like
a swarm, right? So so it's really like, you
know, it's actually like he knows that what he's doing is
humorous, um, and and he intends to exploit that, you know, but
you know, as sort of a true, a true American a true
conservative your You look at this conflict and you're like,
wait a second. I must I'm supposed to be on the
other side of this conflict. And then you're like, wait a
second, which of these sides of this conflict is left in, which
one is right? Where am I in the left?
What am I doing over here on the left?
Like what? Like, you know, I'm with like
the mob violence. I mean, like, you're reading
this guy. He's a gentleman.
He's wonderful. He's a, he's erudite, he, you
know, he's very civilized and, you know, he had his house
burned down by a black lives matter mob essentially or this
18th century equivalent, right, you know, I said, are you on
here? Um, so, you know, I would I
would put that out there for all the flag wavers.
I love the flag, of course, but now Hapa talks about this is
interesting when it comes to BLM or antifa Hopper talks about the
need for Democratic politicians to appeal to the ignorant to
appeal to the envious and short-sighted voters.
This almost changes the character of the nation because
Was the leaders who seek to be on top need to appeal to these
sorts of things. They also appeal to pressure
groups, and interest groups who have concentrated benefits.
It really matters if Raytheon gets that next contract, but for
URI, I don't want them to, but how much time am I going to
spend? You know, when it's going to
cost me probably four dollars over the next year and it's
going to get them, you know, ten billion dollars.
So talks about. I agree with all these, all
these happy. Critiques, you know, the thing
that in a way I've learned since I was first exposed to these is
that Hapa is really, you know, hop as a theorist, right?
And he's absolutely right here, but he's critiquing his system
which everyone thinks use everyone thinks exists which
only used to exist. And so what he's critiquing is
essentially, you know, how in France, they have the number of
the Republic's, this is really great whenever they have a
regime change, they go from Like the third Republic to the Fourth
Republic. Yeah, it's so cool.
Right, you know and then they like skip Vichy because that's
not a republic at all or something there really should be
on number 6. But they like instead they were
just so pissed off that. They put a gap in the number,
right, you know, which he/she was a mulligan?
Yeah. I know.
It was a mulligan, right? I feel totally legitimate.
Right. But you know what you guys, your
French, whatever you could do it, right?
So in any case, you know, essentially when you read Hoppus
critique as a critique of the Can system.
What is critiquing is the third Republic?
And not the Fourth Republic because he's critiquing the pre
FDR Republic rather than New Deal America.
So one of the things that you'll find is you'll find that, you
know, essentially for a, you know, just a quick preview of my
version of post-revolutionary American History is that you
basically have three American presidents who are pretty close
to being absolute monarchs. You have Washington, Lincoln and
FDR. And each each of those regimes,
which is originally, essentially a personal regime where the Duke
can just do whatever the fuck you want sort of ossifies into
this very process oriented bureaucracy.
So, for example, kind of their America's real constitution in
the post-war era, is something you may have heard of as a
Libertarian called the administrative procedure Act of
1946. The APA essentially dictates
kind of how All the government runs and takes it out of the
hands of sort of the despised politicians.
You might have noticed, you know, one thing I always point
out to people just that you just can't explain without going off.
The map. Is you have this interesting
situation where you have these two words politics and democracy
and one of them is super good in the other one is super bad, but
they mean the same thing. So, you know, if you said you
were going to democratize u.s. Foreign policy, that would be
good. But if you were going to
politicize it that would be very bad, right?
So, But how do you have democracy without politics?
That's like something. Fuck Kim Jang.
Hoon would come up with. Yes, you know, of course, we are
no politics here, but we're completely where the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, right?
You know, they put the name in three times, right?
Just to make sure the and the fourth is just is just
geography, right. So they're Democratic Democratic
Democratic, but there doesn't seem to be any politics.
So that's an interesting 20th century pattern.
Is that, you know, and then we noticed that You know, wow, it
doesn't, you know, either Donald Trump actually didn't have any
power over the Deep state or, you know, he had power, but
didn't use it. That's really weird, you know,
and so sort of by a number of factors you realize that
essentially the same critiques of democracy that hop-up uttered
were uttered by Leading Progressive intellectuals.
In the early 20th century. You can find your find them
Woodrow Wilson, you can find them.
And Walter Lippmann, you can find them in basically, you
know, Henry Adams, you know, Charles Francis Adams, you can
find them. Basically, going back all the
way to the Liberal Republicans of the late 19th century.
Right? So, you know, this critique of
democracy is actually extremely old and when you discover it in
the present day, it's like you're robbing a tomb that's
already been robbed. Right?
Because essentially What was decided the reason we have this
Between, you know, this kind of deep spiritual thing, which is
democracy, which is the people rule man to like the mechanism,
by which the people rule politics is actually broken in
stupid and nobody believes in it.
And it's not really in charge of anything.
The way we got there is through sort of the way that the New
Deal was built up and the way FDR's kind of personal regime of
the New Deal turns into the bureaucratic oligarchy that you
know, survive. Ives after FDR's death it which
is, which is what we have now and this bureaucratic oligarchy
does essentially everything possible to separate itself from
well, democracy, in the literal sense of the word, but certainly
politics. Like, you know, let's look at,
you know, the classic Progressive Era agency, the
Federal Reserve. It's an independent agency.
What does that even mean? Where is that in the
Constitution? Right?
And, and you know, what is independent mean?
Independent means it should be a separate.
Any kind of political accountability as possible and
that is good. Right.
And and and because you basically have a government
that's entirely built on the principle, that democracy is
bad. I mean, that politics is bad,
you know, the whole system of the executive branch in the
whole way. The New Deal's is built up is
essentially built as this massive buffer against democracy
because it's built as a buffer against politics, right?
And this is why, you know, When you know things like the what
was it, the credit trying to remember the name the the
Elizabeth Warren Bureau was created the credit Protection
Bureau or whatever. They're basically like we're
going to give it its own source of revenue from the agencies
from the company's it regulates so that there's absolutely no
way to pull any strings, you know, over this and so basically
Consumer Finance Financial Protection Bureau, right cfpb,
and so they The cfpb. And they're basically, like, we
have to make this this organization as much like George
the third as possible, right? So you've come full fucking
Circle, right? Instead of one, George the
third, you have this massive oligarchy of tiny George III's.
Not the George, the third was ever actually an absolute
monarch, but that's a different conversation.
But, you know, you sort of you vastly magnified, the problem,
in all in many different ways. You know, the other thing, you
know, Hopper talks about its long time since I've read this
book, but hop, it talks about the somewhere.
I'm sure which is that the incentive of all these Petty
Kings even if their power adds up to the power of one big king,
their incentive is very different because they have no
ownership at all. It's not even they didn't rent
the car, right, you know, like, there's zero accountability for
these people by Design, because the only way to give them
accountability is to sort of return.
To third Republic, kind of Gilded, Age Robber, Baron
kleptocracy, you know, which everyone hates and so and yellow
journalism, yellow, journalism and Robber, Baron kleptocracy.
That's the third Republic for you this into a real.
And so instead we sort of need this platonic Guardian class,
which, which forms public opinion rather than that, bad
social media with all its misinformation, you know, but
the misinformation huge problem and the And and like so, you
know, this is our sort of real Republic.
So hop, is hop is critiques of sort of the old abstraction are
interesting, but those critiques in a way have already been acted
on and they were acted on in a way that created this thing.
That is sort of pretends to be the third Republic and is
actually kind of a little bit more like the Soviet Union and
if you go to Europe, you see kind of the next stage of it
really which is that the European commission is just
accountable to No, MM, European Parliament is a joke and a clown
show and like, you know, it becomes like a California
election, essentially, where politics just disappears.
And, and so, you know, because it has just no power at all over
the real government and it stops being able to pretend and what
and its last spasms, turn into these sort of weird clown shows
that aren't really connected to reality at all, which I think
are very, you know, very interesting and informative.
And I'm looking forward to a very different kind of clown
show. For the next four years.
I think that every I mean, you can't have a variety show with a
variety, right? And what is the presidency now?
So this is going to be fun. This is going to be cool.
This is gonna be interesting. I'm psyched.
All right. Next question.
If that answered your last one. Yeah.
So let's just close out on Democracy.
The God That Failed. Is there any main thing that I
missed or main point? You got from the book that you
wanted to endure anything? I think what blew my mind about
that book is that previously I had seen nations in this, very
kind of lockean, anglo-american sense, and I hadn't really
understood the world of, you know, the kind of classical or,
you know, classical international law or the natural
law of Nations. Best best, you know, best
understood and you can just go and read but tells law of
Nations. The textbook, the founders used.
It's the classic 18th century textbook, really simple and
well-written and I sort of had no knowledge of this world or
this whole like all of 20th century international law is
completely fake. Basically, it's fake and lame
and when you go back and read, you know what Hapa shows you is
this world where you're like, hey, I actually when I look at
these monarchies, I can identify them as Essentially very much,
like competing corporations. There happened to be family
owned corporations and they're competing in a world in which
ideally, in the old sort of world.
There's nothing above them international law.
Basically, before the 20th century wasn't well over a
nation. It was basically the set of
rules for by which nations themselves decided, how to
behave. But the idea of Nations being
governed by a higher power, which is, as you know, the
international Ready, which is essentially sort of Anglo
American Empire was a completely like it's a contradiction of
sort of the whole all the principles of the old system,
right? You know, and and so and of
course, you know, I mean, you know, that's pretty hard to miss
these days, right? The effects of that but it's a
sort of an effect at a deep level of principle.
And so this idea that essentially a country could be
owned that it could be understood as a piece of
property was Essentially new to me, moreover, you know, the
thing that you realize, you know, if the king owns the
country and therefore uses his low time preference to sort of,
you know, nurture and defend it as a king, should then, in a
sense. He's owning not just the land,
he's owning the people, right? And so, those people are
essentially assets on his books, whether you like it or not,
which is very different from the sort of traditional classical
liberal sense that we're all familiar with.
As Libertarians, you're suddenly like.
Wow, it's not that, it's the purpose of the government to
help the people. Do, you know, to help the people
enjoy themselves, the government actually owns the people, which
makes the people assets of the government, which means that one
of the purposes of the government is to, you know,
watch not just the land. Flourish, not just the
geographical territory, but actually the population should
flourish as well. I don't know if you've driven
around, you know, mmm. America today and like looked
out the window, you know, but I think unless outside of a few
very affluent areas would be very hard to make the case.
That what you're looking at here is a flourishing country.
Right? And so, you know, you're
basically like, you know, from the perspective of, you know, a
Frederick the great or someone, you know, the government of the
United States, gets a very poor grade from the perspective of
Premiere G. Or, you know, the The government
gets a very poor grade from the perspective of Singapore or the
government's very gets a very poor grade.
Right? And so you're basically seeing
you're looking at this thing and you're like this is getting a
poor grade and I think that one of the things Libertarians
should, you know, remember is they're looking at this system.
And, you know, when you judge like when Libertarians think
about government, they should remand power and the use of
power. What they should remember is
that they're seeing these things that they're worse because
they're seeing these mechanisms, for example, say tariffs, you
know, when you think about tariffs you think about them
being used by a basically, corrupt government in a
basically corrupt way for basically, corrupt reasons.
And so when you see a lot of this and anyone who's like
looked at like say the use of tariffs and say Latin America in
the post war, you know 20th century, anyone sort of familiar
with that history is going to be like, well, this is basically a
very Very disgusting instrument because I only see it being used
for disgusting things in disgusting ways.
And my answer to those people would be, you know, the only
problem with what you're doing here is you're looking your
sample is not well distributed because you're looking at a very
narrow piece of history that has the same problem for very narrow
reasons. And what you should think about
is not how this tool was used by Brazil in the 1970s.
But by how it was used by Elizabeth the first in the
1580s, You know, because those people are real too, you know,
and and they're just as real as been as the, you know, the 1980s
man, you know, and and that's something that I think a lot of
Libertarians forget they sort of privileged the present and the
near present above all of history.
And that's another habit that, you know, Professor help a help
break me up. So thank you.
Professor help out because that was really a that was very
reading that book. I've asked for a lot of people
was very formative for me.