Hey you all its fundraising time again at the libertarian
Institute. We try not to do this to you too
often but business has been. As after all I got a great group
of guys and a gal at The Institute, I got to pay him.
So just go to libertarian, institute.org /, donate to pick
your price and help out. I've got some great Kickbacks to
books and shirts, great ones, that's libertarian,
institute.org /, donate and thank you all very much, fill
her up. We need a roll back to State.
We spy on all of our own citizens, our prisons are
flooded with nonviolent drug offenders, if you want to know
who America's Next, enemy is look at who were funding right
now. Every single one of these
problems are a result of government being way too big.
What's up, what's up, everybody? Welcome back to a brand new
episode of part of the problem, I am very happy to welcome back
to the show. One of my favorite people out
there, one of the best guys, we've got he is Keith Knight, he
is the host of the don't tread on anyone podcast and he just
released the voluntarist handbook, which is a phenomenal
book. I highly recommend everybody go
follow Keith Knight, watch his show, purchase the book.
What's up, brother? How are you?
Not much at all. But well, besides the fact I'm
still mourning today's loss with reliable sources.
Other than that, I'm doing real. Well, thank you for having me
on, you know, people say this like, yeah, people say this in
like a glib kind of tongue-in-cheek way, but it is a
genuine loss for my podcast and I don't, I don't, I don't like
that people. Yeah.
People are kind of like, oh, good riddens and all like that,
and I'm like, okay, I have to work 20 percent harder now than
I did before, whether I'd be like, what are we going to talk
about on the show today? Then someone would send me a
Brian stelter clip and you go. Well, that's 50 minutes right
there. And you know, it's just not,
it's not that easy. I know people say there's a lot
of other people who are terrible.
It's not that easy to find that perfect mix of like like
condescending arrogance while getting it completely wrong
while also just handing you the argument.
It's not that it's a perfect storm that comes around once in
a lifetime. So I really do I miss him
already. The term is smug.
No rent, I believe his smug, ignorant piece of trash who was
just so as oh gosh, I can't believe don't, you know that
this is anti-democratic when they sort of give you that when
everything starts with a sigh, I can't believe I have to continue
to explain this. That is the sort of feeling but
it's guys like Brian stelter who gave me the confidence to do.
I don't know anything. If everyone was a smart as Scott
Horton and Hans Hapa. I'd be like God I can't do
anything, but then I say oh people are willing to listen to
Brian. So Shelter.
All right, I guess I can't start a fire.
Well, I guess that's all right, same way.
I mean, I feel like, even, even like bad guys, because you get,
you know, Scott Horton and Hans Hermann table.
Okay? Those are two really strong
examples, but even like, guys, like you know, if you when you
look at like, what the TV was in the 70s or whatever, if it's
like, if it's a, you know, Gore Vidal, having a conversation
with, you know, even like Buckley to bad, guys, you know
what I mean? But at least you've listened to
that and be like, well, that's kind of daunting.
And these guys are really there. Really kind of have their shit
together but today you're like, look, I'm an idiot, but I'm
smarter than all these people so it's very easy to let me go.
I'll go do this, no problem. What a white pill that is.
I mean, it's not like we watch the president of America, huge
powerful country in the president.
Do this guy's got to be really smart and his press secretary.
It's got to be really hard to get anything past.
Whoever the secretary is, so if we want to respond, we're going
to have to get a ton of Minds together and really go through
the arguments and have books. Ready.
You could do a live stream commenting with Without any
preparation. I mean it's so ridiculous and
that is I think one of the greatest reasons we can be so
optimistic because it's that much easier to create insecurity
in the minds of the people we're trying to communicate to it's
going to be hard to you know get them to say I guess I've been
wrong for 30 years and the last thousand Facebook posts have
been totally illegitimate. That's, that's a tall order.
However, just to make them so insecure to where they sort of
like lean in to us, stop hating and sort of a accept The
privatization of everything. I think that's really where we
should go with this. Yeah, I is.
So this was a major theme on this show on part of the problem
for years, when I first started where I used to say, look, I'm
not sure that I can convince you of libertarianism or convince
you of anarcho-capitalism. Voluntary ISM, whatever you want
to call it. But I guarantee if you listen to
this show I can convince you You that the establishment is full
of shit. Like, I guarantee I can convince
you that the Democrats and the Republicans and the corporate
press all suck, like that II will I guarantee you, if you
give me just like three episodes, you'll be like, yes,
I'm sold on that. So that's where that's what I'll
start with that. Like, maybe it, maybe you don't
believe that. The, the guys, I read have all
of the answers, but I'm telling you, you can't tell me.
This guy isn't full of shit. That this doesn't make
absolutely no sense. And I rode that for quite a
while. Well, maybe I'm still writing
that, I don't know. Anyway, it's but yeah that's it.
We at least can do that. It will, there's there's so much
arrived there. I mean, I will I had a woman say
to me the other day. Oh gosh, you're an anarchist.
And what do you want of those like bomb makers?
And well, I don't know about you.
I said, okay. So you're against people making
bombs, you familiar with governments, not only making
bombs, but using them and using them on civilians, not just like
evil. Pedophiles are rapists or
anything. They actually kill civilians.
Not just the The American government.
But happening in our Mania to happening in Yemen Pakistan,
there have been Wars and Latin America.
Did you know that there was like a world war that happened two
times and it was government's murdering tons of civilians.
I mean, I know it's terrifying that an anarchist might have
your bomb, that might explode in our department, but the very
thing that you're kind of against applies sometimes to
Anarchist, but applies a thousand fucking times over to
the people who you Pledge Your Allegiance to Yeah, right.
And like, yeah, we absolutely should start Stop Those
anarchists who would be detonating bombs, but again,
it's like if your worst case scenario about an anarchist is
what states, do all the time every day then yeah it's a yeah
anyway. So okay.
So you just put out this book. The voluntariness handbook
obviously was inspired by Michael malice who put out the
anarchist handbook and you made a kind of like a more specific
version of this which is specifically about Out more our
brand of anarchism which is kind of you know, the true voluntary
assist libertarian version of anarchist.
But within that Spectrum you have voices from the left and
the right within that that area. So what for what?
For people who don't know, what is the book?
What made you want to write the book?
The book is a collection of 48 essays and to or 47 essays and
three sections of different quotes.
On certain topics, that is my attempt to give anyone who's
generally interested in politics.
The ultimate understanding of what libertarianism really is.
So the main reason that I wrote it is so I could, you know, tell
people. There are a thousand books.
I want you to read tons of Articles, tons of speeches, but
if I only had one book, what would I give them?
And I would think, you know, hazlitt's book is good, but it
doesn't explicitly Advocate voluntourism Hans Hoppus good.
But there's some things about monarchism that might turn
people off in there at the beginning.
So I said, you know what can I stop complaining and just be the
change. I want to see in the world so I
wanted. So it was really malice as book
that motivated me to what to do this.
The reason I think it was important to make this on top of
malice has excellent contribution is because the
concept of a society without a state that would be communist.
It actually would not Be Anarchist in the sense that it
doesn't respect people's right to make, voluntary contracts in
the form of exchange. Usually, it applies to labor,
but this would be sort of anything that resulted in
inequality and a quote exploitation of someone's labor.
So if you believe that Dave Smith and Brian don't have the
right to make a voluntary exchange.
What I'm essentially doing is claiming to be a ruler over you
as Well as Brian. So if anarchism is a society
where there's no rulers now, that's very different from me
saying, Brian, don't take that job from that idiot day.
If I got a much better offer come work for me, you can do it
dude. You could probably beat me real
quick. Okay, I don't like this example
anymore. Yes, okay, so Dave's hauling for
Louis J Gomez and I offer Dave a much more attractive salary.
Now we're talking. There's all these things you can
do. There's so many methods of
persuasion that you can. Was too well, get someone to
achieve your ends. With the anarcho Communists
would do is not recognize the legitimacy of that voluntary
exchange consider internships where people get their foot in
the door and they get tons of on-the-job experience.
They see what it's like to deal with customers deal with
coworkers. That is so valuable.
And that is literally labor for a little less than minimum wage,
sometimes Euro dollars an hour but they have a right to do that
anytime you're reading books or trying to research for
something. You're not necessarily getting
paid something like colleges for years of unpaid labor.
So the Communists must really be against you know going to
universities except for the fact that they control the
university. So they love they love them.
And they go, of course, want to forgive student loan debt as if
it's there to forgive, it's just so boringly predictable.
The point is, is that I think the only legitimate form of
anarchism is anarcho-capitalism because it allows people to
engage in contracts. It Is that right?
We are as the Communists would have some different set of
ruler. Not recognizing the legitimacy
of contracts between consenting adults.
So this is the ultimate case for decriminalizing capitalist acts
between consenting adults. Yeah, I think that's a great way
to put it. I the book is beautiful.
There's just so many beautiful essays in there.
It I felt like as I was reading through it, it was like bringing
me back to my roots like a Of people who know this show for
the small amount of people who listen to it.
Now, who actually listen to it. The whole way through we've
picked up some steam over the years, but for the people who
used to live at this show really started and it was so much about
just pure libertarian philosophy.
And I've as as the show is grown over the years, I've gotten much
more into like current events and the day-to-day news of the
country or what's happening in the country.
But The reason I started the show in the reason I got so
interested in all this stuff. So I was just so compelled by
how beautiful the philosophy of libertarianism is and I love
just from your opening in the book where you kind of lay out
that it's like, look there's there's this inherent
contradiction in the way everybody else use the world.
And when you say everybody else, 99% of people, you know,
intellectuals civilians. Everyone liked the way they view
the world and it's basically right.
As you mentioned, that look there is okay, we have to have a
government because if we didn't have a government then there
could be monopolies or people taking advantage of people or
all of this stuff. But at the same time we accept
that what we mean by government is a monopoly on all of the most
important services and that that this is just like this blatant
contradiction and a couple others that you go through and I
don't know why I just always found it.
So beautiful to tear apart. Those contradictions Trans and
find their the like, logical implications of of actually
believing in something and taking it to its natural
conclusion. And I still see this, you know,
I saw the other day on social media, someone was arguing, or
maybe was on a podcast. Actually, where I saw someone
was arguing about like, like, okay, Libertarians, well, what
do you mean? You're against government and
against socialism, like, what about the fire department?
If we didn't have the fire department?
Are you telling me? me, you have to pay if someone
didn't pay then their house just burns down and it's so
fascinating to see all of these kind of these thoughts come out
of people and you're like, well, okay, look, Let's just say you
believed in. Okay, the fire department
example. Well, it's not exactly clear why
that needs to be a completely socialized Monopoly for
everyone. Let's just start with something
say, something like food. Okay, is far more important than
someone putting out your house when it's on fire not saying
there. It's not important when it comes
up but you need food like every fucking day, you only need your
fire put out like very rarely, you know and you could argue
well there's food stamps in. Hey, Sandy body, doesn't have
food then we have this government program, but now
you're kind of already reduced to like okay wouldn't be the
fire department anymore. It would be like some type of
stipend for someone who can afford the fire department and
then but if you go like no one's going like, oh I can't believe
you'd want everyone to pay for food.
You'd really want someone to have to spend money but like of
course because we all just take that for granted because we do
it all of the time but you could see where if the government at a
complete Monopoly on food and someone was arguing.
Oh yeah. You shouldn't have that.
You'd go. Oh my gosh, like are you really
telling me that we wouldn't do that?
This is insane. Like, the people would just pay
for their own food. Like there's all these different
areas where you'd see that like, oh, okay now this doesn't
actually make any sense what you're arguing for and if you,
if it did make sense, then why should it just be the fire
department? We should have government
monopolies on all vital services and then when I mean what's
vital, clothes are vital shoes are vital, you know, the All of
these things. And then to just to take on the
next argument of, like the well, what about like food stamps or a
safety, net of some sort. And you're like, well, I mean
it's pretty important to have fuckin a lot of different
services that we don't have a safety net on and it seems the
more the government's out of the way.
We don't even think about it we just take it for granted that
everybody has ample access to all of these things.
I don't know any and anywhere you want to jump in on that.
So as far as well if something's privatized then the provider can
refuse service, they have a lot of goddamn nerve, bringing this
up after 376 cops sat on their asses while children were
getting murdered. Not to mention Anthony blinken
has met Sergey lavrov. I think one time since February
of this year and from what I know they didn't really discuss
a ceasefire. So as far as not providing a
service. So when government doesn't
Attacked us. Let's take two big examples.
Pearl Harbor and 911 because you are audience is mostly American.
Did government, like certainly become or all of a sudden,
become a legitimate. I mean, they didn't hold up
their end of the social contract, we have to pay and in
exchange, they keep us safe. So if they don't hold up their
end, they get more power. If we don't hold up our end,
well, we get put in a cage and shot.
If we resist George, Bush's, approval, rating, I think was
91% after he didn't keep 3000. American safe and the government
had intentionally provoked, a response through a rocky
sanctions support for Israel, through things.
Like the Khan, a massacre having bases in Saudi Arabia used to
bomb, Iraq. A lot of civilians died in in
such a thing. So, it's not a legitimate thing
to say, well, what if Government doesn't provide a service or
what if an organization doesn't provide a service, therefore the
state needs to step in the state.
So often is the Right, non service provider so it's not
like well there's money and greed in this place.
But when the state comes in, well then it's all kind of
virtuous charitable giving. Imagine that instead of the fire
department requiring payment and in exchange they don't put out a
fire. Well let's compare that to the
IRS. If you don't pay the IRS for all
the services that government claims to provide, do they just
call you and say, hey Dave Smith, it's IRS we noticed, you
didn't Say is it because you're unhappy with the service.
We're so sorry if we haven't provided a good enough service
if you want to opt out and go with someone else we totally
respect that. No they not only won't provide
the service, they won't provide it after they've confiscated
your house, put you in a cage and left your children to be
raised by total strangers in foster care because you didn't
chip in. So, in both cases, you can have
people not chipping in in the stateís case you get put in a
cage and don't get the service, and in the private Case you
might not get the service but you might have a fire
extinguisher fire departments would work like AAA works today
where most people can join for very cheap and if you don't join
an you're in an emergency, they'll help you out.
They'll send you a bill you can read.
Tom, was this book have a Catholic church built Western
Civilization Charities are very well known in the west because
people who believe in God, they see every human being as an
extension of themselves made in the image of God.
There's tons of examples. You mentioned a number of things
here as far as the beauty of libertarianism.
This is also something that I really liked because you can say
I have a philosophy about human beings.
They're rather selfish or rather self-interested, and you can
still recognize that and say, the beauty of the free market is
that it harmonizes, the interests of individuals
cooperating in such a way. So it's not that Steve Jobs
said, God, I really like Keith Knight and his family.
I'm the crate Max for them, right?
He did this in his own self-interest and I didn't buy
this Mac because well, I really like, Tim Cook the current CEO.
Therefore I'm going to chip in and help him out.
It's he wants my money and I want his service.
So it when it comes to the state, well they can just demand
any amount for any reason. It'll probably go to the banda
right azov Battalion anyways. And if I don't ship in, no cage
me. Well, that is a rather. -
disutility of arranging a society where children in
Richmond makes the point that social cooperation is so vital.
It's one of the earlier chapters and in this book that people are
constantly cooperating. So this microphone was made by a
different company than who made the USB insert that I'm using,
which is different from the Cox Communication that I'm using for
internet access which is a different company than Apple,
which is different than Zoom the platform we're using now.
However, all These people have cooperated to give us a service
for very relatively cheap. So that's an example of how
people can cooperate and give something cheap, like the fire
department and then finally, what are the most expensive
things in society? Well, the things that are most
heavily subsidized, housing, Healthcare and college,
schooling, which I refuse to call education.
The reason this is is because there's a classic saying called
he who pays the piper calls the tune, and this means that When
producers have to answer to customers and customers pay the
producers, they have to answer to customers.
You don't produce a good product or service you end up like Sears
Blockbuster Myspace A&P Grocers any of the companies that
Marxist don't believe exists that the capital is just rakes
in money. Without anything on the other
end, you constantly get this feedback mechanism of, hey, I
not only approve of your product or service.
I'm willing to bear the cost of allocating my scarce.
Money supply towards your product or service.
So the most subsidized things are the highest cost because the
producers focus on pleasing politicians, as opposed to
pleasing producers were things like cars, printers, microphones
computers routers, these of all drastically, decreasing costs
while increasing in quality. So if you care about the poor,
if you care about morality, the only system that you could
Advocate is volunteers and because it's the ultimate check
and balance. Against the evil powers in the
world, voluntourism allows people to disassociate with Bad
actors. Whereas the state says, you have
to find them no matter what. And maybe you can vote in for 6
or 10 years and you get a 1 and 5 million vote.
And there's so many mules going around.
Maybe your votes votes, not even counted Dinesh D'Souza.
Makes that case. I don't know if it's true or
not. I'm not convey this maybe but
maybe it's not even counting. Well.
I sell to Tucker Tucker Carlson just had a piece the other
night. I don't know if So that was you
know it seems to say there was some real shady shit going on in
the Georgia elections, okay, I certainly don't my default
position is that I don't trust anything.
The government says, I just haven't yet been convinced of
what the scale was in that particular event.
But okay, so there's a few things that you talked about
there that I think are right at the heart of what's so beautiful
about this whole world view. And this correct worldview, that
actually applies to real life and it's so number one.
Oftentimes, I think that At and this is partly because of like
The Chicago School and Milton Friedman nights and those types
were what they always focus on with free markets was the aspect
of competition, which is, you know, an important thing in
life, we compete and that that in many ways makes us stronger
and the fact that, you know, if there was no competition, that's
not helpful. And when there is competition,
it makes you step your game up as anyone who's ever competed in
anything. Knows, but the aspect that
you're talking about about cooperation is so much in my
opinion, so much more prevalent in Market activities.
Just no matter what you think of, you know, if you just think
about like going to the grocery store, what that actually
entails, you know, it's like like the amount of cooperation,
okay, just from the very beginning.
It's my wife being willing to go for me, okay?
So she's already cooperating with me and agreeing to go do
all of our grocery shopping. She's getting in a car, that was
built. It by not one person, but like
hundreds of different companies, when you include all of the
different pieces that are involved and who serves as it
and all that, she's going to a store where there's some
landlord who rented out this store to A Whole Foods and
they're in agreement about that. They have an agreement with a
butcher who has an agreement with a, you know, the like a
trucking company. That moves it to them there
everybody and we're all and then she's agreeing to purchase
things that every specific price.
There's so much Like so many different things coming together
that everyone peacefully, in, this harmonious fat like way is
agreeing on what they agreed to and what they don't agree to.
And then the other thing as you you touched on earlier, is that
what the market has that the government doesn't have is a
cleansing mechanism and that you know it's not just that you
signal to Steve Jobs or cook or whoever you know, is that Apple
now that you approve of them when you buy their computer?
But when companies go out of business or just have losses in
general, they get the signal that people aren't happy with
what you're doing. You're not adding value to their
life and they don't particularly feel like peacefully cooperating
with you whereas as we could really see and you used to Great
examples in 911 and Pearl Harbor.
But you know, of course, there is the example of just the
response to covid, which I don't know that just about anybody
over the last, you know, two and a half years.
This government has turned upside down.
Norm and done, you know, just completely devastated this
society and at this point you know the what is the result of
that? Well, the CDC just quietly goes.
Yeah, we're going to agree with you guys.
We're going to say, hey I guess we're not going to do all that
stuff anymore. We're just going to do it your
way and all of them still have their salaries and their
pensions, and their everything, you know.
It's like so, Liz Cheney is a good example.
The other day just got absolutely wrecked in her
primary. And I've seen some of these
people saying like, you know, well she took a courageous stand
against Donald Trump and it's like, well, okay.
I mean, yeah. I mean look, if she hadn't have
stood up against Donald Trump so much, would she have had a
better chance of not losing her primary?
I will concede, maybe that would have helped.
Courage, she has a net worth of like 40 million dollars.
She could go be a CNN contributor work at a you know
at a think tank funded by weapons companies.
She can go be the it maybe she'll be on The View as the
token conservative. Maybe she'll run for president
and just raise tens of millions of dollars even though she won't
get 1% of the vote. Like is that really courage?
Like if you, if you told me I could say something right now,
that would guarantee See, I lose my podcast audience, but I make
a hundred million dollars over the next 10 years.
And I've said it, would you go? Wow, Dave, that's courageous.
You know what I mean? Like, no, that's not really
that. Correct.
So when you see these government officials and government Elites,
they always fail upward. There is no punishment for
failure and this is right at the heart of the problem of
everything that's going on in our society right now, is that
no matter how wrong they get. It, there is no cleansing
mechanism. Where is in the market.
There are even rich people go broke, even huge companies, go
broke. Kodak was like the business in
film. They went broke, because they
made this decision that they weren't going to switch over to
digital and they were wrong and so they fucking begin.
They went from being V thing to being who cares.
Oh, you're the biggest company in film?
Okay, well no one uses film anymore.
Everyone's digital now. So, who care and And that's the
major problem here is that. There's no like cleansing
mechanism that ever claim. No matter how bad the fuck up is
you continue to be rewarded? Yeah.
Freedom of disassociation is the ultimate check and balance.
So yeah, if you care about checking checks and balances,
it's good to maybe have, you know, a senate house a
presidency, a supreme court but it's more important that were
able to say screw you to those organizations.
If If they don't do a bad job or if they do a good job, we need
to be able to associate with them and contract with them.
So yes that that's vitally important as far as Liz Cheney
goes mean, how is it called courage, when you take the
position of every Professor everyone in the media everyone
in Hollywood, the vast majority of Democrats who control the
cathedral's narrative, tons of podcasters, blue, check Twitter,
Facebook. When Zuckerberg comes out and
only says election misinformation applies to
Russian. Disinformation.
Not Hillary Clinton said 17, intelligence agencies confirmed,
Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
That was redacted on June 29th of 2017 by the New York Times so
did Facebook come out and apologize.
No. Joe, Biden on the presidential
debate stage said that 50 Intel officials not just one.
To 350 until officials confirmed.
This laptop of my son is a Russian plant.
So no problem. I mean, you just provoking a war
with a nuclear power, you know, it's not like an anarchist built
the bomb or anything. All of these things are much
more Miss informative than anything that could occur
otherwise. So yeah, the the need to
disassociate with Bad actors. So vitally important yet.
It's the one thing that the state doesn't allow us to do
Because it necessarily relies on forced Association.
Yeah. Well, 100%.
All right guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for
today's show which is true bill. Do you know why free trials?
Renew without your consent. It's a business scam out to get
you. Don't let these greedy companies
pocket. Your money download true bill
and take control of your subscriptions.
True bill is the new app that helps you identify and stop.
Stop paying for subscriptions. You don't need want or simply
forgot about on average, people save up to seven hundred and
twenty dollars a year with true bill because companies make
subscriptions hard to cancel. True bill makes it incredibly
simple. Just link your accounts with
true bill and true. Bill will cancel your unwanted
subscriptions in one tap and your true.
Bill concierge is there when you need them to cancel any unwanted
subscription. So you don't have to.
I'll tell you This is an incredible idea, I don't think
I've ever subscribed to a recurring subscription, that
I've canceled, unless I've less I've lost a debit card or
something like that, and there's a bunch of stuff that I don't
need, and I don't even know why I signed up for it.
So, true, bill, they have over 2 million users, they've helped
save them over a hundred million dollars.
Matthew be said in a matter of seconds, I saved six hundred
sixty dollars for the year on my Direct TV Bill $120 for the year
on my Sirius XM bill and I saved eight hundred and forty dollars
a year on car. Insurance, don't fall for
subscriptions. Scams start canceling.
Today at true bill.com /p OTP right now.
Go to True. Bill.com totp.
It could save you thousands a year true bill.com totp.
All right let's get back into the show.
Well let's let's take on some if we can here because obviously
the book lays out from many different angles by many
different. Thinkers like arguments and
reasoning for arriving at this conclusion that we that that we
ought to live in a voluntary a society or as close to it as we
can possibly get. So let's try to take on some of
the criticisms of voluntarism as best we can.
Let's try our best to steal, man them and and then respond to
him. So, the first one that I thought
of was the one that you mentioned at the top Which is
good is a good one to start with, because you kind of talked
about this is what inspired you to write the book after Michael?
Malice is book where you're like, well, look, there are
these anarchists left-wing Anarchist some identify as a
narco communist and of course, syndicalists different forms of
left-wing. Anarchists.
Who argue that me. And you are not really
anarchists, and if I could make their argument as strong as I
can for them, Um, I will attempt to and there is there is a
little colonel, maybe of Truth in how the what where these
words originated from, right? So Anarchy means without rulers
and hierarchy is also in the form, our key with rulers at the
top, right? So a where there are, there is
an order of rulers. So they'll say, look, if you're
not against hierarchy, Then you're really not against rulers
and therefore you people who believe that someone could be
the business owner and someone could be the business worker and
someone could be, you're really not an anarchist even though
you're against the state, you know, in some sense you're not
really an anarchist because you don't believe in ultimately kind
of like achieving these egalitarians ends, so I don't
know. Is there a better way to steal,
man? The Or what would you say?
They'll say, you're not really if you believe in the landlord
and tenant, then that's, that's still some, you know, you're not
truly an anarchist or if you believe in employer and
employee, this person still has this ability to say, will you do
this or you lose your job and if you lose your job you're going
to be destitute and blah, blah, blah eyes.
There is there. But first off, is there a better
way to steal man, that argument or and if not, what would your
response to it Bay? Hey, that's Pretty good way to
steal, man, cuz we've heard it so often, maybe I would say, the
anarcho-capitalist does not allow the individual to reach
their full creative potential because a number of
institutional barriers that exist as a result of previous
aggression, currently exist in society today, there for things
like employers, which exists because of a power.
Differential do not allow individuals to live life
unrolled there. R4 anarcho-capitalists are not
in Turkish, that's all bullshit. So, on page, 3, I have a list of
terms, just because a wise man once told me that so many
disagreements, come down, come down to different definitions of
the same term. So, if you think capitalism is
just people being greedy for money, I would be totally
against capitalism. But how on Earth is it greedy to
want money voluntarily? But the Socialist who wants to
take money by force and threatening to kg That's not
great at all. That's just caring about people.
So when I Define anarchy on page 3 in the terms section, I say,
from the Greek prefix an meaning without, or any absence of, and
the Greek noun, archon Master ruler.
Anarchy does not mean without rules, it literally means
without rulers without Masters. So the difference between
someone heavily influencing you and someone being a ruler is
simply your consent. This differentiates trade from
theft. Slavery from work and kidnapping
from hanging out with someone at their house for an extended
period of time. So if a man works and the woman
stays at home, she would be exploiting his labor because
she's not working. She's just taking a portion of
his income and spending it. And obviously College, like I
mentioned, previously, any time someone gives charity.
Well, that person didn't work and they're not obeying the
labor theory of value. So, charity has to be outlawed
Obviously, Social Security needs to be abolished and any sort of
voluntary retirement program? Well, that needs to go but as
far as are we not really an artist, I think I have addressed
that as much as I can, in my opening statement, simply We
Believe individuals have the right to contract.
The inner go, communist is not. So even though they were first
absolutely historically accurate, they were first,
imagine if the earliest math, Petitions believed three plus
three equals 55. They would have been first but
they would not have been mathematically correct.
Yes. The early.
Scientists did believe that you didn't have the right to make
voluntary exchanges. Look the bottom line is you
don't know what's best for 7 billion strangers.
I mean, look at all of the inequality that exists, I don't
know everywhere in the NBA, I'm not nearly as good as the NBA as
anyone in the NBA. And not only that with in the
NBA less than 1% of NBA players. Sell 99% of the jerseys.
It's like five or six, guys, sell 99%.
That's inequality. This is referred to as the iron
law of oligarchy. The original example that's
given by James Burnham in the Machiavelli ends is all right.
So you're sick of the Bourgeois. See these owners, horrible
people. So you are going to start a
union where you allow the proletariat to rise up and begin
equal. Force against this Boo swasey.
Nothing anti libertarian about that.
You can certainly do that. You have the right to strike.
The alternative is forced labor, which is slavery, which violates
the non-aggression principle. So, people in a union will
voluntarily, come together. However, right, not everyone's
going to come to the union meeting, not everyone's going to
talk at the union meeting. Not everyone is going to be as
persuasive as other people at the union meeting.
So, you end up with Jimmy Hoffa and his five friends controlling
the union. This is The iron law of
oligarchy. So the most democratic people on
the planet, Bernie Sanders and AOC, they have more
institutional power than 99.9 percent of their supporters ever
will. Because any time, it becomes
organized. Yes.
Anytime people organized there's going to be some people who are
better than others and it just makes economic sense for you to
delegate. The cost of spreading the
message to that person, iron law of oligarchy, refutes,
anarcho-communism of both moral and practical grounds.
I think it was a Thomas sir. Soul who said something along
the lines of even if we had absolute perfect equality
tomorrow, we wouldn't have it the day after tomorrow, you
know. Like it's like even if You Were
Somehow able to get this you know, I will say that I think
here's where there is and I know this is semantics or linguistic
you know accuracy, but I think I'll concede this.
I think that when we use the term Anarchy, we are using it.
In the literal sense. The way you were that that know,
Rulers or without rulers. But the term hierarchy also has
that same root word, you know, rulers in it.
And that's not actually how everyone who uses the word means
it. So when people talk about
hierarchy, it's actually there should be some other word that
disk. So in other words, if there's a
hierarchy where LeBron James is, you know, way higher than some
benchwarmer, he's not the ruler of that benchwarmer.
I mean the bench warmer could leave anytime he wants to.
It's not like he doesn't Not like by our definition.
We wouldn't actually consider them a ruler or not.
A ruler. Hierarchy is just that there are
obviously always going to be differences between people and
some people will achieve different levels of success and
the thing that a lot of these leftist types who claim, well,
you're not the real Anarchist. They'll make these, you know
they'll make arguments like some of them.
I think they're their rebuttal to your point would be well no
no we have no Problem with, you know, people making voluntary
transactions to a certain point, you know like in the same way
they'll go, what we have no problem with personal property
but we have a problem with private property and they'll
kind of say, well you could have a house to live in your house,
but you can't have five houses and rent out for of the houses.
But this of course becomes a They get themselves into a very
big predicament here where you go.
Okay. So you're so obsessed on this
hierarchy. Part that you're forgoing?
The Anarchy part. So, okay, you, what does that
mean? I mean, look, I could have a
garden in the back of my yard. How much food can I grow enough
for my family? How about enough, for my family
and a little bit to put away for the winter?
Is that too much? How about enough to put away for
the year? How about enough to put away for
five years? I mean, when is your point of
when I have too much that I don't need that.
By the way, what is need mean? I mean need, which is a word,
the commies like to use a lot right to each, according to
their need. So what do we need?
I mean, all of us have way more than we need, at least in the
year 2022. If you're not in a third world
country, you have way more than you need.
So what do you need at? What point does it change?
This is a completely arbitrary line and then the more important
question is who stops me, who gets to stop me when I've grown
see. This is where they there's this
big contradiction on the left with egalitarians ISM as you go.
Well everyone has to be equal, you know, or as equal as
possible. And so then if I have, you know,
if I'm growing way more food, you know, maybe I'm growing
enough food to feed an entire town.
I don't need all that food but I was growing it in my yard, I'm
going all this food, I don't need that.
Well, who stops me? Who comes and takes it from me.
Well, by definition, that person who uses Force to take it from a
make is my ruler and also by definition.
There's a hierarchy here where that guy has the decision-making
ability over me. So actually I would argue that
the only true anarchists even though I'll concede the term
highwomen Hierarchy is a little bit misused in terms of the the
literal definition using the word ruler.
If you're going to use that term ruler with Anarchy, the only way
you can be an anarchist is to be a voluntary, assist capitalist,
laissez-faire complete laissez-faire capitalist.
But that if you if you don't support private property then
not only are you not an anarchist but you also have to
believe in hierarchy and you can't believe in a galat
arianism because Body would have to be in a higher position than
me in order to make that determination.
And this idea that just well, the people make that
determination is complete fuckin bullshit.
There's no, the people there are just individuals and then who's
gonna fucking enact that on me? And again, even if it is the
people, if it's all of the people versus me, well, that's
not very egalitarian. And this is it, it's it's a
whole group of people with more power enforcing their women on
me. So the question is, what rights
do you have? And do you have the right to
delegate those rights? So if my grandma has the right
to defend herself, she's in our 80s it's going to be a little
difficult yeah. So what she's going to want to
do is delegate that and she's kind of exhausted from you know,
doing anything so she's not going to want to grow her own
food so she's going to delegate that.
My grandma is not the only person out of the 7 billion
people on the planet to want to delegate these things.
So what you end up having is people in Aged in a division of
labor and therefore some people specialize have more private
property in certain areas and those areas become more
productive as a causal results of being private.
So, it's not that. Well, now, I'm being restricted
and I can't go on that property because it's now private.
You have more options than you, otherwise would as a, cause
result of private property. So when I went to Florida
recently for the yell 2022, Revolution, Is there was private
property. I didn't have to say, God, I
wonder if there's food there. Do I have to bring my own food?
I just knew all these things. That would be privately
available, to me would exist because there's a profit
incentive because the resort was privatized.
You would think that no one would be having any exchanges
with anyone because everyone has their own private property, and
no one's everyone's restricting access.
So, everything's in shortage mode.
No. Because there's private
property. There's much more of an And
instead than their otherwise would be.
So that's the utilitarian case and then on the moral case look
the guy giving me a place to live my renter landlord.
He gives me a house, all you left us give me is antifa
burning down houses. So if you care about the polar
make sure that there's a class which only benefits if they
provide a good or service to those who choose to contract
with them. I mean, all of the books that I
bought I've spent tons of Labor, reading them and the author has
reaped the benefits from my labor when I purchase them.
So what that's a voluntary exchange I chose to make any
time you allocate your scarce time on this planet towards
something or other that can be a sense of exploitation you.
And I working to explain this to the dumbest people on the
planet. Is it means you and I have to
send them an invoice or we need to put them in jail for
exploiting our Surplus, labor Under no justification.
Could you both support know people rolling anyone else?
And having the right to forcibly, stop people.
From engaging in, voluntary transactions.
You don't know what's best for 7 billion strangers.
Allow them to do whatever they want, voluntarily.
All right guys, let's take a second and thank our sponsor for
today's show, which is Masterworks.
The rich, always have a way to tap into secret sources of
wealth. For example, I recently learned
about an asset class reserved for the ultra.
It's called aristocracy assets, the u.s. aristocracy the oil
tycoons, the retail Giants, and the real estate Moguls all
invest in this asset class that's been around for over two
hundred and seventy-five years, considering it outpaced the S&P
500 over the past 25 years and it historically performed.
Well, during periods of 3%, inflation or higher, you might
say it helped defend the 1% and while everyday investors, are
you Really kept out of the loop. Now, you can get in on the
action with aristocracy assets, go to Masterworks dot art, / p 0
TP to learn more, invest in Fine Art, it's now securitized and
you can be a part of that use my special link and do your due
diligence. Of course, Masterworks dot art /
P0 T pay before deciding to invest carefully review
important disclosures at master work.i. / CD.
All right, let's get back into the show.
So have you heard this argument? Which I got to say, I'm going to
have a lot of trouble Steel, Man.
And but I've heard this argument made by people who call
themselves Libertarians socialists.
And they basically say that with out, like, they'll argue that
rent is theft, and they'll argue that without a government.
Landlords would not be able to defend their property.
So the argument is basically that the government through its
police force. They suck, which I am the face
that I guess there's some plausible argument, right?
That police protect private property.
Now, this is, you know, let's say before San Francisco and At
Los Angeles and the Riots of 2020.
May, you know, there was some off time where government police
used to protect private property and so, okay, they're their
private property. Defense is subsidized by the
government and so, therefore, if they didn't have that, you know,
they're they're relying on the government to intervene to
defend their private property or, you know, these are similar
arguments, that will be that like private property is They
kind of like an act of violence because they, you know, you are
arguing to defend it with Force. I've seen these arguments made
on baffled by how stupid they are.
Like number the thing that just jumps right out to me is just
that like if you think of the average landlord who has like
five or six properties my guess is he's making I mean at least
like that's a very least low six figures a year.
He's probably paying 50% of this money in taxes.
If you did not have to pay fifty percent of his money in taxes.
I think he could probably afford to hire some private security
and the idea of like proper private property being violence
or something like that. A threat of violence.
Well, if you, if you believe that, it seems to me that you'd
have to say, like, look like a woman saying, I don't want to be
raped. Is a threat of violence or that.
It's like you. Hit me like this, you're the
aggressor or for, not wanting to be raped.
I mean, that this that I really don't even know how to steal,
man, this argument, but it is an argument that is out there.
I don't know, you got it, anything you'd like to say about
that. So, without the existence of a
state to protect private property, the protection of
private property would not exist.
Therefore, anarcho-communism is inevitable in the absence of a
state. That's probably the closest I
can get the assumption is that, which is not, Sized in a state
of society would not exist in a voluntary society which the
subsidy makes something much more expensive than it,
otherwise would be because the producer does not have an
incentive to meet consumer demand.
They get all their money from politicians.
So I mean can we agree with this libertarian socialist that the
military is pretty expensive for the service of creating enemies
that then want to kill us and Further military expenditures
that seems like a pretty high cost.
So the idea that, well, your private property won't be
protected, unless 40% is stolen with the threat of violence.
Every year is literally like saying bad husbands would exist
without o.j. Simpson.
They're taking the worst example and saying, without this worst
example, this thing could not come to fruition.
The answer is people would either have guns to defend
themselves. They Would have knives to defend
themselves, they would have alarm systems, they would have,
voluntarily funded security organizations.
So, the idea that a business couldn't contract with someone
at a small cost and say, hey, if my business or my private
property gets raided, you guys have to pay me an insurance fee
in exchange. So, now you have an incentive to
protect my private property. The assumption that it wouldn't
exist in the absence of a coercively funded.
Napoli is just someone who does not, who was not really taking
business. Seriously, it's like something.
Well, if businesses are private, they'll never exist because
they'll have to pay employees and then the employees will take
up all the money, know what they'll do is find an
equilibrium so they won't pay a thousand dollars an hour.
They also can't pay $0 an hour, which is why not 100 percent of
workers earn minimum wage because of competition and
capital investment in productivity.
So they would allocate a certain percentage.
That's now not being taken by force.
Every year, they would allocate that to a private Protection
Agency who would have more of an incentive to protect their
private property than anyone else.
Now, as far as well, then these organizations would just go to
war, okay? As I mentioned before,
governments have gone to war. Maybe once or twice throughout
history, I'm not sure. I'd have to double-check.
So the existence of battle does not Go away because a monopoly
on violence exists. It not only exists, it makes it
more likely. The reason is because war is
extraordinarily expensive. This is a theory generally
called the state is the health of War.
So we know war is the health of the state.
Meaning governments can get away with things in Wartime in an
emergency that they otherwise wouldn't be able to get public
approval on in the absence of this terrible evil external
threat. But the state is the health of
War because it It often has the ability zelinsky's doing this to
conscript people and fight against their will, so they
don't even need to convince people to join their military.
They also coercively fund the operation.
So if people say you know what, I think it's better.
If Donna, stand luhansk, were independent, republics
considering they voted for that in 2015, at the tune of like
90%. Same with Crimea previously.
So you know, I don't like Putin. I don't like poroshenko.
I think was the president at the time but you know, The people
voted. Then that's that, that could be
Russian territory, Ukrainian government, doesn't allow that.
They coercively fund the operation and now can murder
civilians for seven years. And then the, and then zielinski
can play the victim afterwards. So, the very fact that the
government gets to externalize, the cost of War makes War much
more likely to happen than it. Otherwise would some people hear
that and hear me saying that war only exists because of
governments. Now, what I'm saying it's more
likely to exist because Government doesn't have to bear
the cost of recruiting people, often and doesn't have to
actually pay the price. They could tax it or they could
just print the money and third. They don't actually have a
criminal justice system which recognizes violence as
illegitimate when they do it. The collateral murder video
comes out and the guy who leaks it and the guy who shared it,
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, they're the ones who go
to jail. I mean, certainly so having a
legal double standard coercing people to Join the operation in
form of conscription and, you know, now privileged remember
that's a totally real thing and then taxing and printing
everything else. So in every case, the Socialist
has no justification private property is Justified, because
it relies on people engaging in voluntary, contracts on a
utilitarian basis that makes things more abundant than they
otherwise would be. And States, collectivist
organizations are more likely to go to war than once based on
voluntary cooperation. Yeah.
Okay. I think that's to me, that's a
pretty devastating case. All right, let's move to the
more. Those that was kind of the
left-wing criticisms. Let's move over to more the
right. Let's start.
Let's start Boomer Khan and then go to more interesting
thoughtful, right-wing people. So the Boomer con criticism of
Libertarians might be something like, all right.
Well, you want a completely Anarchist Society?
Well, look at Chad. You know, that's that's what you
get. When you have Anarchy, you're
going to have, you know, that just this kind of like
lawlessness and craziness and violence.
If we didn't have the police force and the military, someone
could you know there'd be high crime in these neighborhoods.
Putting people away in jail. You know is what actually brings
down the crime rate. We see you know as we're letting
people out of jail, crime rates are going up.
As we're Prosecuting drug crimes less crime rates are going up
without the military. I don't know.
It all be speaking German or some dumb shit?
I don't know. I'm trying my best to steal,
man, these arguments. Any of that?
What it? What would you respond Germans?
A fine language. I wouldn't mind speaking.
Exactly it's a harsh that's very scene of.
It's got a very sharp you know it could cut you with that.
Words. But anyway, any response.
So one of my favorite articles in here is from a gentleman
named Joe, soberin, he was the senior editor at National Review
for 18 years. He was William Buckley's
right-hand man. And he came out and said, look,
I've been a conservative my entire life.
However, I talk to Murray rothbard and it was interesting,
but then I talked to Hans Harbour and I just became an
anarchist. The reason that he gives, but
let me just quote one, but one brief section page. 01:36
gradually. I came to see that the
conservative challenge to liberalism's just Prudence of
loose construction was far too narrow nearly everything to it.
All I thought was the 10th Amendment, which forbids the
federal government to exercise any powers, not specifically
assigned to it in the Constitution, but the 10th
Amendment had been comatose since the New Deal when
Roosevelt's Court virtually excised it.
So in other words, the conservative the second, they
Have this group, the state, a monopoly on an interpretation of
a great document. What would be a great contract
that you can write up for a number of people organizing
together, maybe an HOA or something.
The second it becomes monopolized.
That means only one group gets to interpret it and you can come
away with interpretations that are blatantly ridiculous.
So, when the conservative says, well, we need things like
objective law, we have to have, you know, some way of knowing
owing, what's legal and what isn't the Supreme Court right
now? Nine lawyers who went to Ivy
League schools, don't agree on. Whether there's a right to own,
an AR-15 nor do, they agree on whether there's a right to an
abortion. So the idea that 330 million
people will objectively understand a law when nine
Supreme Court Justices, who went to like Harvard or Yale or
somewhere else. That is not going to happen.
In a much more likely scenario is people are going to engage in
voluntary contracts that allow Them to increase their utility
because they have an incentive, and the other party has the
right to disassociate from them if they're not meeting their end
of the bargain. So when it comes to things like
increased degeneracy, no laws and such this is occurring at a
point where the American government does exist.
So what they're essentially saying is without a state we
might have all the things that are currently happening under a
state. All All of these bad things can
always happen. The question is under, which
system would you rather this problem exists and which system?
Best incentivizes the absence of this system.
So, when it comes to something, like, people using drugs, or the
mafia existing just, as people were more likely to drink
moonshine during prohibition because you needed something
small, you could hide. Therefore, it was much more
potent, much less reliable. Well, then they're more likely
to use things like So, meth and heroin today, and they're much
more likely to overdose when it comes to making these things
illegal. That's where mafias come in.
That's where MS-13 actually gets more power than they otherwise
would have. I don't like the fact that
Scottsdale is like flooded with all of these pot shops, but it
is a hell of a lot better than people getting separated from
their kids families being torn apart.
You then having something terrible on your record for the
The rest of your lifetime. So when it comes to something
like that, the existence of a state doesn't stop it from
happening. The police are the people not
protecting you from the existence and then the final
thing of varieties, well, did the police face any terrible
consequences. I mean, this guy who I've, I
think his name was Michael bird or something.
He murders. Ashley Babbitt on camera,
everyone sees it and there's not even a trial.
I mean hero Kelly Thomas is murdered on security camera by
two officers, they get off, Tony, tempeh is suffocated to
death, Eric Garner suffocated to death.
So these cops not only will punish innocent people who are
mostly peaceful. They will allow riots to exist
because they know the response will be people begging for more
police. So, all of the terrible things
you say can happen. Under a voluntary, Society have
happened under a state of society.
The question is, should They face competition or should they
not according to the conservative?
Well, all we have to do is Lobby them and maybe elect someone
who's really going to lay down the law.
The laws, the tax code alone is 72,000 pages that no one's ever
read any time. An IRS agent is looking at the
same person's income. They come up with two different
vertex on what the person actually owes this is research
done by John has this in a chapter titled, the obviousness
of Anarchy. He cites that in my book.
So one you don't get objective law, where everyone knows, drugs
are illegal crime, and rioting is illegal there for, but we
won't have it if a state exists. It's more likely to happen
because you don't have the competition incentive.
Not to mention that. The reason people, believe all
this trash and nonsense is because of government schools
and universities, which pushed the debunked, the racism
conspiracy theory that leads to all of these riots, which could
be certainly considered blowback.
To what some extent. So, I mean, none of that
justifies a coercively funded Monopoly yet.
They list a ton of bad things but those things exist in any
society, it's like saying, well, ignorance exist.
Therefore, we need a state, it's just as bad as saying, ignorance
exists, therefore, the Koch brothers need to coercively fund
and monopolize schooling systems that won't necessarily solve the
problem. In fact, it'll make it worse.
Same thing with the state. Yeah.
No no absolutely. And I mean and On the bright
side. There have been a lot of people
on that side waking up over the last few years.
But man I mean if you could just see you know, from the if you
look at the Riots of 2020 from the fact that the whole thing
was the cops fault for sparking the event L.
Okay, I know that, you know, like George Floyd thing was
absolutely inexcusable to fucking no.
Need to throw this dude, who was having a panic attack on the
ground and let your knee on his neck until he fucking died, like
it. Just inexcusable, he wasn't even
like a violent threat. It was just like fucking that
cop was having some fun and then, okay, yes.
There were all of the race Hustlers and all of these people
who pushed it, and all of that. But the cops fucking started it
with this problem. And then once the riots, fucking
spread, you see the cops, like, they'll go up to like, some
little old man, and push him down on his fucking head.
They'll go throw some girl on the ground.
But when there's a big group of people, actually fucking looting
and destroying, And fucking people up and all this, huh?
Then they back off because it's not, you know, it's like if you
can't look at that and just see ma'am.
This is not the best system for protecting against this, then I
can't help you. All right guys, let's take a
second and thank our sponsor for today's show which is liquid IV.
The hot summer months are here. We need to be proactive about
keeping our bodies, fuelled and hydrated.
That's where liquid IV comes in one stick of liquid IV in 16
ounces of water. Hi?
It's you two times faster and more efficiently than water
alone. I got to tell you, I've been
drinking this stuff and you feel the difference especially if you
haven't been getting as much water as you need.
If you've been out in the hot sun definitely go check out
liquid IV. It contains five essential
vitamins, B3, B5 B6 B12 and vitamin C with three times.
The electrolytes of traditional sports drinks, made with premium
ingredients, no GMOs free from gluten dairy.
Free and soy what makes liquid IV.
So effective is the cellular transport technology designed to
enhance rapid absorption of water and their key ingredients
into the bloodstream for every purchase.
They donate a serving to someone in need to date.
Liquid IV, has donated over 24 million servings globally.
So go grab your liquid IV, in bulk nationwide, at Costco, you
can get 25% off. If you go to liquid IV.com, Use
the promo code problem at checkout.
That's 25% off anything you order, when you shop better
hydration today by using promo code problem at liquid IV.com.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right, let's move. Let's move to the more I think
in some ways interesting critique of libertarianism, the
kind of the more hardcore right-wing Neo.
Reactionary criticism of libertarianism, which some of it
seems to be led by like, or very influenced by courtesy Arvin.
I know you did a long podcast responding back to him which I
thought was excellent. So his he would use this
analogy. I don't want to butcher the
analogy but it was something like, well, look, if the if you
had like a pole standing straight up, you might only need
a little bit. The pressure to keep it, you
know, straight up. But once it's all the way in
this direction, you need a whole lot of force to bring it back
into equilibrium. And so, I think the argument
basically goes that, like, look in order, if there's been all
this Force that's been used to get Society to where it is, then
we need a whole lot of force to bring it back to something more
like sanity, you know, something more like what the the correct
order would look. Like, and then so that's the
first point. And then I think the second
point would be something to do with with Libertarians strategy,
like the idea that you're just going to wake a lot of people up
is not actually what moves societies, what move societies
is what very powerful people who are always destined to be very
powerful. People actually think and how
they actually move things and so we kind of maybe let's take them
one by one and we We could we could spend the rest of our time
on that. So number number one, the idea
that say because this I think is while I disagree with it, I
think is a much more intelligent criticism the idea of say after,
for example, after a something like what we've had with the
covid regime, you have people like the Santa's and Abbott and
Texas saying, hey, we're going to ban private businesses from
discriminating against the unvaccinated, you know.
No. And so, you could say, well,
that's not exactly a Libertarian solution.
But you go, you know, look after all of this government Force has
been injected into, you know, taking whatever.
After all this government Force has been injected into
propagandizing people to hate the unvaccinated, and all of
this government Force has been, you know, used to push the
vaccine and guarantee liability, you know, is covered for the
vaccine and all of this that now, We're going to need some
force in the other direction to counter that.
What do you have a response to that?
Yeah. When it comes to the need for
large-scale societal change this absolutely can exist when their
state for reactionaries or anyone who's just not a member
of the current Cathedral for them to occupy and sometimes
that can be vitally important because it allows you to do
things like engage in minimal necessary Force responses.
So So, I mean, the response could be anyone who advocated
the vaccine goes to prison, millions of people.
Well, that would be very that, be a very high cost.
So maybe the minimum necessary step is we can stop the vaccine
mandates of employers and I totally get that because
something that's classically what the state is people
benefiting at the expense of others and those other people
benefiting at the expense of you, it's like you can only
punch someone in the face when their hands are down.
So So we'd be better off without this thing, but sometimes I've
been getting hit this entire time, can I can finally punch
back. I'm going to take my chance when
I get it. So, I totally get that.
The idea that, well, if the pole is society, and we generally
have this equilibrium, but the society going fine
libertarianism work here. But if Society is completely on
its ends, Somalia places like Baltimore sad, that that's an
analogy, but it happens to be Then you need someone to really
step in. Well, the fallacy that's
occurring is he's equating initiating violence power with
institutional power. So we could say that there is a
problem where we can't really move things from one place to
another. It's like we have a lot of stuff
here, but it's needed over there.
So, therefore, you might think we need a monarch to step in and
control things. Well, what's happened?
Historically is a guy named Cornelius, Vanderbilt compete.
Added with a guy named Edward Collins and Collins got the up
to a million dollars, a year from the government, he was
subsidized and Cornelius, Vanderbilt was able to
out-compete him in steamships. This is not some trivial little
thing. Well, I think matches could be
privatized. This is can human beings travel
across water and not just the kings of society.
Can the everyday person eventually be able to not just
see the two miles that they Of the, you know, two mile radius
from where they happen to be born.
Can they go from Manhattan to England and can they eventually
go to Argentina if they want? This is something huge when it
comes to the Wright. Brothers, the government plan to
build a plane was called. I think it was called the
Langley project think. The guys name was Samuel
Langley, so they said well government's going to build a
plane. We're going to step in.
We can't have some unstable pole.
We have to have a stable stable plane that needs to be built.
Of course, the Langley project failed and to bike bicycle shop
owners. The Wright brothers with the
help of their sister actually made a plane and that is what
later led to the Boeing 737s that many people fly on today.
So there's two examples of large scale, Fast, Change, happening,
and coordination as a causal result of privatization.
And not the need for a monarchy, other examples would be the
drastically lowering in the price of oil.
As from John D Rockefeller, whether you love him or hate
him. That is an example of people
fastly organizing, something and quickly getting it out to the
masses Andrew Carnegie when it came to steal books when it
comes to the example of Jeff Bezos.
I remember where I'd have to work.
Probably five or six hours of landscaping in order to afford a
book and now they're much more affordable because of people
like Jeff Bezos. So it being a Libertarian is not
being against Power and organization.
And people being very ambitious, all that stuff is allowed or
Steve Jobs might even be a better example with computers
and iPhones. So, all of those examples, I
just gave tons of examples of people organizing and Society
coming together, and really aiming towards an end.
That's extraordinarily beneficial, that has to meet the
standard of what your oven is, is claiming.
Well, we need to get people together.
Those are a number of examples of people coming together.
His And he does is he says, FedEx is an example of a
monarchy UPS is a monarchy. Your car is made by a monarchy.
What restaurant do you like? It's a monarchy.
The reason it's a monarchy is it has a CEO.
The CEO gives power to number of underlings who hire employees
who have customers. And then there's this feedback
loop. The fact that he doesn't
differentiate or he does. So in very few pays places, he
doesn't differentiate between the Monarch, we can choose to
associate with, and the one we can.
Say he's not providing enough value.
Screw him that is just unbeliever.
Someone who's right haleh especially the last few chapters
of democracy. The God That Failed.
Are you telling me that if like Sears was able to issue taxes?
You'd be like well it's the same as they were before.
No. Well, not even close.
Well, this is it and it drives me crazy because it's like
they're familiar with APA. They've already APA, they all
admire Hapa and yet they still insist on butchering him.
So It's like okay hop has argument agree with it or don't
agree with it. Hop has argument is that private
property Society, an anarcho-capitalist Society is
the best that we could hope for. But preferable, to democracy is
monarchy because it better. Simulates private property where
the Monarch privately owns government.
Now agree with that, or disagree with that, however, you feel
that's their argument, But what they say is that Hapa argues
that real libertarianism is monarchy and that, therefore
what we want is monarchy and so see, look the New York Times is
a monarchy and, you know, FedEx is a monarchy and all of this
was like, no, no hop has point is exactly the opposite.
That actually a monarchy is private ownership of the
government, but what you're talking about is private
ownership of a company. That's that's just private
ownership now, okay? Yeah, you can say It's a monarch
in the sense that I'm the monarch of my house, okay?
But like that's not what anyone means by monarchy, what they
mean by it as someone who owns the government.
And so, obviously Papa's position is preferable to.
That is an anarcho-capitalist, private property Society.
Then my thing with this argument right here, I got a pain to.
It's a it's a kind of gay yellow pain, but I got one here too.
Right? So I think that courtesy arvin's
argument is that like, okay, look Society up here It's very
little pressure to hold this up. I could just rest my hand right
here and holds very little pressure, but it's all the way
over here. It takes all this pressure to
get it back up here, right? But my counter to, that would be
that when somebody is right here, what's actually going on
and my argument would be that currently.
What's going on is there's all this pressure right here.
And what we really need to do is take this pressure off in the
natural point is right back up here.
Now, it may when you take this pressure off, swing around a
little fucking bitch. And meet ultimately in this
equilibrium here. But that's what's going on is
that there's all this pressure. Look all of this shit all the
crazy like Falcon, whatever you'd call, leftism.
Woke ISM. All of this.
It's a government program. It's all a woke ism is a
government program. It is all it exists in the
public school sector in the, it came out of the university is
its pushed by the CIA and the FBI and all of these different.
Ins the entire political class, the entire Hollywood class the
entire. It's everything that's propped
up by the regime, by the cathedral.
All you got. You see this constantly, all
you'd have to do is remove that pressure and it would be gone.
There's no way this stuff could survive within the market.
And if I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong about that.
But there seems to be, no. I mean, it seems like every
indication is that if you just relieved that Sure, there's no
way any of this stuff would exist if you're telling me that
any of this left at, like, how would gender studies?
Exist, without the college, you know, like system, but the whole
thing is just teaching kids. And then them maybe having a
career teaching other kids. It's a big Ponzi scheme, propped
up by government tax dollars, like just get rid of that and
watch the problem solve itself. And then there's a big incentive
for those voters to exist because they actually have a
state to, which they can use their vote to impose, their will
on you where There wasn't that bat signal, they would be less
likely to be attracted to it and they'd have to use their power
of persuasion, but specifically. So, the last chapter of the book
is 50 pages and it's just a collection of random quotes that
I think are important. So, one of the quotes is from
democracy, The God That Failed page 72 and papa makes this so
clear. He says it was to a large
extent, the inflated price of justice and the perversions of
ancient law by the Kings. motivated, the historical
opposition of monarchy, however, confusion as to the causes of
this phenomenon prevailed, there were those who recognized
correctly 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 replace the king and the
visible Royal pump by the The people and the presume modesty
and decency of the common man. Hence, the historic success of
democracy so you could have the same person in two different
situations, the voluntary Monarch, who people can
disassociate with who has a real incentive to make as much money
as you can, to get as high of a social status as he possibly
can. And he can't get a dime out of
your pocket, unless you voluntarily give it to him.
The monopolist does not face such an incentive.
So when Jarvan and the like say that they want government to be
run like a company, I think any governing service can be run in
in such a way does that get to the heart?
You also mentioned strategy. Now as far as what the
libertarian strategy can be well first embracing the division of
Labour and recognizing that some people are good at convincing
some and not others. That is that's one of the The
things that should be at the top, but second, when it comes
to people's ability to influence politics, they have no incentive
at all to get, informed. It's extremely costly to
understand agriculture subsidies.
Let alone agricultural subsidies and the minimum wage and sugar
quotas and foreign policy with Yemen and Pakistan and
everything else. So because that is likely to
happen, we have people who have an incentive to accept things.
Once they are privatized and once the state has diminished in
power, one of the big white pill articles in here is called one
moral standard for all by Sheldon Richmond and he says,
look, it can be intimidating to be afraid of advocate because
you say, oh God we disagree with people on health care and the
environment. And oh God, there's a thousand
things we got to convince them of all we have to do is get them
to stop believing in this Cult of statism which is that
morality applies differently to different people, right?
The complementary essay is how private governance made the
modern world possible by Edward Stringham.
So he uses the example of eBay, not a small company, PayPal, not
a small example, Amazon out a small example.
How these are mostly reputation based organizations that even if
someone says hey, I'm at Amazon. I'm using my spam is my small
business to work through Amazon and I'm going to screw you out
of your money, it still doesn't pay to use the government court
system. You still Private Arbiters, or
you still comment or you leave reviews or you screenshot it and
post to Facebook and Myspace that threat of a bad reputation
and decreasing your private voluntary income is a check and
balance that the marketplace has.
So it's not just convincing people, delegitimizing, The
Authority. There's also the economic
incentive that exist for people to not associate with the state
even if they love it because association with it can be
extraordinarily costly. So those are two of the reasons
I think libertarianism is not just, some pie-in-the-sky
magical thing that, you know, we just pretend is going to exist
one day. So much of it exists.
Now, so long as you don't have what that is Russell calls.
Shame is the health of the state that because people feel that
they have an obligation to this thing.
They tend to obey it. Once you expose them as the
absolute criminals, they are. Well, then people like, Steven,
Crowder are going to get on in front of his millions of viewers
and say. FBI should be abolished, no one
has an obligation to fund them or obey them.
Well that certainly is a step in the right direction.
So I think Jarvan is not correct on both strategy or the
illegitimate see of a possible libertarian strategy as well as
his pencil analogy. Did I answer that or what I
think and I think you answered a lot of it.
I guess the final thing and we could we could close on this is
the in terms of in the realm of strategy, I think.
What some of the Neo reactionary types would argue is that, you
know, it's just even convincing more people is pointless, what
I'm doing, my work is pointless. It doesn't matter how many, you
know, even if Steven Crowder says this, and even if more
people don't believe in the legitimacy of government, it
doesn't really matter because at the end of the day, there's
going to be this, this ultimate Sovereign.
There's going to be this this power.
Center. And they're going to do is they
wish and whatever the the change doesn't come.
It's the opposite of kind of like the old, you know, the new
Left view that the change comes from the bottom up to change,
actually comes from the top down.
And so what you really would care about doing is convincing
Elites powerful people, rather than convincing you know regular
you know people who might listen to the this podcast or something
like that my response. That typically would be that,
you know, I mean, those powerful Elites seem to spend a ton of
time trying to propagandize the people.
So it seems that they believe it's pretty important to have
everyone believe in this. And so I think it's probably
pretty important to unplug people from that.
You know, that propaganda and to counter it but I don't know.
Do you have any anything to that or do you think is that their
argument exactly? Or what do you think?
Yeah, that's a common expression.
If if there No hope their propaganda would be unnecessary.
So the fact that they're feeding us, this trash is evidence that
they recognize that public opinion and acceptance is
important. I will.
I'm sorry to use the eovaldi thing again, but literally one
person with a gun got 376 officers to stand down a number
of churchgoers in Texas. Got the FBI to stand down for 51
days and yes they were murdered afterwards but so fucking what
people who follow The law, all the time, get murdered as well.
I'd much rather be these people than any of the other ones so.
Okay. That that that's a portion of
it. Also the power vacuum argument
doesn't recognize the importance of public opinion when it comes
to a power vacuum. So if everyone believes in the
concept of statism, some people have a right to rule others and
this, right? Exist has a cause of result of
people voting. It's only voting through this
institution. If any other institution voted
that would be initiating violence against peaceful
people. This this is so important
because just as a sod would have a hard time coming to America
and then just becoming president, even though he is the
president or prime minister of Syria, or whoever replaced
Netanyahu, or a hood, Barack all these people would have
difficulty. Even though they literally are
Kings presidents, Prime Ministers, whatever you want to
call them simply. Because in America, they don't
recognize that. AMA.
See Kim Jang, Hoon. Very powerful person in one area
and not another area because in this area he does not have wide
spread recognition of being legitimate.
So the power vacuum will always exist.
The question is what is the what checks are going to exist?
Is there going to be a democratic vote?
Is there going to be Constitution that the Monarch is
pressured into following or that he has a financial incentive to
follow when it comes to enter? Capitalism.
The simple non-recognition of a double standard is the check and
balance that drastically limits doesn't make it impossible.
Yes, you can murder people. Yes, you can form mobs.
But then again, most mobs get their power from black markets
which allow them to thrive in areas they otherwise wouldn't be
able to. So when it comes to power
vacuums existing, yes, they can always exist but they primarily
exists as a causal result of people believing in statism
something, they'll happily change.
Once the people who are cool or even the elites I agree, I'd
rather Elon Musk. I take Elon Musk and Joe Rogan
and Mark Zuckerberg becoming a volunteer us over like, you
know, I don't know, 10,000 of my neighbors or something because
then it would make it cool. Then it would make it popular
then it would make it, okay? Just as in most advertising's
for something like Corona Extra, you have a ton of people smiling
and hugging each other and they're in great shape.
Well, they're telling you that this Product is associated with
happiness and well-being in popularity because people are
constantly seeking acceptance and their biggest fear is
rejection. If we show them that
volunteerism is cool. And then make it more popular
than something, like monarchism, which necessarily relies on this
double standard that can't be applied consistently.
I mean, whenever they give me an argument, I say, did your
Monarch allow you to make this argument?
Don't you want to make sure that I'm the monarch of you this way?
I use my low time. France to violently dominate you
when increase your well-being in the future or do you just live
in Menorca stand in your head and you just go around engaging
with people, voluntarily and engaging in actual libertarian,
ethics before you make any large purchases.
Do check with a monarch to make sure it's okay.
No, you don't, obviously not because so much of our life is
lived in libertarianism because that's actually, what evaluates.
Yeah, it's only because of this propagandistic bullshit that is
constantly fed to us, through government.
Entities. So yes.
Power vacuums. What exists the reason they have
so much Powers because of the existence of a state, if you had
to individually, collect four trillion dollars from strangers,
every year, it would be something like totally
impossible but because people believe the IRS has the
legitimacy to do. So, what's the IRS 1% of
America? I bet it's not even close to 1%
of 1% and they're still able to collect more than any mafia
could ever dream up. Because people recognize the
legitimacy, once a very small percentage of people.
It'll stop recognizing that legitimacy the cost of the state
to enforce its edicts becomes way too high.
And we have to want to say we have to but it's also important
to get people to just hate this organization so showing them the
Kelly Thomas video, it's not like well, I'm really cheap, so
I don't like that. I have to pay taxes.
It's I hate this organization that kidnaps people for
victimless crimes. I have a chapter in here at idle
homelessness regulation and exploitation, two cases.
One in Los Angeles gone. Was Summers and a guy in
Washington named, Jay Austin. They built houses for the
homeless for between one thousand dollars and fifty
thousand dollars, and the homes were confiscated by the state
forced homelessness exists because it wasn't up to code,
whatever the hell code is, I don't believe any of them.
Even, I guess that it was those camps, those homeless camps, the
encampments and Los Angeles are up to code.
Yeah, yeah. Really murdering civilians.
Totally up to code. So look, but once we get people
to really hate this thing, we're going to take a small
percentage, it's not like 90% what percentage has to resist
and stop, recognizing its legitimacy.
Something very small, therefore libertarianism the a reasonable
thing that can really be achieved.
It takes people, recognizing something.
They already accept and extending it to the political
class. So yes it is realistic.
I agree and I think that that is it.
There's something I think that's great.
What you said something in there really stuck with me.
The example, about like Assad coming over here, or is that
whoever pick whatever world leader, you want to pick, you
know, pick like imagine if, you know, you know Assad or
Netanyahu or Putin or like any other world leader, you could
think of came over here and I would just go even one step
further with that analogy and say and imagine all that the
powerful billionaires and Elite Class People.
Who were behind them? Could they convince Americans?
This is your new ruler. My guess is no, because they,
it's just like, no, we don't accept that.
That's not what we've been trained to believe.
That's not who rules this government.
And so, and I think there's a very powerful point there that
it's like know in some ways this represents the hayekian rothbard
Ian split, which in a very weird way.
I think the Neo reactionaries are more on the side of the
hayekian, the idea that we need to convince The intellectuals,
we need to convince the important people and then that
will be ultimately what leads to like the and the truth is that
that's never going to happen. They're all incentivised.
There's a reason why the the billionaire class all supports
the state because they benefit from it and the we have a much
better shot at just convincing the masses and I think if you
reach enough, it's critical mass, but I think as you pointed
out critical, mass is way lower than most people think it is.
I don't It's 60%, I think it's like 10% of society, you
convince 10% of society and then you're going to be in like
you're going to be blown away by what changes?
All right, listen, we got to wrap up there, dude.
I've really fucking enjoyed this.
It's been way too long since last time, I promise it will not
be as long till next time I have you on guys.
Go follow Keith Knight, he's one of the best guys.
We got go purchase the voluntary, I almost at the
anarchist. The voluntary is handbook.
It's phenomenal and go check out his show.
Don't tread on anyone. Anything else that you want to
plug? Libertarian?
Institute.org of course. Mia Scott Horton, kylene's
alone, Sheldon Richmond a ton of authors.
There are General goal is to create an educational archive
that you can go to. You can use a search engine type
in healthcare economics minimum wage iran-pakistan.
We have so many free materials that were using because we want
to but we want to make everything free.
No pay walls. Al's or anything because we want
to just change public opinion. Libertarian institute.org Dave
Smith. Thanks for having me dude.
My pleasure, thank you so much and thanks everybody for
listening. Catch you next time.
Peace.