If you believe a majority of 535 people have the right to
coercively rule, 330 million strangers.
You do not believe in equality. Welcome to Keith's night.
Don't tread on anyone. This is the libertarian case
against General claims of inequality and the case for real
libertarian equality. It's important to remember that
the existence of inequality does not justify violence.
For example, you are a one percenter if If you make thirty
two thousand three hundred and fifty dollars per year and live
in the United States. Now, when people talk about the
1%, they generally only refer to a geographical area consisting
of Americans in the year, 2019, which is odd.
Considering it's probably the wealthiest place on Earth,
probably, the, the wealthiest country and that doesn't account
that doesn't apply to 95%. Of the populace.
If, this is really they care about equality.
You cannot have one standards for Americans and a different
standard for non-americans. It's no different than having a
standards for whites and a standards for Hispanics and a
standard for Asians. We have to have one principal
standard if we believe in equality by definition and just
because you are a thousand times wealthier than someone in Haiti.
I am so sorry for that person in Haiti.
I really hope we can export some copies of free to choose and
bastiat the law in anatomy of the state.
And hopefully they can become wealthy as well.
They don't have the right to initiate violence against one
percenters across the world. Just because they themselves are
poor and this inequality shows up in a number of ways, even
with groups. So for example, men tend to be
80 percent of suicides, but just because that inequality exists
doesn't mean men are necessarily oppressed.
Men are 93% of incarcerated prisoners, that is inequality,
that does not result from oppression.
So the fact that inequality is something that exists exists is
not some does not mean that it's inherently unjust it.
Most likely is, the result of different choices.
Workplace fatalities. This is why men make more money
in general because they take more risk, both physically and
financially and why men are most homicide victims.
And why men are a majority of the homeless?
This is not because women are oppressing men.
This is because men make different decisions.
Now, an actual example of male. Oppression is the draft where by
law every male over the age of 18 to 40, has to serve in Banker
Wars or whatever. They're selling us at the time.
Also, just because things are unequal doesn't mean people
aren't on net better. For example.
If you look at items such as a washing machine clothes dryer,
dishwasher refrigerator stove microwave color TV DVD video,
cassette player, personal computer telephone cell phone
air conditioner. A lot of people had those in the
year 1970 and more people had them.
This is only referring to American statistics.
We're in 2005. More poor people had these then
all households 35 years prior. So in just 35 years, time people
had a drastic improvement and the standard of living is also
important to notice a washer and a washing machine.
In 1970, is not nearly as nice and up-to-date as one, and two
thousand five or a TV that is technically color.
So, these things are not only cheaper.
They're not only available to more people than they were
before hand. There of higher quality, in
every case. Especially cell phones.
Take take cell phones. For example.
Another way that we see inequality is in viewership.
So for example, Real Time with Bill Maher, has 1.7, 6 million
subscribers on YouTube. I have quite a few less.
I haven't checked recently. He has 781 million views on
YouTube. Now, that is that, of course, is
ridiculous that people watch absolute nonsense get Thing in
return, except cultural Marxism and logical fallacies, but hey,
you know, if they want to watch that, it's terribly unequal
because he has so many more subscribers than me as like 99
times the subscribers that I do. So, the fact that this
inequality exists does not justify me saying government
there's any quality, therefore, you should force his viewers to
watch my channel and if any of Those viewers are caught
watching his channel, put those viewers in jail and shoot them.
If they resist, it is fundamentally, no different than
the inequality of wealth that they say well too many people
shop at Amazon. So instead of Bezos getting the
money government needs to take the money, give it to me and
shoot everyone. Who resists, well, look at the
great champions of inequality standing for the masses, The
Young Turks. Point, five million subscribers
and four point nine billion with a be views on YouTube.
Don't, they believe in equality? Shouldn't that number be much
closer to the couple hundred thousand that I have.
I mean, these these people really support any quality along
with secular talk, 624 million views, seven hundred and fifty
five thousand subscribers. The majority Report with Sam
Cedar 282 million views. Seven hundred and eight thousand
subscribers and this also applies to their Twitter as
well. Sam Cedar has 125.
Thousand followers on Twitter. Kyle has 224,000 Bill Maher, 11
million, Barack Obama. The champion of inequality, the
man coming to bring peace among the races. 110 million followers
on YouTube on Twitter, rather and On Turks 389 thousand,
Twitter followers. These are the champions of
inequality, yet. They have the most unequal
distribution of views and followers.
You can imagine think of how How much of a power differential
that creates if they want one of their thoughts heard, they tweet
it and millions of people hear about it.
When I want one of my thoughts heard, I complain for 23 years
on all platforms and maybe I get a thousand people.
So, I mean, if these people really believed in equality,
they would believe in forcing their viewers and followers to
follow me and to subscribe to me and of course, they'd have to go
to jail if they resisted but Quality, this is nothing.
This is what we'd expect to happen.
When there is, you know, a degree of Freedom, look at how
people when they are free, choose to sleep with who they
want to. There's no equality and things
like this. Look at the inequality of looks
that people have we would never expect in any, you know, semi
st. Society for things to be equal.
We'd expect radical degrees of inequality.
Oh look some people. Our fat, some people are in good
shape, therefore inequality exists and the state should step
in and violently oppress one group to assist another.
Well, no, just because inequality exists, doesn't
justify initiating violence. If you want to help the
overweight people, by all means do it to the best of your
ability, but don't initiate violence.
If you look at the inequality in authors between Krugman,
Stephen, King JK Rowling. Well, they were so much
inequality. They have probably Billions of
of readers between the three of them.
And I, let's say have a little bit less than billions of
readers of the articles that I've written.
This is something we totally expect.
This is not the fault of capitalism, blaming capitalism
or Freedom, or free markets for inequality is like, blaming ink
and paper for the any unequal distribution of readers that I
have versus JK Rowling. What?
Freedom Does is it reveals this inequality that exists in
between us? Another case of radical
inequality is people with great singing voices people with great
acting abilities, people that are very popular and some people
are not popular. It's a very similar distribution
to the top 0.1%. Well, what percentage of people
are as famous as Adele Beyonce, Kim Kardashian, Taylor Swift and
Kylie Jenner. Well, for the Reason, we see a
drastic amount of inequality and income.
We would also see the same amount of inequality in all
these other aspects of like can consider Sports.
No one's as rich as Jeff Bezos. Therefore, he got it unjustly.
Well, no, no one's as good as Michael Jordan or Tom Brady or
Derek Jeter. If.
So, there's like two or three others and there's a couple
people who are as rich as Jeff Bezos, but these inequalities
that arise when people are free or not something to, you know,
hate and be bitter about their something to him.
Embrace and love about the diversity of the world.
What percentage of comedians, or what percentage of people are as
funny as Chris Rock, Jerry Seinfeld and Brian Regan a
microscopic percentage. So yeah, that's why you see a
microscopic percentage of people have most of the wealth and the
same way, the a microscopic amount of people have the most
amount of attention when it comes to Comedy or movie
directing James Cameron, Martin, Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino.
Percentage of people can write and direct a movie as well as
these guys can. Of course, not consider,
Alexander Graham Bell, Alexander Fleming, Einstein, Hawking
Tesla. These are all Geniuses who have
a great deal of inequality with the rest of the human race.
Now, look at all those examples of inequality and just realize
one that just because they're unequal doesn't justify the
state initiating violence against them to give more More
to me. Because as we saw earlier, we
can still benefit in societies that are free relatively free.
And unequal. You have to recognize that
genius comes in many forms. Some people are really good at
football. Some people just really know how
to get the price of oil down to really, really cheap.
Some people know how to get the price of books, down drastically
and create access to millions of books.
People otherwise wouldn't have had if all they had was One
Barnes and Noble and a local bookstore.
Some people like Sam Walton and Steve Jobs are just really good
at getting iPhones in the hands of the masses, Sam Walton really
good at getting a lot of products and services and
offering tens of millions of low-skilled people entry-level
job. Such as myself, that I was
grateful to will work at Walmart when I didn't have much
experience. So genius comes in many forms
for the same reason, we see drastic and equality and all
those other aspects of life. We of course, would expect to
see it's not some thing that's, you know, oh, this is uniquely
capitalist. This is uniquely a result of the
free market. This inequality is what happens
when people in breaks any sort of degree of Freedom.
Now, it's important when we get to the state and in discussions
about government. Well, if inequality is so bad,
wouldn't that apply also to the state?
I mean, isn't it pretty unequal that the state gets a monopoly
on guns? That if they hear about other
people having the guns, they get to raid.
The Church of people who buy rumor.
Have some of these guns. And then when they kill a bunch
of people inside, it's not called a mass shooting or
something. We need FBI control as a result
of it. It's just considered.
All there was a Siege and fire erupted.
Oh, this was something terrible. Yes, the ATF initiated the
conflict, but where is the equality in saying?
It's Uh, okay, when government does it, it's really bad.
When the Vegas shooter does it when these people do it?
Well, that's them enforcing the law.
But if something happened at Sandy Hook, or or an El Paso,
Texas, oh, that's something. So terrible.
Wounded Knee Massacre take that. Well, that's government.
If people really embraced a quality.
They would say, well, look at all the Terrible Things
government has done. Therefore.
We need gun control for the government.
Of course not. They have one standard for one
group. A different standard for another
group. Here's another case of
government inequality that the leftist who really support an
equality should be focusing on. There was a law by Franklin
Roosevelt. Aoc's.
Favorite President that he just confiscated the nation's gold
like overnight by writing words down on paper.
What percentage of people have the legal right to confiscate
gold from millions of complete strangers by Force and cage
them. If they resist handing over
their gold, isn't that unequal? I mean, isn't it pretty unequal?
That he can just write words down on paper and put a hundred
and twenty thousand people in FEMA camps.
I'm sorry, re-education camps up, but FEMA camps, those things
would never exist. Government, would never put
people in internment camps against their will that that
appears to be a great inequality in society.
Also, How is it terrorism when some radical islamists do it?
But this is just engaging in war and foreign policy and all this,
you know, fair in Love and War. How is this not terrorism.
How is this not mass murder. This is like, every mass
shooting that's ever existed in America took taken place within
like three days. Totally aiming at civilians,
isn't it? Also, isn't it?
Unequal that government gets to draft people.
I mean, it gets to engage in forced labor.
Now, of course, it's under the guise of Selective Service and
mandatory public assistance and all this other stuff.
But if we really want to embrace a quality, we can't say
government has the right to engage in forced labor against
the will of men, but everyone else has to act voluntarily.
If you believe in equality, the draft is a legitimate.
Also, if we're just talking about, you know, the Koch
brothers, got billions of dollars.
I just saw an article Amazon got, eleven point, two billion
dollars last year alone. How greedy, how terrible?
Well, Amazon, and Walmart in the likes have done more for the
poor than all other government programs.
Combined also government got four point seven, four six
trillion dollars last year alone.
What? How many organizations get four
point seven trillion or around four point seven?
Million, and as we discussed earlier, it's not just like well
some people get more than others government has a completely
unique way of financing itself through Force as opposed to
everyone else. Who if corporate if Amazon can't
get money from me voluntarily. Well, they don't get any money.
Blockbuster couldn't get any couldn't get enough money
voluntarily. So they went under government
just takes it by force. That's why so much of what they
produce is garbage. Compulsory education.
Is it fair? Is it equal will the proponents
of equality? Say the Catholic church has the
right to force kids to go to school and has the right to
force parents to fund the schooling because it's for the
greater good of the children or does the state does government
have a monopoly on forcing you to fund education and forcing
kids to attend? The education that the state
provides isn't this unequal. What if the Koch brothers?
Ed, you have to give us money for Coke University and your
kids have to attend Coke University for the greater good
of the public well-being. Well, of course, you would say
that that's totally unequal. Isn't it unequal that this group
of people gets to make laws that 330 million strangers have to
abide by or they get caged. Even if the laws were made a
century ago, by people who you nor your grandparents or
great-grandparents ever voted for You still have to abide by
their rules. Is that equal?
How many organizations can do that?
Isn't that embracing inequality helmet?
What? Percentage of people have the
right to initiate taxes? Another words?
I would just tax people, 1% a very modest one percent and then
retire and buy up. I hear a little Saint James
Island is going on the market soon.
I would only collect money by taking 1% of your income.
Killing all those who resist. And I would spend it back into
the public, which would grow the economy according to Krugman.
So it's legitimate. Of course, if I can't initiate
taxes, if I can't force people to pay taxes.
Well, then I can't vote for someone to do it on my behalf.
So if I don't have the right government doesn't have the
right saying. Government has a monopoly on
taxation is unequal. How about the social contract?
If governments all about equality in the Crusaders, for
equality, really cared about any quality?
Would they recognize that government you that in this
social contract of government? If we take, for example, a tax
protester, like, mr. Schiff here, who didn't who
recognize that paying money to criminals.
Engaging in a moral actions is unjustified.
So we didn't do it. Well, he went to jail.
Why is that? Okay?
No, it's okay because there's a social contract.
Yes, you have to pay but in return you get protection from
the government. Well, what happened on 9/11 or
rather September 12. Did government disband did
people Sue government and government have to give us all
money for not protecting us know.
So if you don't pay government puts you in jail, if Government
doesn't hold up their end of the contract, their budget increases
radically, and They get to spy on everyone and the
military-industrial complex gets even more power than it.
Previously, did isn't that unequal, but the social contract
between two parties only applies to one.
Well, there was an official case about this in 1981, Warren V
District of Columbia is an often quoted District of Columbia.
Quote court of appeals case that held that the police do not owe
a specific duty to provide Police Services to Citizens
based on. The public duty doctor.
In another words, they just have to give a general sense of
security. Ah, well, even that they don't
uphold. Because in civil asset
forfeiture alone. They take more money by force
from peaceful people, then all the robbers in America.
So it's not even clear that they provide a general sense of
security and if you believe in equality, that means that any
security company that provides security has the right to tax.
People and regulate them and forced people to fund them
because you know in exchange they get their security
services, but of course not we realized morality applies
consistently. How about the Federal Reserve?
How about one group of people by a law made in 1913 by Woodrow?
Wilson have the right to print, the nation's money supply and
have a monopoly on determining interest rates.
Isn't that unequal? Why is that inequality?
Believe on currency production. Isn't that unequal?
The leftist again are out saying, we need the government
to have a monopoly on AR-15s. They're not saying they
shouldn't exist. They're saying only the state
should have them. That is quite literally.
Probably the most unequal thing you can do is, give one people a
monopoly on Firearms. It's not just like automobiles,
or you know, if Twitter was a monopoly on.
Social media, we have as inconvenient as that would be
you could still do other things but look for the same reason,
the Hells Angels don't have the right to monopolize AR-15s.
The mass murdering State doesn't either apologies to any Hells
Angels watching for comparing your organization to something
like the government. So, in short, The Wrong Enemy is
the rich or the one percent. The actual enemy is anyone who
achieves their ends violently or through the state?
As opposed to people who acquire their ends, acquire products,
and services voluntarily. This is the true divided in
society. Not rich versus poor, not
American verse Haitian, not white versus black not old
versus young, its people, its voluntourism verse violence.
So in libertarianism the natural law, equality.
And rights would be everyone has the exact same rights.
No one has any more or less? Rights, then anyone else since
rights are not created by Humanity, that's important to
recognize if right. Scan rights.
Cannot be created only delegated in in certain situations, based
on the consent of the rights Haver.
So if I don't have the right to do something, government doesn't
have the right to do it on behalf of, well, they represent
me if I don't have the right to tax.
I can't vote for government to Tax on my behalf.
That is what Mark passio the author of this image means when
rights cannot be created by Humanity because they observe
exists objectively and inherently in nature.
No human being or group of human beings is actually capable of
granting rights to anyone else. Nor is any human being capable
of revoking such rights from anyone else?
So in short the libertarian says we are all equal no person has
the right to initiate violence. Against anyone else?
Thank you for watching Keith Knight.
Don't tread on anyone.