Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone avoiding.
The root is a major logical fallacy this occurs when the
argue our critiques and arbitrary or accidental or
trivial aspect of an argument in place of addressing the primary
concern. So imagine if someone says you
should be forced by law to fund the Catholic church.
So kids can attend the church and become more moral from their
Teachings and more wise. And you say, I don't believe the
Catholic church has the right to forcibly take my income.
And you respond with what do you have against education?
Why are you anti learning? Well, the person wasn't against
learning or education. They were saying that a group of
people doesn't have the right to force their children to attend
or force them to fund something that they are against.
This is very important and it comes in many different forms.
It was really Exposed to me in a book timocracy.
The God That Failed by a university of Las Vegas.
Nevada, Professor Hans hop-up. He says, there were those who
recognized correctly that the problem lay with Monopoly, not
with Elites or nobility, but they were far outnumbered by
those who erroneously blamed it on the elitist character of the
rulers instead and who accordingly strove to maintain
the Monopoly of Law and law enforcement and merely Replaced
the king and the visible Royal pomp by the people and the
presume modesty and decency of the common man.
Hence, the historic success of democracy.
So, what is he getting at here? He's saying that the problem
with governments throughout history is not that.
Well, there's one guy and he has a crown, and he's only there
because his dad was there first. And there's a lot of us who
don't get a say, he's The problem that all of those things
are arbitrary, they're avoiding the root problem.
And the problem is is that one entity person or group of
persons had a monopoly right on how people should live their
lives on a geographical area on property.
They did not acquire through voluntary exchange or original
appropriation. So they had no right to make
rules. It's the difference between hear
the rules in my apartment complex versus here, are the
rules in England and its colonies.
Well, those people haven't contracted with you.
You don't own that property, justly.
So this was a major failing in in political philosophy.
People criticize the fact that there was a king who had jewelry
and they had servants and that had to go.
Now, maybe that stuff is bad but that does not get at the root of
the issue. The root of the issue is the
king initiated violence against peaceful people under the guise
of All and legislation, and funding certain Endeavors
without the consent of those people.
Now, here is how we see throughout history, a discussion
of monarchy using Google Books, & G viewer.
Now, maybe, I'm not onto something here, but maybe I am,
please let me know in the comments below.
The monarchy is not really talking about anymore because
there's not a whole lot of monarchies.
So they used to be heavily criticized in the 1800's and
Then after the first world war, a lot of monarchies had gone
down. So now we don't really discuss.
Monarchy now consider the term. Patriarchy here is a perfect
case of avoiding the route. There was a government who
claims the right to initiate violence against peaceful
people, under the guise of regulating them or taxing them
just to fund things for the greater good, or they start wars
based on lies that kill millions of people.
They cage people for victimless drug.
Times and victim was prostitution engagements or they
gamble. So they raid the place, they
take half your income through civil asset, forfeiture along
with the income tax. And what is discussed in The
American, or English culture is patriarchy.
There are too many men involved in this.
There shouldn't be a king. There should be the people that
is literally the same thing as critiquing the crown on a
person. Instead of the entity itself,
you're saying if only women engaged in such violence, it's
not violence when Hillary Clinton does it, it's not
violence when the Queen of England, does it?
It's not violence. When Golda Meir, does it yada
yada yada. Now, the king is hardly
discussed anymore. It's hardly even brought up.
So people have a new enemy. Now.
What is the problem? The problem is not that we have
some King. The problem is that some of
these lawmakers might be Motivated by racism.
This is what we need to discuss the thoughts.
In the mind of people engaging in mass murder Mass theft and
mass kidnapping, is what we need to address.
No, the problem is that that role exists in the first place.
The problem. Is that a one entity a group of
people claim the right to rule other human beings and don't
allow them to live freely. The problem with slavery is that
it involves a whip? And it involves cotton-picking
and it involves poor conditions and you work long hours.
Nope. Those are all avoiding.
The route. Those are all technicalities
around the fundamental principle with wrong with slavery.
It initiates violence against peaceful people.
It's one person or group of people claiming ownership, a
saying they have a higher claim to your body and property and
time than you do. That's the fundamental problem.
So focusing on well, the people doing this are
disproportionately male. They are disproportionately
white. So we need to focus, all our
efforts on getting women and non-whites to do these same
things under a different justification.
The problem is the issue at hand initiating violence.
Now, what about the elites who the problem is is that there are
Elites. Well, there's a lot of elite
sectors. There are Elite dentists Elite.
Doctors, Elite Architects Elite, you know, fashion designers,
there certainly is an intellectual Elite.
I mean, what percentage of people sell 99% of the books?
I don't know, like, JK Rowling, Stephen King and Paul Krugman.
I mean, that they sell what percentage of people sell the
books that are read by most people who, who purchase English
books, very microscopic percentage.
There's an Leet of those who engage in food production, those
who engage in product distribution, those who engage
in argumentation. The problem is not Elite.
The problem is that some people initiate violence against others
sexism. Oh, sexism.
Is this terrible thing, even though historically was much
worse than it is today, now is the time to talk about it.
This is what we have to focus on.
Are you a sexist? Oh sexism.
This is something that needs to be brought up today, even though
you know, men were drafted. Play today, they still have to
sign up for the draft. Men have a lower life
expectancy. Men are more likely to be
victims of homicide, more likely to commit, suicide more likely
to be homeless. But you know, sexism and Gloria
Steinem. Oh, are you a racist?
Not just engaging in racism. Let's get into the mind of the
person and focus our energies on what they're thinking.
Know that also is not the problems.
These are all distracted terms. To avoid the root problem of our
society. Some people claim the right to
initiate violence. Watch out for white supremacy.
Now, this is when the Klan is like the weakest it's ever been
and now it's being talked about more than ever before in
literature. That's that's because it's a
smokescreen to avoid the route. So they can usher in a different
rule out ruling class with a different mask on.
So you'll be like, oh this is so different.
This is not like a monarchy. This is a democracy.
This is not like the Democracy that was racist and sexist.
This is a progressive democracy and they have the right to rule
us. And of course, the one percent
even though in a year 1818 50 you had more smaller group of
people influencing Society than you do.
Now if you want to influence society and you're just the
average person. It's probably no better time
than today or maybe 10 years. Ago, with all the censorship,
but now we're talking about the, the 1% Really Waging War on the
1% is getting at the heart of the issue.
Hans Hapa continues saying owing to these restrictions regarding
entrance into government. The exclusive status of the
individual ruler and his family as king and Nobles private
government ownership, monarchism stimulates, the development of a
clear class consciousness. On the part of the governed
public and promotes opposition and resistance to any expansion
of the government's power to tax.
Another words, when there was a king, you know, who the king
was. And you knew who he ruled over
today, with democracy. It's not necessarily that much
better. Everyone says, I am the
government, really, how many laws have you made?
Can you force the government to do things against their will?
No, you're called a terrorist. Can government force you to do.
Pretty much anything. Yeah, they just call it
legislation after they voted on it.
It's so ridiculous. We are the government.
They cage you for not obeying their commands.
And if they disobey your commands, well, that's just part
of their position. How are you the thing that also
rules you? A clear-cut distinction between
the few rulers and the many ruled exists and there was
little or no risk or chance of a person moving from one class to
another confronted. With an almost insurmountable
barrier to Upward Mobility solidarity among the ruled,
their Mutual identification as actual or potential victims of
government. Violations.
Of property rights is strengthened.
So if you are on the alt-right and say people need a sense of
Community, and purpose and togetherness.
I think you should be a Libertarian who recognizes the
state as a separate violent unjustified entity.
And if you're a leftist who sees the ruling class, or the elite
look, most likely you're in the 1% of all people on Earth.
It doesn't get people in Haiti the right to initiate violence
against you. And the ruling classes risk of
losing its legitimacy. As a result of increased
taxation is accordingly heightened.
So, what is the problem? The problem is the illegitimate.
See of the state rests on the fact that it exercises control
over resources that it's agents. Never acquired through original
appropriation or voluntary exchange and it does.
So, without the consent of the rightful owners of said,
resources not men are involved. Not only one person is involved,
not there. Too many white people.
Not that demographic is too old and out of touch.
The problem is some people Advocate initiating violence
against peaceful people. Another words, what makes the
state of unique institution? Is it initiates violence against
people? The market, contrary to the
state relies primarily on voluntary exchange between
consenting adults, coercion or the initiation of force or
violence is the difference between Rape and making love
theft and charity, slavery and freedom, statism and
voluntourism. This is something referred to as
the non-aggression principle. Yes.
It's that simple. Meaning that offering your hand
out in a voluntary exchange is morally Superior to initiating
violence against that person notice.
It doesn't say everything will be perfect.
So long as you know, Trump's not an office.
It's saying this is morally Superior.
Are there going to be problems? Yes.
There's also problems under statism.
Is there going to be? Be corruption.
Yes, there's also corruption under statism.
Will people be poor possibly? But people have been poor
understate ISM going back till let's see.
Trump Obama, the fucking pharaohs of Egypt.
So blaming poverty on free markets, and voluntary exchange
makes you a fucking idiot. This is an idea promoted in
economics in one Lesson by Henry hazlitt, where he says, there's
basically two ways we can achieve our ends.
There is the economic means, the economic means is when
individuals or groups of people engage in voluntary exchange
mutually beneficial. And then there are the political
means, which is when you force someone to do something.
That's what makes government a unique institution.
Imagine Walmart voted that everyone has to give it 10
percent of their income and follow by Walmart's rules so
long as every four years you get to vote for the CEO.
This is a legitimate piece of Law, and it's so ridiculous.
That's why government is bad. This is something also promoted
in a book called the law written in the 1850s by Frederic
bastiat. Excuse me, Frederic bastiat,
author of the law in the 1850s says, there's basically two ways
to achieve your ends in life. There is the way of Liberty,
freedom and respecting others, or there is the method of
plunder. Now, it's a little sad to see
since the days of Auburn Herbert the founder of voluntourism the
word, voluntary ism is quite diminishing.
However, the term anarcho-capitalism a state
without a ruling class. And the ability to do with your
property as you please more. People are talking about that
than ever before. Notice the spike in 1960.
That's when the founder of anarcho-communism.
Murray rothbard was sitting in his apartment with Walter block
saying, you know, there might be 15 of us in the whole world.
Now, we have full conferences and YouTube channels dedicated
to the ideas. Libertarianism.
A true understanding of that word is discussed even more.
And even the term voluntourism under a different spelling is
talked about more than ever before.
Hopefully people can stop engaging in the avoiding the
root fallacy, understand that the problem, Is initiating
violence against peaceful people.
Not any arbitrary or trivial technicality about what the
current ruling class says, does or is currently up to thank you
for watching Keith Knight. Don't tread on anyone.