Joining me to discuss Curtis garvin's, take on
libertarianism. And anarcho-capitalism is Ace
artist. One of the first things that
stood out to me, was his debate with Robin Hanson.
I titled this finding the best chess player is how he
summarizes his view of government.
So when he was asked by an audience member, my he was asked
what his form of government would look like, considering he
was very critical of Robin Hansen's, futhark e.
He says my alternative is very simple.
I think that government should be run.
Exactly. The way companies are.
I believe that it should be how you do select the person to run.
It should be selected by the financial beneficiaries of The
Sovereign, the sovereignty is always going to be extremely
profitable. Public employees should have
Financial stake in how well, California does, for example.
Ace. What is your response to the
Arvin summarizing his idea on? What a good alternative to the
current system is well. So here's system.
Kind of it's this idea that you want to structure.
So his view of a company is essentially a monarchy, right?
You have a guy at the top even though will technically would
cos you have a board at the top. But, you know, besides for that,
you know, you have a guy or a central figure at the top and
then threw down, you have workers and his idea of
structuring a government. This way is essentially he
thinks that state will be run more efficiently in this mine
article structure. If you I want to call it that
for this reason a couple disagreements.
I have with this one when he's bringing an analogy to current
corporations and current like firms.
As they are today in today's society.
It doesn't necessarily reflect how it would be without say
Powers, right? So you can't just assume.
Look at these companies and assume that they're like these
free-floating abstractions or these islands disconnect from
State power as it is currently. So when he's Making an analogy
to this. He sort of, like, ignoring the
fact that these companies, a lot of these companies can grow to
such a size in the first place because of the state power in as
its structured. Whereas, in a free market, we
might not necessarily might see different types of firms rise
up. And they might be a certain
amount of like de facto ceiling on the firm's themselves so that
they can't grow to a certain size or might, they might be
structured in different way. This is commonly called
diseconomies of scale. The most people have heard of
economies. Of scale.
Diseconomies of scale is when a firm reaches a certain size or a
certain level the bureaucracy within the firm can cause
information, but like to be bogged down in like choked and
channels. So this means that they tend to
miss allocate their own resources.
So if you want to structure a government like that, I think
that would be, it would be vulnerable to the exact same
problems. As a big Corporation will do it
without state benefits. It's weird that he says, I think
that the government should be run.
Exactly, the way companies are considering.
It's not like there's a small technical difference.
Like, well, they both are pyramid structure organizations.
The company. Can't.
Well, some companies depending on whether or not, we're under
fascism, or more of a free market regime.
It, they can't expand, unless they are able to meet consumer
Demand on a relatively large scale.
And if they do wish to, Keep opening up branches and no one
buys their stuff. Well, they bear the cost.
They don't have a monopoly on the money supply which they
could just continue to print and devalue the dollars in everyone
else's pocket. So there's this self-correcting
mechanism. This monarchy does not have this
self-correcting mechanism. This constant feedback.
So, of course, you can say, well, the Monarch can very often
not take polls to see if people approve or disapprove of him.
Well, there's a big difference between people.
People saying they like something and people actually
having to bear the cost of whether or not they like
something and when you're dealing with the scarce
resources of the world you want to make sure people have some
skin in the game. So when he says the sovereignty
is always going to be extremely profitable.
Public employees should have Financial stake in how well
California does. I don't see anything wrong wrong
with that, but the only reason that I would not Or something
like that is because human traffickers have a financial
stake in how well, their victims are doing Jeffrey, Epstein, add
Financial stake and Glenn, Maxwell and all slave owners.
Have you could say well the slave owner It's cool cuz he
uses his low time preference to make sure the slaves are better.
Treated doesn't make sense to just murder them like they're in
a gulag, but a system of slavery allows you to prolong the
profitability of this individual and you want to Give him
guaranteed food, guaranteed housing.
So this is kind of an efficient way to engineer, a hierarchical
organization. None of that justifies.
It nor does it say what you have in the absence?
So yes, the slave could be productive.
But what if he had more choices, what if people had more choices
than one Sovereign, if they had compete, you know, you can say
You're The Sovereign of your house.
If you'd like to equivocate that, well, shouldn't The
Sovereign sort of be on their toes.
Competing with each other to give us.
The mass has a more profitable approach to achieving our ends.
Anything else? On this concept of we don't need
democracy. We need to find the best chess
player and give him the job of Chess Master.
Yeah. Well, you know, as you said very
well there, you know, the Monarch still suffers from
problems of information and economic calculation because he
has no, you know, he in some sense.
He's a monopoly because he's getting like coerced tribute, so
you Not really compare like how well you're doing a whole
another like group is do or how well another monarchs doing
unless they're like, right next to each other and then you can
kind of like judge a little bit by like, you know, move like
people moving by their feet into a different monarchy.
You can sort of Judge it that way, but it's still not as good
as the bright. As, you know, a price system
would be if you could voluntarily like choose what you
were going to spend what you were going to purchase, what
service you were going to purchase from people when you're
a monarch. In any government, official,
really you as high except knowledge is local.
So the people, the people who are going to benefit the most
from any type of knowledge are going to be the people who one
or either are in that exact proximity or can gain implicit
knowledge through the price system and I think the Monarch
suffers a fails in both of those accounts.
Next claim is this repeated pattern of Yavin referring to
government as a tool calling it. A tool is sort of implying
neutrality on this page. Anything in italics is an actual
quote, from this discussion, the link to the video in the title
video is at the bottom of the screen.
So he first starts off, if you hand a butcher knife to a serial
killer obviously, implying. You know, what?
What comes from that This is something terrible.
What he fails to do is discriminate between something
inherently bad, rape slavery, genocide kidnapping versus a
lack of utility that something is temporarily bad versus
something that just needs Improvement.
Like it wouldn't make sense to go up to the Wright brothers and
say you tried building the plane.
It's inherently wrong, move on to do something else.
Well, they just need to try a different way.
He's calling government where some people claim the right to
To own literally on the bodies of others.
They have a higher claimed your body than you do without any
contract existing, without getting your consent and he's
referring to this as a neutral tool.
What are your thoughts on government is a tool?
Just like a hammer or a butcher knife implying neutrality.
Yeah. This is I often see this one a
lot. So the state has never been
defined as just some neutral tool, right?
So this is what the government is when Libertarians are an irk.
When we were talking about the government, we're not merely
talking about a governance structure in the same way that
like a person would govern their property or something like that.
Right? So we need to make this
distinction, very clear, the state as Anarchist, and
libertarian criticized. It is an orientation.
It's an orientation of these people in this institution to
leave in favor of legalized aggression, right?
That is what the state is. It's a modality.
It's not merely, it's not merely like a car.
It's a car. Being driven like on it on a
suicide track towards a wall, right?
That's that's what the state is. So you can't sit you.
So, when we're talking about it, if let's imagine.
Let's try to pass more to finding something.
We have to Define things by what they're not right.
We have to Define them have by how their difference, in some
regard to make an actual distinction between them.
So, when we're talking about that, we're talking about the
state, we have to imagine. Okay.
Take away the state's functions. Let's take away.
What makes the state unique, which is Legalized Monopoly on
aggression. It's institutional legalized,
Monopoly on aggression. If we take this away, what are
we left with? Ultimately, what we'd be left
with is just another firm on the market, right?
It would not at that point. Be a state anymore because if
they didn't have a legal Monopoly on aggression, they
would not be legally justified in aggressing against other
people who just wanted to like compete for security services or
anything like that. They could not coercively
collect taxation. So the state is a modality.
It's a It's a it's a structure of its assert.
Its a structure of a certain order.
It's not us. It can't exist.
If you take away all of its components, it doesn't exist.
He goes on to say this is sort of deconstructing the
libertarian mindset. He says, the fact that is
basically driving Libertarians to become what they are.
Let's imagine a world with no government.
And everyone is his own King. So right there, that is not
exactly what drives me necessarily.
It could just be our hatred for the cathedral or it's funny.
He debated Robin Hanson and Robin.
Anson's whole thing in his book, The Elephant and the brain is
whatever people say, their reasoning is, is basically
that's the first thing you could cross off the list.
Because what people do is their brain acts as a press secretary
for what they really want to do. So when he says, when he's
trying to get at the psychology of what makes what drives people
to something, and he says, let's imagine a world with no
government in. Everyone is his own King
considering that he does not differentiate.
Between voluntary contract, employer, and involuntary
Monarch. This makes no sense at all.
If any libertarian has a job that he appreciates and thinks
is morally legitimate where he has to, you know, follow the
rules or regulations, I guess since we're not since we're not
differentiating between the state and Society.
Also, even if you are the boss, I remember saying I don't want
to stinkin boss. So my friend and I arted our own
landscaping business. Well, it turns out that every
customer was our boss and there is no such thing.
As there's the people that have no boss, and they have no
constraints, and they just sit back and collect money.
That's not a thing. So, I don't see anywhere where
you're just your own King, even the people that I know who had
who are recovering from drug addictions or something like
that. A lot of them recognized at some
point in their life. They have to basically hand over
there are Higher schedule. When they wake up, what they do
when they're up, when they go to bed, when things it's okay to
read, Think Places. It's okay to go this what an and
calm might see as, like, pure fascist totalitarianism.
Sometimes, that's what people need.
And if they have the choice, to go to that sort of program to
get their life in order from drugs or whatever, you know, a
lot of homelessness issues can be solved with something like
that, that there's nothing wrong with that and that could be
categorized as dating kingship in such a way.
So I don't even think he's getting at the root of the fact,
that is basically driving Libertarians to become what they
are. Everyone is his own King.
Do you see that? Yeah.
I mean, I I kind of see, like, I kind of see what he's getting
at, in the sense that everyone is, the libertarian claims that
everyone is their own Sovereign in the moral Sovereign.
Sorry. Everyone has their own moral,
Sovereign, in the sense that you don't have a moral right to
encroach upon another person's boundaries Justified.
Chris, right, so I can kind of see where he's going with that,
but I think you're correct that and misses the the prime
distinction here, which is that other people can delegate at
least, you know, within their consent.
They can delegate certain light functions that you would not
associate with a king, right. You would not necessarily
associate the king with like, working a king working.
Someone else's field, you know, stuff like that.
Yeah, even if let's just say that that was what We took a
poll and every libertarian was just just got very excited at
the fact that everyone's their own King.
I don't see that as if we think of King hat being the ultimate
Sovereign, the final decision maker of themselves and their
body. I don't even see that as
anything bad necessarily. It's like saying, you know,
what's really driving this hatred of Jim Crow laws is they
want blacks to be the king of themselves.
The And people are against abusing women is because they
want women to be the queen of their own life.
That's really what's driving it. Yeah, maybe and even if that is,
I don't see how that's anything terrible.
So, first of all, I don't agree with it.
And second of all, let's say I'm wrong and he's right.
I don't see how everyone is his own King.
I think I mean that doesn't sound too terrible.
No. And I think um, you know, going
off that if we just said that well, you know, libertarian or
like You know, you're just saying that, oh, everyone has a
right to life. And, you know, I'm a Europeans
critique and if we're going to like stretch the analogy would
be saying. Well, that's silly people get
murdered right? It's like, well, yeah, they do
get murdered but the fact that people get murdered doesn't mean
they don't have the right to life, right?
That's just that it's a non sequitur.
It doesn't. It's not addressing.
What were actually saying, of course, it doesn't embrace.
The human faculty of comparing things to ideals and then
wanting to arrange her actions in such a way to achieve.
That ideal Jarvan continues. That's an attractive Vision
because it's a hyper stimulus saying to an ordinary person.
Oh, everyone gets to be king is like telling every guy.
He should have a supermodel wife.
It continues on the next page, feeding this sense of hyper
importance to say. There was no King over.
You is to say you're a king Libertarians are chasing this
dopamine Rush where everyone is a king.
That's a Her childish, desire and quote.
So the first thing I thought of is, you know, of course, if
everyone is their own King, it's not even anything bad second.
There's always constraints. So it's not like you're a king.
In the sense of literally anything goes at any time, for
whatever reason in indefinitely in what amount.
I mean, all you have to do is look at Kings that are no longer
Kings like Kaiser Wilhelm or something like that.
He was. Yeah, once a king and then we're
tired. Alone on like some Island.
S is far as calling it a childish desire again.
I could use the Jim Crow analogy of.
It's very childish, just to tell some people.
Oh, you shouldn't have these laws.
These are in positions that Maybe it stems from something.
Childish. I'm sure any psychologist would
say, all of our views stem from Childish desires.
But what comes to mind? When I think of childish, desire
is Probably someone who believes in monarchy that they have the
right to tell everyone else what to do, without any regard for
other people's interests or other people's rights or what's
wrong. And it's also someone who's very
arrogant. Like, like if you talk to the
kids who I used to babysit for my first job in the after-school
program at at an elementary school.
The kids would be like, what do you, you know, when I'm older,
I'm gonna be a football player and a basketball player, and a
baseball player, and an astronaut.
And President. And I'm going to be a chef like
Gordon Ramsay. Well, the only reason that the
kids literally thought that is because they were so naive to
how complex the world is and being good at.
Even one of those jobs, takes a life of dedication.
So, you'd have to be very childish to think, you know,
there could be a king who could arrange how energy is
distributed through the grid, and he's going to make everyone
happy and he's going to control the economy.
Everyone's going to get fed. He's gonna know.
How to get computers to everyone.
He's going to know how to make microphones a certain way.
He's going to make sure ceiling fans are constantly improving.
There's just the right amount of investment just the right amount
of savings. The dollar won't get devalued
over time because of the incentive of of over printing
money to increase consumption now and decrease consumption in
the future. So as far as being childish,
okay, maybe it is but it's not nearly as childish as everyone
listen to me. What?
I say, goes, I rule over you rules.
Apply to me differently than to you.
That's like every child who's just over entitled.
Either way. It's a total strawman thoughts
on and caps are just kids. Yeah.
Well, I think this is just, you know, going back to what I said
before. It's just like this is in some
sense, a childish critique. So when he's saying that
Libertarians are childish, you could say that about anyone who
holds any type of moral view, right, anyone who holds any type
of moral view, I guess. You could say is childish.
Right? If you're against murder rape
theft, you know, you're against these things with the knowledge
that they will still occur. Right?
So the fact that we understand that the still occur, but we're
still against them. If that's childish.
Then you just have to write off every single moral proposition
as childish, I guess which I your oven might do.
I can't speak for him, but he might do that.
So well, say it say that you do. Write it off as childish.
Yeah, you could say. Well, these are people.
He wants compared. Well, people talking about what
should and shouldn't. Be well, these are just sort of
people who have no control over government.
They're like a guy on an island demanding, that a prime rib,
medium-rare be sent to him. They have no influence.
Well, as opposed to him. Who, what is he calling?
The shots? And by this time next week, the
Monarch will be ushered in and we know for a fact, this is
coming. And he's very realistic and his
desires, like, him trying to change public opinion.
Well, that's just virtuous. And it's very informative.
But when other People try to do it just by explaining the rights
that people have. Well, that's a childish desire.
Like, you know, Tom woods and Cast Away, Tom ones Tom Hanks in
Castaway. Just demanding that a plane.
Come come and save him. So again, this constant double
standards of very high standards for the Libertarians and like no
standards for the Monarch and, you know, going back to his
whole idea about monarchy when he was starting to, I like how
he thinks, the government should be run like a business.
I think the Problem with that, is that when he's talking about
these firms, these firms don't exist on an island, they exist
in a market with other firms, right?
So you can't really like when you're trying to draw this
distinction. You can't really the analogy, in
my opinion, just doesn't work, because he's trying to say,
well, I want the government structured like a business,
which is not structured like a government, right?
So it just kind of it circles back in on itself and collapses.
So, I had mentioned again on this slide, something that came
to mind is that the consumers King is mises common phrase.
We always have--can strange even in a totally voluntary Society
such as free disassociation. This is a commonly referred to
as the constrained worldview by Thomas soul in his book, a
conflict of Visions, which could be summarized as acceptance of
the realities of The Human Condition.
We are all limited by Pendant realities which we ignore to our
own detriment. So you could call it very
childish to think that there's a king who just doesn't have any
constraints. And what he says goes and
there's no negative effects and he can just be the Monarch go
over millions and millions of complete strangers.
The concept of freedom to disassociate is a great check
and balance. That would not allow.
Someone that even had these childish desires to exist.
So if you take the supermodel wife example that he uses.
Yeah, there's part of libertarian theory that says you
can have a supermodel wife, but the same exact Theory also says,
the supermodel has the right to reject you, and whoever else for
whatever reason. So, it's not childish to say you
can get it if you want. By the way, the same thing
exists for the other side of the equation.
I think what's child as you're saying that there's a monarchy
and it's a one-way Street. I would think that the adult
would say. Yes, there's your desires and
then there's other people's desires and you have to bring
these into harmony. So even this straw man, I don't
think holds up any final words on, childish and caps.
Yeah. Yeah, why I do want to address
like the constrained view of humanity?
Because I think that's essential, right?
You can't like I don't think you can even talk about governmental
systems unless you take that into account real.
Aesthetically. I think talking about
governmental systems without understanding the constraint,
the constraint of human beings of human nature.
Your dad is childish, right? That that is ultimately childish
because he, the whole point about the the constraint view of
human nature of human beings. Anyway, is that, our knowledge
is limited and our knowledge is extremely limited.
And you know, this factors into mises is calculation problem
Hayek's use of knowledge in society.
You can't Imagine you some Uber manager, some king or something
or some Central planner, right? Because that's ultimately what
the Monarch is. Even if you even if you accept
which I generally do that a monarch has better incentives
than a democratic system. It the Monarch still suffers
from those economic calculation problems and those problems of
knowledge. So the idea that a monarch could
just exist and be able to calculate everyone's needs or
like what they need in any given area and a given.
Time. That's childish.
And you can still hold that view, that monarchy is
preferable to most monarchies are preferable to most
democracies, but you still have to recognize the importance of
being able to even superior to. The monarchy is being able to
disassociate from a bad Monarch who you don't find Value.
And like look, ideally parents have the good incentive to have
a low time, preference with their children.
To leave their estate to them and then their kids leave their
estate to their kids at infinitum, but there's bad
parents who beat their kids and don't have it cut one because
maybe they're evil. Just like the Monarch could be
evil or they're just so ignorant.
Just as the Monarch can be ignorant.
So for the same reason, it's not just inherently good, that
there's a monarch with a low time, preference co-owns, the
people in the property. There's a lot of drug addicts
who own their own property and Basically piss it into the wind.
So even though they are the essential owner.
You need the freedom to disassociate with these Bad
actors which monarchism leaves out and that's a major
shortcoming incentives are not guarantees.
Of course, the point of Divergence I think is important
cards Garvin says, in referring to was a narco capitalist and
Libertarians. He says that they're halfway out
of the Matrix, so it's good that they have.
Have a number of Court criticisms of the state and
Society. However, the shortcoming he
says, is they don't believe in anything, productive or
effective either, which I think is an unjustified criticism
because it doesn't get to the distinguishing feature of what
the and cap says. He simply says that no person
has the right to rule or initiate aggression to do.
So was claiming rulership our ownership over another person
and capitalism. Is just saying a social system
based on the explicit recognition of private property
and voluntary contracts between private property owners.
So to say that they don't believe in anything.
Productive either is sort of like saying the restaurant is
useless because all it does is serve food.
And doesn't tell us the meaning of life.
And Apple Store just sells laptops, which is useless
because without food you starve to death.
Well, the role of the Apple Store and the role of the
libertarian idea and the role of the Abolitionist and the role of
Of the sub stack writer is not to give you every single thing.
You need. Its to find a distinguishing
feature in society, philosophy and try to emphasize their
specialization in their division of labor.
So he talks of his criticism could be categorized as an
arbitrary overlap. It's like saying, the problem
with Communists is all the black wearing and all the rioting and
the bricks through Windows. Yeah, they do that.
And They just pretty much are all idiots.
Virtually everyone. I meet from professors to the
average student at Arizona State, but that's not the
distinguishing features abolition of private property.
So, if I'm criticizing that concept, that's where I'd Focus
not on things that this is how they happen to be.
Now. Well, in the 70s, Robert nozick
and Murray rothbard were different types of an Caps or
Republicans were different under George Bush than they were under
Trump. That that doesn't get.
It to the bottom line of the idea of look at Democrats from
the 60s to today. The leftist, you would not
recognize these people with their talking points at least.
So this, I think saying that we're halfway out of the Matrix,
we don't believe in anything productive is a very weak
criticism. What are your thoughts on this?
Yeah, you know, I would just pair it with you said pretty
much because it's like saying we're not if we don't believe
anything productive. Well, I, you know, I guess you'd
really have to decide if he wants to justify that claim.
I would really have to know what.
Means by productive. Exactly.
Is it seems like most Libertarians?
I know most and caps that, you know, most are because I know in
general is very much. So do support production, right?
In fact, one of the main criticisms against the state.
Is that it is, it pray? It's a predator that preys on
the productive class, right? So the idea that when we don't
believe in anything productive, well, it all depends on what he
means by that and going back to your point when you're just
resizing one aspect of something that someone is not doing or
that they're doing in a way. You don't like, for example,
what you said about like whenever we're specializing in,
we're focusing on one single aspect of something.
We're always doing it at the expense of all other things.
We're not talking about at that one time, right?
Like you and I could be talking about something completely
different right now and people could criticize this.
Well, why aren't you talking about?
You know, X Y or Z instead? It's right.
So anytime you dedicate yourself to any one thing you're doing it
at the expense at that time of all others.
So yeah. Yeah.
I just I don't really see this even As a comprehensible
critique. Yeah, that was sort of broth
bards main claim in power and Market, the addition to man,
economy and state, where he says, production precedes
predation. So that's, that's why we can
called the state, the parasite, rather than we only have the
good things in life and all rights are actually positive
rights because without the state, nothing would exist.
There has to be something to steal and because the, that's
the Tate's distinguishing feature.
We know that you know, it's not the market that relies on the
state. It's the state.
That is the parasail. Yes.
Jarvan said that he is not just a Luddite.
He is a protectionist. Luddite in reference to people
very hesitant to upcoming incoming Technologies, usually
refers to people who want to Outlaw Innovation by force being
the people who were smashing fell factories and Sceneries to
stop an increase in technological production
protectionist generally. Meaning the state has a monopoly
right to forcefully. Stop people from making trades
with people outside of the states geographical area either
completely through embargoes like Cuba or through high
tariffs on this on this claim alone.
I'm not just a Luddite. I'm a protectionist.
What are your thoughts? Well, I mean, you know, we're
trying to look for started. It's very easy.
For anyone who doesn't know your band.
You used to be a Libertarian and he thinks mises is brilliant.
And he is very familiar with the Austrian School.
So when he says, I'm not just a lot of blood, I'm a
protectionist and he still believes that mises brilliant.
It really is this like unbridgeable.
Impasse that I don't understand how he can even Connect the Dots
here to be quite honest with you.
It's just like, yeah, I'm just baffled to be completely honest.
It's one of those words. Like I can't Square the circle.
So I just tried to summarize his arguments just because this was
sort of a long interaction he had on a podcast.
He says Libertarians see the government as bad in practice
and therefore erroneously assumed.
We shouldn't have a government at all libertarian.
See protectionism. As it is today being a way to
protect the inefficient, but it can be used.
For good. We're back to the state being a
neutral tool. Yeah, so that that is one
criticism in and in, and of itself that protectionism can,
but be used for good. My the thing that stood out to
me was notice the striving for the ideal while criticizing
Libertarians for idealism. So he didn't say there is
protection as mm. We have it exists or we don't
have it. We don't have a lot of height as
mm. So, you know, but what are we
going to do? Instead?
We have Klaus. Op so there's nothing really he
can he gets to dream. He says this is my ideal.
I believe in a lot ideas. Mm and protectionism and
whatever. Why do we get all the criticism
for idealism? It's a hell of a lot harder to
enforce the exact kind of protectionists.
You want. Considering there so many
products and such a variety. I think it's less than ideal and
unrealistic to have Universal free trade, you Have trade
between countries. The way we have free trade
between the states in America and the counties, and the
neighborhoods, and everything else / protectionist.
Yeah. So just on that, what would you
say to the our vanian mindset of protectionism, by the Monarch
for the greater good, using the low time, preference to maximize
the utility of his domain. Yeah.
Well, I would just say it's like, you know, if you restrict
I'm trading. If you search people from buying
outside of it, like one geographic area.
That's obviously going to hurt consumers and it's going to hurt
the production or that the wealth the overall wealth of the
society, right? You're putting you're just
adding costs ultimately, because when companies have that
protection, they know that they don't have to fit fear like
competition from outside Market actors, right.
So that they're able to raise prices more than they would be
able to naturally. And this is ultimately going to
make it. So you're actually wasting
Capital and neuter, you're wasting resources.
These people are being forced to pay more than they would be
normal and natural free market because of this constraint.
So you're actually wasting things, right?
It's like imagine if some if some guy from some other country
drop a bunch of like cars off in your driveway for free.
Would you think that? Oh, no, I'm poor now, right?
So it's in your increasing the cost it with in this geographic
area in your little monarchy. You're increasing the actual
East that is being like generated through these
artificially higher prices. Now, it's true that the protest,
the protected class, the protected Industries.
They loved it, right. They benefit of course, but
overall, it's not making your Society any wealthier.
It's just it's just channeling the wealth into that those
protected Industries. It's not actually you.
So you're just changing like how much goes where as opposed to as
opposed to the overall wealth of the society.
Yeah. Yeah, and again, it's not very
clear. Why?
It would be countries that should have protectionism.
Surely States should have it in County, should have it and Pete
and families should have it. Also that this is very it's a
lot of power for something that is so complex as opposed to like
look even the explicit principle of it's wrong to say, even
people who don't, you know, consider themselves as total
volunteers, they'll Say assault is bad.
Well, there is a show called who violated the nap.
I don't know if you know, this guy's name is Chris, and he'll
play a video. And the guests will say this
person or that person violated the nap and it's sometimes
difficult when the entire thing is on camera.
It's really hard to pinpoint, who is at fault here.
So if that is difficult enough, imagine how difficult it would
be in. What incentive would these
protectionist have to spend? I'm focusing on which Industries
should be protected at, what expense?
What are we giving up for their protection?
How much is The Tariff going to be?
Where is this money going to go? Just going to empower the
government that is so moral and not spending money on totally
evil nonsense. In what amount how long it
should? It?
Just be temporary. How much longer are we going to
have this trade embargo with Cuba that Marco Rubio is so
passionate about that. That's really the only thing
that really gets him passionate is Going to embargo Cuba for the
for another 50 years, of course, the amount of sanctions put on
Russia for doing 1/50 of what the US does.
The protectionist has no incentive to really make sure
that this can come out because that he's providing a good
service because it would take so long for everyone to realize the
negative effects of the protectionism.
And it would be impossible to know what you could have had
otherwise. So because The complexity
because no one has an incentive to really lock in to, you know,
agricultural subsidies and other protected Industries.
They're just going to run amok and the reality is.
Yes. It's a moral to stop people from
Trading. But even if we Grant, even if we
ignore the morality of it, that's going to be pretty
complex when it comes to being a Luddite.
Yeah. What do you outlaw?
And when and I don't mean to be, I don't mean to do you.
Like, if we're Ultra specific and touching someone's shoulder
is a nap. Violation Tech, I mean, even in
general, we can, at least, say kicking someone a hundred times,
is a nap violation and saying hello to them is not but, oh my
god, did I misspelled bicycle Jesus?
So so when you look at something like technologies that should be
outlawed when the bicycle came around, should would that have
fallen under the hurting the horse and buggy industry, or how
about the automobile, or the phone, the show or The cell
phone the, what the shovel? Oh, yeah.
So what Mill? Imagine mention how many a jobs
were lost by the shovel? The spoon manufacturers must
have been up in arms. What about what about computers
these things? That at the time can seem so
detrimental. We now see as like a total
necessity that totally ruined. Are there any scribes like what
percentage of people are? Gibbs.
I think I people have assistants that take notes and stuff.
So it still exists but like all the entire scribe, industry
could go out of business because people have the unfettered free
market right to purchase their own typing.
So, I call this the protectionist US a slippery
slope. Any thoughts on these.
Yeah, you know, I actually going back to what we were talking
about earlier. How, you know, you've been
criticized Libertarians is having childish beliefs and you
know it Some sense. This is correct because
Libertarians do have to ask people Elementary questions a
lot and it's for reasons just like this because, you know,
going back to what you're saying.
How do you know, like how do you know which industry to an
Institute protectionist policies for in which not to it?
What is your standard? Right?
How do you know? How do you like interest
objectively compare? Like what?
Even if we do like a utilitarian calculation?
How do you know specifically that instituting this
protectionist policy is going to?
To Grant you better results than instituting on this protection.
Is this protections policy over here?
Right? So I guess maybe just a blanket
protection as policy, but then you could even go further.
Why is it only countries? Why don't you like do it in
certain smaller and smaller geographies?
Why don't you do it in like towns cities municipalities,
right? So if that's like the thought
process, then you should be able that should apply all the way
down until you eventually reach protectionist policies in the
form of one single Monopoly. One single producer for each.
Like good or service within your geography also be.
Yeah, going back down to what you were saying before you like
went. If you're Luddite when exactly.
Do you like? What is your Line in the Sand?
What it, what constitutes technology?
Because here's the thing, right, as human beings.
We are defined by our abilities to acquire tools and use tools,
right? This is like the found one of
the foundational definitions of what makes humans unique from
other animals. Some Other animals use tools but
not to the extent human scam. So when you think about that,
it's like every tool, every invention is a technology.
It's a piece of Kit. Right?
A shovel is a piece of capital. If it reduces the amount of
Labor necessary to acquire that end, right?
So when you're doing that, you have to understand that this is,
in some sense. If you want to be, go through
the protectionist mindset as well.
We don't want to lose our jobs to this other competitor, this
other piece of technology or into like invention.
If we just get rid of all technology and we go back to
living in like caves, right? Everyone is going to have a job.
Everyone possible. Is he going to have a job and
they will never be able to retire either because they will
never be able to generate get they'll never be able to build
Capital. They would never be able to
generate anything that could allow them to retire in the
first place. Right?
So, I know that I'm sure your oven would not agree.
Like with that conclusion. That's the conclusion ice, The
Logical, conclusion of protectionism and being a
Luddite. Ali.
It's like visit ultimately it is you're saying everything that
has been invented. It has in some sense caused
other jobs to not be as valuable or to be completely destroyed by
these inventions and then those people can use their labor in
more more needed spaces. The answer to the question of.
Well, how do you decide or who decides?
It's such an a difficult issue that in any system you are
relying on people to grasp Concepts.
So it was one piece of sand, a hill of sand.
No. Well, do we have to get to a
trillion pieces? Couldn't half a trillion also
count. Well, yes, so you sort of have
not exactly a line in the sand like a purse ice this Has good.
This is aggression. This is not aggression hitting
someone with this amount of power moves.
It from a pat on the back to assault.
You don't have that. But instead what the libertarian
correct response would be. As this is a concept that is
inherently bad. The best way to achieve a
society in which there is the least amount of aggression is to
have voluntarily funded competing Court agencies that
could give us the answer to what counts as aggression and what
does not. Yes, just like if Trying to
achieve Justice, we want to achieve Justice.
Well, that's extremely difficult giving the state a monopoly is
probably the last thing you would want to do.
My generals is. So, of course, we've discussed
the freedom of exchange. What?
No, Zack called capitalist acts between consenting adults.
He's wrong there, but just on a utilitarian basis, this gives
too much discretion to people who have no incentive to provide
a good product, or to provide a good service because they can
always say, look at this. Industry.
I saved. It's going to be impossible.
I mean, besides the psychics who were like, whoa.
This could have been created. There's no way to account for
that. You're unable to account for the
variety and complexity. How many Goods in what?
Amount at what time for? What people should there ever be
acceptance? It's hard enough to do that with
assault. So, don't tell me you're doing
it with billions of people and Friends of billions of products.
Yeah, and there's there's too much room for a small error.
Creating a big cost it is a right.
It is literally like saying so so he doesn't get to say I'm
believing protectionism because I believe in protecting people.
It is the equivalent of saying, I think marriages and
friendships should be good. We don't want bad ones, what we
want, are good ones. So therefore, the state Monarch
should Outlaw bad, marriages and bad friendships.
Now, I guess I would want a world in which those didn't
exist. But in order to achieve that
end, I'd have to give the state pretty much unlimited power to
You know, have a camera and microphone and every house that
they're observing as if the NSA isn't already and giving them
the ability to determine what counts and what doesn't we also
shouldn't have bad art. Why of bad art?
When you could have good, we shouldn't have bad jobs.
We should have good ones. So why not let the state just
outlaw them and we shouldn't have bad products and bad
services and bad parenting and government should pursue the
greater good. There's just too much discretion
for too few people that don't have the information.
Not to mention who does it attract the Psychopaths friends
of Jeffrey Epstein from all over.
So my general claim is that it's too vague gives too much leeway
to tyrants and will lead to overall disutility final
thoughts on a lot ideas and then protectionism.
No, I think you summarized it beautifully.
And you know what you said before about the about monarchy
and governments in general, is that as opposed to like a bit
firm on a market. Generally speaking is that when
a centralized structure makes a bad decision?
It reverberates all the way through that centralized
structure. So if you're in a society puts
heavily, centralized, your and you and this Central planner
makes a mistake. It's going to be felt by every
person. Right?
So our client, the libertarian claim is not that decentralized.
People and individuals are always going to make good
rational actions. It's the it's the claim that
when they do make bad actions or bad decisions or costly
decisions there. It's not going to occur in
mostly. In general terms.
It's not going to extend to other decentralised actors.
Sometimes it does but generally it doesn't and that's why it's
Superior centralization, which spreads the cost of bad
decisions, all the way all the way down through everyone.
Exactly. And so even if you see the
Monarch doing something ridiculous because he's either
either evil or ignorant or lazy. You don't get to use your own
low time, preference for your own future.
It's always his low time preference at the expense of
everyone else has on Tucker Carlson today, which by the way
I get that were spending this time.
Criticizing him. We do it because he's like one
of the most brilliant people. Probably a very intelligent.
Yeah, so 360. So that's why it's going to be
worth going through all this stuff.
His appearance on Tucker Carlson today.
I think I've watched three times.
So it this I recommend more than anything else.
Actually my own interview with him was really good.
The Tucker Carlson is second. He says, here is the last
Monarch in America, Franklin Roosevelt.
So we says we have the same title, but different power
level. Would you mind reading this
Yavin? Quote?
Oh, yeah. Sure.
So he goes on to say could we make the White House ten times
as powerful over the Executive Branch very easily.
Could we imagine at that point? We're reaching the powers of say
LBJ. Could we make the White House
100 times as powerful over the Executive Branch at this point.
We're up to the powers of f.d.r. So people think when they vote
for Donald Trump, they're voting for the same job.
That FDR. I had their actually voting for
like .01 percent of that job, which is a really serious.
That is a really serious misinterpretation of reality.
And I think that that's such a great contribution
intellectually because we forget that, yeah, that is the same
title that Franklin, Roosevelt had, but Trump and Biden and
Roosevelt are not too tall or have an equal amount of
influence. I'm, I would be shocked if Biden
even writes his own speeches, even when he calls on people.
He said on two occasions, hold on here.
I got a list of who to call on it.
Every single thing. That guy does is plenty, doesn't
run his own Twitter account. So so I mean we go from like a
very powerful executive to Biden and it's not the same.
So he says this is important because people are getting gas
lick. Its, you know, the equivalent of
saying, Ace clean my house, and then you will determine the
events in Spain. It's like so obvious Lee, I'm
using you to get what I want out of you and lying to you about a
positive effect, so I was glad that he brought this up, the
main thing, is he Advocates? Monarchy the closest thing we've
had recently to a monarch, is Franklin Roosevelt.
A thoughts on how well, the last Monarch was for America.
Yeah. It wasn't too great shocking,
but I guess, you know, we always have to do these comparative
advantages, but even when we compare, You know, on generally
on even more looking through libertarian terms, FDR is
usually considered one of the worst Presidents.
I mean it when you look at like what he did, I mean, you know
World War two things like that and I know that's a that's a Hot
Topic. These a lot of people think
well, that was the Justified War.
I don't want it. I'm not going to drag us down
and get into that right now, but then you have to think about
like everything. The FDR did the New Deal set the
groundwork for fascism in America, right?
That's what the New Deal did all.
These things of like corporate interests being able to
colluding with the state comes from the New Deal directly like
that is the main. So, so when people talk about,
you know, how that fascism is in America, you can thank FDR for
it because he really, really jump, started it even more who
so that I would even say Wilson which is, which in my opinion
was probably the worst president of the United States, but, but
yeah, FDR is was not great, not great whatsoever.
Yeah, so I should have made my list.
Clear. So when it comes to monetary
policy, the gold confiscation. Yes Act was just so just pure
evil. I mean, but by every metric, the
state monopolizing, something this valuable puts a lot of
power in the hands of the few and did it end the Depression
like you thought it would? Well, he, of course, ran on
Herbert Hoover bringing us into To socialism, and we need to do.
You know what it's funny yarr van constantly plugs the
Machiavelli ins by James Barnum and the opening paragraph in the
Machiavelli. Ins is here's the Democratic
platform National platform in 1932.
And it's a bunch of ways of why we need to shrink government.
It's just a list of that. That's the Machiavelli ins by
James Barnum. What was it, like 1940 or
something? I want to thank you.
So you can see that the last Monarch was a total liar and
well, hey, you you want to make an omelet?
You gotta crack a few eggs, the depression lasted far longer
than previous downfalls such as the Panic of or recession of
1919 or I'm sorry 1920 under Warren G.
Harding, who was actually a do-nothing president.
That's why we don't hear about him because he was, he actually,
Did he was much closer to do nothing than Hoover who tripled
spending increased taxes? Used protectionism.
So just more on FDR Japanese German German and Italian
internment. Yeah.
So like the our biggest criticism of Australia, he of
course did that on a large scale?
Hundreds of thousands of people unilaterally engaged in
large-scale slavery, under the guise of conscription the worst
form of probably occupation. Had that you could be.
Now I can imagine getting my fingers arms legs blown off
getting an eye shot out and thinking God about.
As bad as forced cotton-picking was, I think it might have been
better as far as the second world war.
Of course, the war declared by Britain on Germany for Polish
Independence, ended with giving Poland to Stalin after 60
million deaths, giving us communism and China.
The spread of Communism in Korea and the Vietnam War, not
necessarily good things. The mass murder in Tokyo
operation. Meetinghouse 100,000 people in
one night continues, the myth that we need the state and World
War Two was this, you know what, inherently the good War just
like just like anything else. So his his most recent example
of a monarch is the second worst president.
I think that America has ever had and he's given Wilson a run
for his money. Final thoughts on FDR being the
last month. And Monarch being the best form
of government, right? I'm sure like if you're going
was listening to us, he would consider this like cherry
picking, you know, but I think it's very that.
I don't think it's cherry picking.
If you like. This is his example, it's very
appropriate to like, okay, look at what happened.
Now, this doesn't necessarily imply that every Monarch that
niang would support would be like FDR, but the fact that he
would use FDR kind of as the example here is questionable
about the the claims of monarchy in Neural, right?
Like if you have a man who essentially committed, so much
mass murder theft on a global scale instituted like a fat
fascist policies in the US. And, you know, of course slavery
through conscription. It's like, yeah.
This isn't looking too great for, for monarchy.
In my opinion, if this is his close to his ideal.
He then gets into his concept of the Cathedral on Tucker Carlson.
Would you mind? My voice is getting killed on
Orchard? You mind going sure.
He says he quotes the Deep State or the swamp or the cathedral or
whatever. You want to call it.
This world of permanent influential people inside and
outside of government and it's very important that many of
them, many of these power centers are outside government
proper. I've noticed that and you might
have noticed that there beyond the Troll of the population.
Yeah. Yeah that makes them completely
unaccountable Sovereign beyond the reach of any kind of ability
whatsoever. So he's essentially saying that,
you know, these power structures exist and essentially prop up
the state outside of it even. And it's really important
because he brings the intellectual, you know, the
intellectual grasp behind a concept that was like, five
years ago. You're a crazy conspiracy
theorist if you believe in the Deep State, as if there aren't
people like what percentage of government employees changed
from Trump to Biden or Obama to. I mean, he has a funny joke
about how at the state department.
It's really inconvenient. When you know, One president,
when the parties and the president's change.
You have to get a whole new picture.
Yeah, for reframe it. You have to put it up.
What if you had just dusted the picture of the last president.
Other than that, everything stays the same.
So it is a great contribution that he brings this people
inside and outside of government.
That's something that I'm very glad.
Of course, Milton Friedman and Murray rothbard always said that
it's the intellectuals and big business that are wholly off the
state in which contrary to what Ian Rand said.
Big business. The America's most persecuted,
minority, rothbard, and Antony Sutton, who worked at the Hoover
Institute were constantly saying, look at how big business
is pushing for big regulation. G Edward Griffin.
The voluntarist says, look at what these private businesses
did in j.p. Morgan using the state and the
Federal Reserve. So but before getting onto
beyond the control, you have the media Harvard, all these, all
these organizations. Thoughts on the cathedral and
the Deep State. Well, I think this is probably
some of your ribs best work. Got like I'm very grateful for
this work because I think it is very true.
Right. So, the idea of these power
structures, that complement, the state that are there that are
supportive of the state. Even in, of course, you have the
Deep State that's inside the state that doesn't change.
But you also have power structures outside the state
that complemented and are there to prop it up in some sense like
a like a Foundation of a house that makes sense to me and you
know, talking about big business.
There's obviously the Symbiote the symbiotic relationship
between businesses and government is big businesses.
Want to grow and they want the government to crush your
competition. And these big businesses are
only in some sense big because the state crushes, their
competition, allowing them to absorb market, share, and things
like that, when they normally wouldn't be able to.
And obviously, you know, the academic class in the media,
they are there to assist Actually support the regime, not
all, you know, there's some exceptions here and there, you
know, especially with alternative media nowadays, but
it historically, this is obviously been to write this
conservative of delusion about, you know me, the media being
there for years, like the Free Press to hold the state
accountable is insane. It's like, you know, trusting
the constant, the state to enforce the Constitution's.
Like, no, that's the incentive. Just don't align their they have
no incentive to actually, you know, expose The Truth Exposed
the truth of the people who give them power in some sense because
it's very much. Symbiotic relationship.
And in the same way, you get pretty much most.
Rabbis on the same page about everything, you get them,
synoptic is by getting them Reliant, either financially, or
emotionally on one sort of Center.
So it's not like there's one Imam, who controls all the
mosque's correct from Scottsdale, Arizona, to Saudi
Arabia to Australia, which you have is this lie, when in our
case it's statism or even Keynesian economics, I guess,
even if you didn't have a States, This terrible lie of
spending is production and not the other way around so that you
could still have this stuff but this concept of throne and altar
as Patrick Newman says, you have the king who would want to
employ the priest to tell people, you know, the reason you
have the an obligation to obey this guy, the king is because it
was divined by God. You got to make those people
Reliant the same reason States. Constantly make you dependent on
intellectuals in I'm just remembering Milton Friedman said
that, you know, if it was just education that the state wanted
you to have. They would have school stamps,
sort of like, food stamps. You can go to school wherever
you want. We'll give you the stamps
because we just care. It's important that they
monopolize compulsory education, because that's a much different.
It's a much different outcome. You people can see this.
When it's like, well, the donor class back, Pete Buddha, Jesus,
and they backed Jeb Bush not and it's not.
He's a robot that they're controlling.
What they do. Is they make the politicians
reliant on them. And he who, you know, pays the
piper calls the tune. Well, obviously, it's the same
thing with the the state. What are your thoughts on their
beyond the control of the population completely, any
unaccountable Sovereign beyond the reach of any accountability
whatsoever. Yeah, so I think I'm not sure I
would fully go that they're completely unaccountable.
I think they Are in the sense that while they're connected.
So while they're in this symbiosis with the state,
they're at their most powerful. Right?
Because because of this, in States, granting them privilege
and the company in the big businesses, in the media.
They academic class. They're granting the state
privileges, right? So it's the Symbiote symbiotic
relationship. And when this is going on, it is
very hard to hold any of them accountable.
And also, it will to be to be clear.
You can't really hold the government accountable outside
of like counter economic action and sir.
Local certain for certain local, politic issues Federal trying to
hold the federal government accountable is nearly
impossible. So, I would grant that at this
moment. I'm anyway, but I don't think
it's there unaccountable in the sense that over the long span of
time. They're accountable.
It certainly, you do see what would be like, you know, these
institutions, some of them do eventually fail right and
nuances. It's true.
That new institutions do come to take their place, but I do think
that in In. If you had a decentralized
market, I do think their ability to grasp, our would be
diminished greatly, and I don't think they'd be able to cement
themselves in the positions that they're cemented in, currently,
in society. So if you are upset that there
are people without any accountability beyond control of
the population, you'd want to make sure that there was a free
market that people could disassociate, with employees,
can not work there if they don't want to, and you want, Employees
to have the ability to do so, so you'd want a free market where
there were more options and more businesses to choose from.
You want consumers to have more options to stop consuming from
whichever organization, was unaccountably controlling
Society. And also I'm actually not sure.
So I hope this isn't a strong man but isn't his whole thing
that the Monarch being unaccountable is a good thing
because you don't want accountability from the masses
who are generally Unformed and uncaring.
So he's saying it's really bad that you know, the cathedral is
like totally unaccountable. Also, we need a monarch who
doesn't have to answer to idiots.
I can see pros and cons to both sides.
I'm actually just thinking out loud with the with that one.
How do you think they would respond to or that?
He would respond to that of why I think his whole structured.
So I think he's just being descriptive here.
I'm not sure. He's this early prescribing that
it's necessarily bad. I think.
He's thinking more of this as an end, like an engineering thing
where it's like, look, this is just the way it is.
This is just how it works. So I'm not even sure who, when
he says, they're completely unaccountable.
I don't think he's necessarily saying that's bad.
He's just saying, look, this is how it works.
This is how bureaucracy works. This is a oligarchy works.
Got it. He continues his concept of a
pressed controlled state, which I believe is in his book a
letter to open-minded progressivism progressives.
But this was a again, on his discussion with Tucker Carlson.
He said the most powerful organ of government in the government
today is not even in the government.
I would say it's probably the New York Times.
It's at least a reasonable thought.
And the interesting question is, okay, is the New York Times a
democracy? How Is the New York Times
governed and then you think about it and you're like, oh,
yeah. I see.
It's a fifth-generation hereditary, absolute monarchy.
Oh man, and try as you may, you cannot eliminate the swarm of
government. What are your thoughts on that
statement? Well, I see I have a lot.
I have some problems with this statement.
Surprisingly. So first off, I would say he's
saying that the New York Times is the the, you know, the
essentially because you know, there is something to this,
right. There's absolutely I want to
give credit where. It's due.
There's absolutely something to this.
We're in do in a democratic government and Democratic State,
you could very easily make the case that the media is in some
sense, the prime mover of political political interest in
political government in itself, right?
Because they the media determines, what the topics are.
They determine like how you like, what are the appropriate
ways you can do this topic and then people give that have this
illusion of choice when they go and look like when they actually
vote. Now, in terms of it being
Monarchy, I would just say that again.
Would want to emphasize that you have to be very careful and not
to equivocate. So when he's talking about
monarchy, there's a difference between a governance structure
in like an internal governance structure and a government.
Right? So an internal governance
structure might be like, I own a piece of property or I own a
business, and I am the Phi of the final say, in what goes, on
with the business, right? You could make the claim that
maybe, you know, this is my An article in the sense that this
is a governance structure in, this is an internal governance
structure, but the difference between that in a monarchy, is
that a monarchy extends Beyond its own Justified, boundaries
into other boundaries and claims to own the properties of other
people? And the people are, they actual
persons of other people, too. So, I think it's very important
not to we, make sure not to equivocate these two things and
sometimes you Arvin like threads, the needle and gets
very close. I think.
As far as the New York Times is, you know, the essentially, the
main institution of the government.
So I that that may be true but I think it's certainly less true
today than it is in any other kind of History, right?
If you look at the media, the Power of the media and the trust
in the media, it's gone drastically down.
So this is why I'm hopeful and I'm not I don't I think your
oven has a much more pessimistic view in which you would say is a
realist view. I do think technology is
ultimately going to lead to more decentralisation, 50, 60 years
ago. They were three channels.
They were three channels right? Where it's like that.
And that's how you consume your news.
That's how you got your news. That's how you got a lot of your
opinions about things. A lot of the ways you think
about things who to vote for, who is good, who was bad came
from those three channels. Now, of course, those female
still exist, but because there's so much competition, even if
that you want to say that, a lot of this is kind of the
competition is controlled, which is, that's certainly true.
There's still more competition and there are Alternate media
sites, you know, your alternate media Keith.
What we're doing right now is, you know, not is something that
would never happen on one of the big three channels, right?
So, your oven is alternate media, you know, his sub stack.
So, you have all these things where, like, 50 60 years ago.
These people would never have been heard from, like, even if
you want to say that, yes, censorship is bad right now.
And I agree with is the fact is it's better now than it was 50
60 years ago. So I think if he's trying to
tell me that the Press is controlling the state, and I'll
certainly by that I would say that the power certainly
weakening in a trajectory. It's if we look at us, long-form
trajectory the power of the state or the, the power of the
press over the people I should say.
Sorry is going down and his refusal to, you know, as someone
who's read Hapa democracy, The God That Failed, especially the
last four chapters of that book are just so explicitly
advocating for a system of anarchism.
That, if you've read that you Often know the difference
between hereditary, absolute monarchy in North Korea and
hereditary monarchy in the form of, You Know, The Waltons at
Walmart. I mean, you can always say well
it's impossible to compare those and you know how they operate
but he's just sort of categorizing them and a
similarity that they happen to have.
He's not differentiating, voluntary groups within
voluntary. Has ations.
That's the that is just shocking that he doesn't care to make
that distinction. And if you know, this is just a
monarchy. Well, then he should just be in
and cap because you would have private courts and private
police, that would be monarchies because they have CEOs and
monarchies are really good, and there's no difference between a
state Monarch, right? Exactly.
And voluntary monarchy, so I don't see his point of his point
of Distinction. Here.
So when he says, try as you may, you cannot eliminate this form
of government. Please call me out.
If I am straw Manning here. But when I think I go.
Okay, what is he talking about? We have we have two things, we
have monarchy, we have state monarchy, we have monarchy in
the private sector. Of course, you have the fascist
monarchy in mixed economies, which probably is closer to.
But places like America and try as you may, you cannot eliminate
this. Of government, is it is that
falsifiable by saying, by me finding Empires that have been
killed or forms of government that have been killed.
Considering if I just look at things like in my generation
alone? It's like a blockbuster Sears
Circuit City Myspace and AOL or like these big gigantic
companies that everyone goes to. Everyone knows about them and
now they don't exist. So these are government.
These are monarchies, private monarchies, totally
unaccountable that somehow have gone away, even though their
monarchies that you can't kill. Let's even look at government
monarchies. Well, you have the Ottoman
Empire which was killed. You have the British Empire
which in 1913 ruled over four hundred twelve million.
People also known as 24% of planet Earth.
Thirteen point seven million square miles.
You have the Mongol Empire at Its height in the 14th century
people like Genghis Khan, so I don't see how he can say that.
You can't kill these monarchies when there's Wikipedia lists of
defunct of retailers. So those would be private
monarchies lists of newspaper. So if we're just talking about
the media and the Press controlled State, there are
thousands of newspapers that are no longer in business that were
monarchies list of Empires in the state sector and monarchies
that have That no longer exists that has to conflict with the
idea that try as you may cannot eliminate this form of
government by any stretch of what he means by monarchy.
In every case. There have been like thousands
that have been eliminated. Am I wrong on this?
Am I totally missing his point? I think what he would say is
that he's talking about the form as opposed to the content.
So I think what he would say is, he would say that.
Yeah, you know, you you might see these individual Commodities
fail, but another monitor, He just takes its place, right?
Kind of like my MySpace into Facebook, something like that.
So I would actually disagree with that.
Ultimately, because I do think you can, and I think we're going
to get to this later when we talk about his whole idea about
the cover of the conservation of power in society.
But I do think you can actually divide these, these power
structures. Okay.
So yeah, here are just just a screenshot of all the different
Empires, bye-bye, like any reasonable metric.
These As what's his word cannot eliminate.
These are Empires, that were eliminated, Thomas Soul.
So now we're back to the private sector.
He was saying that. Well, because of the
Constitution, you know, you can't explicitly regulate the
New York Times there unaccountable.
Well, Thomas Olsen is book. Basic economics is discussing
the rise and fall of business in the income Mobility section.
He says, ordinarily, we tend to think of businesses as simply
money, making Enterprises, but That can be very misleading in
at least two ways. First of all, about one-third of
all new businesses, fail to survive for two years and more
than half fail to survive for four years.
So obviously many businesses are losing money, even among the
truly Rich, there was turnover. Okay.
So here we have the organization failing but then you could say
well, yeah, technically Empires and companies and those things
exist, but you still have the people in power.
So it just From like Myspace. Yeah, that goes.
But then you have Facebook. Even the individuals.
So under no definition of cannot eliminate this counts as being
eliminated, even among the truly Rich, there was turned over when
Forbes Magazine ran its first list of the 400 richest
Americans in 1982 that list included 14, Rockefellers 28,
DuPont's and 11 Hunts. 20 years later the list included, three,
Rockefellers, one hunt and no DuPont's just over one-fifth of
the people. On the 1982, Forbes list of the
wealthiest Americans inherited their wealth by 2006.
However, only two percent of the people on that list inherited
their wealth, so nice shot at commies for believing in
intergenerational wealth, and one person getting wealthy and
then his heirs being wealthy forever and everyone else being
impoverished. But it also hits at this fact
that but there are unaccountable nothing you can do.
Unless we issue a monarchy. Then we're base.
Our hands are tied to the cathedral.
I He is just explicitly wrong on this.
Anything else. I'm you think I might be
missing. No, I think you're.
I think you're get on. All right, this the italics is a
quote again on Tucker. He's talking about the Gilded
Age. Could you read that quote,
please? Yeah sure.
He goes on to say if you see a description of the Gilded Age,
go to an old American city. See all those brick buildings
and that beautiful old stuff. All like DC, you know, all that
is built within what we call the Gilded Age which is a period
when America was governed very much.
The way China is. Now it was very corrupt
politics. It was incredibly sorted screwed
up. Shit got done.
So that I believe is is his ultimate point.
He goes look there's all these systems and you can have these
beliefs and this ideology. I want stuff to get done.
When I see a place that was like empty and then it has these nice
buildings, whatever, got the buildings there, whatever, time
preference and set of incentives that got these buildings built.
That's the place. I want to live in this.
I mainly took out because so I think it just gets to the idea
of I really want to be favorable to him as much as possible.
Not because not because he's dying for my approval.
But so I could understand one of the most brilliant people who
I've ever had the pleasure of speaking with any thoughts on
getting into what how this shit got done mindset when looking at
his criticisms of libertarianism overall.
Well, I do want to address this for one thing because II did
want to actually jump in and talk about like how he's saying
how you know, it was corrupt. The politics was corrupt and you
know, shit got them. Okay.
Well the first thing I'd want to point out here is that the
correlate like all I see is without further evidence to
support his point. I just see this as a correlation
causation fallacy, right? Like even if you correlate that
the Gilded Age had very corrupt politics and the time an It's a
crop right now to but the you his point would be that they
would be more like back. Head back handed dirty like
thuggish politics, which I would still say happens right now, but
beyond that if we just grant him the point for a second, I would
still see this as a correlation causation fallacy visit just
because it's code, that's correlated with that time.
Period doesn't imply. That the the politics is what
caused The Innovation or the building of of these of these
landmarks that you would see today.
Day or any of the things that we would associate with the Gilded
Age like the technology will advancement.
Yeah. I mean, I think whatever sort of
system whether it's collaborative private-public
that he's saying the Gilded Age was but because he's not saying
it was communism under a monarch or it was free market as mmm.
Where was Robert Higgs makes the point in his book Transformation
of the American economy. He intentionally uses 1865 to
1913. Where there was this general?
Of course, it was a Spanish American war, but there was not
this war economy, like we have today or something like that.
Higgs uses that period because he goes, all right.
So we've been devastated with the Civil War 600,000 deaths and
then the first world war obviously, another hundred and
seventeen thousand, you know, Americans dead.
That was a wartime economy. Was there any growth in this
age? And Hicks said, yeah, this
Gilded Age. We had much more of a free
market than you otherwise would have had if you had this.
This war economy, the bigger the war economy gets.
Well, everyone else wants a piece of that honey pot.
So the teachers and the Agriculture and the farmers, and
every other industry doesn't just stay silent.
They see. Hey, this government's growing,
I got to get a slice of that and then everyone gains at the
expense of everyone else. Of course, if we're looking for
the determining factors of what makes countries, Rich.
Certainly you could by his definition, North Korea has to
be a hereditary. Monarchy from Kim il-sung to
Kim. Alta.
Kim Jang, Hoon, if you look at that versus South Korea, where
is the shit? Got done East Germany vs.
West, Germany, where is more shit getting done.
Botswana vs. Zimbabwe Ghana verse Ivory
Coast. When they received independence
from Britain, where was the shit?
Getting done East, Germany? And West.
Germany is probably the best example, of course, finally,
they started addressing this. I don't know if you've heard but
they said, well, that's not a comparison.
A good comparison is Sweden vs. America, of course, you could
all you have To do is look at swedes who are in America and
see that more of that they're wealthier than they are in
Sweden. So that's a better comparison.
But as far as East Germany, not having a lot of Natural
Resources, what they say. Well, Hong Kong, barely has any,
but because of free trade policies and more private
property and contracts. They are much more of a getting
shit done. Even you look at India since
1991. There were forms or China since
1979. They were certainly the monarchy
under Mao while they Starving, but the more private property
and the more free exchange they had, well, they were wealthier.
So, but we'll get into the China stuff later.
Final thoughts on shit getting done in the Gilded Age.
Well, I think, you know, this goes back to the whole point
with rothbard was just like, you know, production precedes
predation. So like whenever people want to
try to make this about, you know, we'll look, the state was
doing this during this time, period and X growth happened,
right? It just doesn't those things.
Don't imply one. Another Really, so I would make
the claim that everything you see.
All technological advancement comes from entrepreneurs in the
market producing value. For other people, that value
gets distributed through society and it gets built up in
generated in the form of more technology Capital, you know,
just institutions themselves. So, whenever people see that, I
think it's a much safer assumption to assume that this
was the act of a market of Market transactions, rather than
a any type of government protection or interference.
Yeah, and we get a lot of people escaping, much more monocle Cuba
escaping through America, rather than people escaping DeSantis to
be, under the kind rule of, I forget who took over for Castro
who ever did. But, but the reason I use that,
those sorts of comparisons also, Chile and Venezuela, similar
populations in similar similar geographical areas.
Those are just better comparisons.
You can't get any controlled experiments, but you can get
close. Even I say this because A lot of
his support God. I feel like such a weasel saying
this but it is important. A lot of people say, the white
countries are wealthy and the black countries are impoverished
and that's pretty much all we need to know.
Well, even if you just look at the Botswana Zimbabwe example by
every metric Botswana having more private property than
Zimbabwe is doing better Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
They're like on the same island and Haiti is not nearly as
wealthy as the Dominican Republic.
So in Every race and every geographical area.
It's important to point out wherever this experiment is
done. We still get we get more shit
getting done. Then we get in anything else.
It's always important to find the actual cause of something
versus like the correlation you see with it.
Yeah, not not easy. So, here is his take on
Hamilton. Would you mind reading this?
Sure, he go. He quotes.
He's a, are he see? This is him talking Hamilton.
He's normally just a Secretary of the Treasury.
He's basically running everything and Washington is
running political interference for him.
So you have the system, which is actually it works a lot like a
monarchy which is like a company.
A startup. It's like, do you drive a car?
Your car was made by a monarchy. Do you go to a restaurant?
Your restaurant is? Monarchy every functional
institution in the world has this very simple pyramid
structure and quote. So again Hamilton giving us the
expansive commerce clause which was later used to determine how
much food you can grow on your own land because that determines
how much will be traded if a lots grown in Arizona.
Well, then that's going to affect Commerce with other
states. So this is The blank check sort
of mindset that how do they get the states to have ultimate
power. Well, they just roll things in a
much more General way and promoting the general welfare,
not to mention First Bank of the United States, the ideology that
later gave us this Central Banking hellhole of
monopolizing, the currency in the worst way possible.
Yeah. Not allowing for competition to
keep the monarchs on on their toes.
So I'm not sure what else to say besides the fact.
That we have refuted the private versus public or coercive first
voluntary. Monarchy thing.
Yeah, a hundred times. Yeah.
So he then he continues to talk about Hamilton.
He says, and he Hamilton created this monarchy, right?
But of course, he goes out, does a stupid duel and the system
degrades it basically falls apart and it becomes more and
more oligarchic. So we Libertarians that are so
often called. Well, we sort of have this Pie
in the Sky idea and if everything's going okay, maybe
you could have it but you know, if there's like a greedy
monopolist things will go bad and because that's always going
to happen. Then you know this Some just
unrealistic. Well, here he says, we had a
monarch Hamilton and because of one death.
So one person dies and the system degrades, and the guy had
such bad judgment. He thought going into a duel
with Aaron Burr was would be beneficial.
So we look at all the eggs. You're putting in this one
menaka basket. The one that came to mind was
Franz Ferdinand getting assassinated.
So The Story Goes No, bad consequences from that exact
exactly that Serbian intelligence hired.
The black hand organization to assassinate the Archduke.
So he couldn't expand the austro-hungarian Empire.
They have these demands, which Serbia Meats, but Austria, still
declares war thinking, they have a blank check from Germany
Russia mobilizes, Britain declares war because Germany
invades France through Belgium based on an old treaty that
Britain had Britain needed the US.
So they use the loose. Jania as a justification to
enter the war and killing all these people giving us the
Versailles treaty, giving us the rise of Hitler in the second
world war. So, please don't tell me that
the free market is unstable. And it's kind of like, you know,
people just eating Doritos and bad things happening.
Look at all this war and hell that the monarchs brought Upon
Us, shouldn't this great Monarch Oracle system of low time.
Preference have stopped all this, could they have gotten
together and shaken hands over anything?
Final thoughts on one death away from degradation.
Asian? Yeah, no, I think that's a
brilliant point because it's like, you know, we Libertarians
are always criticized for like, oh, well, you know, you have
this free market but what happens when there's a mistake
made or what happens when, you know, it coalesces into a state,
you know, these firms congregate into a state and it's like yeah,
that's a possibility. I'll be honest.
It's possibility. It's true, it could happen.
But it's that bad things could happen with every structure of
government. And just like you said, with
World War one, you had all these monarchies in World War one who
just Fumbled like they fumbled everything in the worst.
Catastrophic what you can imagine.
Moving on. Oh, okay.
So this is just a general pattern that I've seen where
he'll say, look, we tried XX doesn't work.
He will only have that standard for either the voluntary sector,
or maybe democracy. So when the free market fails it
failed, and that's why we need to reject it.
But when monarchy fails, we just need to reform it.
It's actually a neutral tool. Well, can I say either the free
market works perfectly or their shortcomings, in which case, we
should reform it, not throw the baby out with the bath water.
He doesn't give us what he says their shortcomings.
So we need this one. Well, their shortcomings and
everything. These are gosh.
Right? What would you call it?
I think I mentioned it later but these are constants that apply
in every circumstance. So he's not telling us the
distinguishing feature of the monarchy besides saying, well,
it's a pyramid structure and all the great things, the
restaurants, and who makes your car monarchies.
Exactly goes into differentiate. Yeah.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
The reason I pull up the Khmer Rouge picture here is just
because, I mean, prices go up in the free market, even though the
Federal Reserve causes it and immediately, they blame great,
all all the businesses in concert got greedy, at the same
time, out of nowhere. But governments, can commit
Mass. Genocide.
No be like it. Well, yeah.
Yes. Yeah.
Yes. We need reform.
It's like that Meme where the Communist is.
The Communist. Professor says national
socialism is inherently evil communism.
You know, I think we need reform such a good idea.
We just need to reform it that this blatant.
Double standard keeps showing up every time he discusses
libertarianism. Yeah, you said like, I see this
all the time. We want to argue on Twitter by
Kate, you know, I can give the, the example of ancient Ireland,
which was stateless for 2,000 years, and people say, well,
it's where is it right now, you know, it doesn't exist right
now. So obviously anarchism doesn't
work. Well, Just as you showed in the
previous slide, you have all those Empires that are no longer
with us. Where's Rome?
What happened to the Roman Empire?
Right? So the fact that, you know, if
you're going to say that anarchism fails because this one
Anarchist Society, eventually failed after 2000 years.
What about all these monarchies who lasted far fewer years,
right? Should we say that?
Well, I guess if anarchism doesn't work, because you can
point to an example or a numeron, number of examples
where they're no longer with us. I can do the exact same for
monarchy, so, Argument just does not work.
You had. You can't play a double standard
like that and expect it for it to be persuadable to most
people. And the other monarchs you
refers to, he sort of says, LBJ much more power than the
presidency today, but not really.
He says the big three are Hamilton Lincoln and FDR, when
it comes to Lincoln. We've already gone over after
you are. What would you say is the
verdict on Lincoln and LBJ as far as net benefits or
negatives? Yeah.
Well, I mean Lincoln, who is probably up there for me on one
of the The top three worst Presidents who ever existed
insta. Credit, you know instituted
slavery on a massive scale in the form of conscription and
through people into a meat grinder.
He call it, he violated the Constitution, he right?
He put He would lock up. People just expressing anti-war
opinions. He would have their businesses
or they're like press burned down if they were expressing
anti-war opinions, but he would Institute the first income.
Packs in America, he would, you know, and of course, you know,
the Civil War which did not need to happen, is a just monstrous
in, it's Carnage in totality. You look at like the the actions
of Sherman Sherman's, march in the South and it's just a
terrific. So yeah.
LBJ, of course, you know, gives the Great Society, really the
creation of the welfare state, and that has had disastrous
effects on just the American population in general.
It's it Eyes like Mutual Aid and what would normally be
considered social functions of like churches?
Mutual Aid societies and everything else into the state's
purview and because of that, the state now in some sense is seen,
as the is seen as such an essential function of society
that most people would be scared to ever, like think about even,
you know, getting rid of the, the welfare state because they
genuinely think that, well, we need the welfare state because
if we didn't have it, then everything would just collapse.
It would be Dying in the streets.
Oh, so, you know and of course, you know, there's so many things
you could say about all these presents.
But that those are the main main things that come to mind
immediately for me. Exactly.
And I'm sure that your oven is not necessarily like this
anti-colonialist, but when it comes to, I mean, people
advocating the Lincoln, as you know, one of their tops, he was
like the ultimate colonizer like these people fighting for their
independence. Notice.
They never say. Well, in Africa, the
independence movements weren't inherently good.
The anti-apartheid weren't necessarily good cuz they might
have been replaced with something worse.
So, all of a sudden, they're the ones now who have the standard
for well independence. From foreign rule is Sometimes
good sometimes bad. And in the Lincoln case, it was
good because the benefits outweigh the cost.
They never have that statement when it comes to any of the
African countries leaving British Imperial Rule and it
Change. The dynamic of the country.
Is it, is it a country that has States, or states, that formed a
country that gets us into so much?
And of course, 600,000 deaths, much higher than a percentage,
as a percentage percentage of the population.
Then alleged covid deaths that we have now and of course,
covid-19, the ultimate perv libertarianism can't work for
two months until they looked at the genome only to find this
does not look like it was created in nature.
Look, What's that? The first cases happen to be 900
kilometers away from the closest Batcave in Wuhan, that was
actually people who happen to work at the lab.
What are the chances? So, of course, turns out the
government not only overreacted but created this virus LBJ.
Yeah Gulf of Tonkin. These people both lied us into
Wars and enslaved millions of men only to be told that they
have male privilege later on the worst form, of course, Medicare.
And Medicaid changing the healthcare system from a
consumer-based industry where companies have to please
consumers. Now, they focus more on pleasing
governments, and that's why health care costs are through
the roof Civil Rights, Movement, forced Association.
Just just terrible. His, his examples of here, the
monarchs and monarchy is good. We have to recognize that the
worst are the the monarchs here. Again, he equivocates with
Thaddius Russell, but just tell me if there's anything.
What we can add to this. That hasn't already said.
Your husband says, if you drive a car, your car was made by a
monarchy. Imagine the Department of
Transportation trying to make electric cars and compared to
Elon Musk anything there. Yeah, so, I actually have a lot
to say about this. Be so equivocation for people
who don't know, equivocally equivocation is when you use the
same word, but you used it in two different ways and generally
the same. Um, argument or same meet your
same structure, right? So with and this I also want to
go into a little detail and explain what what I think you
are man is doing here unintentionally.
I'm not assuming malice here. I think he's engaging in what's
called a mod Bailey fallacy. So, what the mop Bailey fallacy
is, is the you have a mod. Like, it's essentially when you
propose a common sensical, uncontroversial proposition in
your first half and then you Swit, you do an equivocation on
the later half. It's called the Bailey and you
switch it to an extremely narrow like controversial claim.
So, an example of this would be like, if your oven is saying
that monitor, you, these companies are just like
monarchies right there. Like they have a CEO, the top
they have someone at the top and then it's structured downward
from there. Right?
Okay, you could say that there are they're structured like a
monarchy in a sense that yeah, they imitate a monarchy.
But when he goes, and then tries to say, therefore, the
government should be right in there for, if monarchies.
Okay for a business. Well, then it should be okay for
a government to, or, or that they're the same thing.
And anyway, it's not the case at all in a private property
scheme. You could say that, you know,
you are the monarch of your property, but that doesn't imply
that monarchy in a governmental sense, is the same thing as
monarchy in a private property says, they're not the same thing
and I think the He's very dangerous.
Yeah, and to just take his his concept of the monarchy being
justified. I mean, I don't know how else to
say it besides. Well, if someone went up to you
and started declaring that he was the king of you didn't care
about your consent as no Monarch does.
Would you like if he just started regulating Jarvan sub
stack and saying you can report on this wood yard and say thank
God. Finally.
I'm under the rule of someone's long term, low time preference.
This is terrific. I mean, if this thing is so
inherently good, why is it only a state that but that can have
this, this rule? Well, one of the things that I'm
thinking, well, we'll come to mind as he can say.
Well, how about Raytheon or even Elon Musk that got a lot of
government subsidy. So there the distinguishing
between private and public is sort of like this fake thing
that only the childish and cap Still Still believes in.
What he's not doing is recognizing that there is still
a difference in potential and there are explicit differences.
I mean death, even if there is some overlap in some societies
at some points. We still have this conceptual
difference. So yes, the government at this
point with trillions of dollars and so in all these Regulatory
Agencies, technically affects everyone and everything, but so
does the Catholic church? That doesn't mean we can't
narrow down the Catholic Church. Effects and whether or not it's
statements are true and it's a good organization language
affects everything. I mean, what other institutions
just developed? This is what the 1619 project
does with with racism that anything that exists indirectly
was, the result of something in the cotton industry, which was
the result of slavery there for literally everything.
Yes, can be tied to racism. So, if there is a nail that was
used to make, Shoes that the slaves war in the on the
plantations. Well, then the nail industry and
everything that touches it well that all accounts to towards
slave GDP. And that's how you can come up
with like cotton was like 90% of the American economy.
That's how their calculations go.
They engage in what Jason Brennan referred to as double
accounting. Of course, it goes back to, you
know, Renaissance. Italy.
And it's an old term. But the point is that Brennan
was the one who made the long case that that was their, that
their major fallacy, right? Yeah.
So, yeah, the equivocation is very dangerous.
I just wanted to say that the, it would be like saying, like,
if I have a blue pen and a blue car, we can compare the
blueness, right? We can compare the two aspects
that they're both blue, but that does that ignores the
differences that are fundamental.
Right? And I know he's not Saying that
these things are. I don't think he's trying to say
that they're exactly the same but in his implication he sort
of implying that. Well, if it's good for the goose
is good for the gander, which is not not the same one.
You considered, like, what a firm is it?
When you consider like, what the structure of a governance is in
an internal aspect versus what a gut, what a government is,
because the government is affects things external from
itself. So I think that's the major
distinction. He then mentions to Thaddeus
Russell that if you look at its we can't just say private
incentive. Good public.
Disincentive bad because two of the biggest engineering projects
of all time were the Manhattan Project and the Apollo project
where these done by that private sector.
No. So notice how he calls the plot
to indiscriminately engage in mass murder.
The Manhattan Project. He supposed supposed to the The
mass murderers a bomb, of course, you wouldn't.
That is just like what? A show to distract from.
Hey, this yeah, it was really big.
Was it? Beneficial?
Was it - I mean, doesn't the effects of the thing matter if
we're caring about consumers, benefiting from the existence of
a monarchy or democracy or the citizens.
Well, it matters. What the thing.
Is that what is your Anse to the Manhattan Project and Apollo.
And we could even steal maintenance a DARPA, giving us
interconnected networks to communicate in the event of a
nuclear crisis. And that is what we today.
Call the internet. Yes.
Sure. So I would say, first of all,
the Manhattan Project like spawned is, you're saying, like
one of the single biggest events of mass murder in a single
event, right? Like, this is nothing to be
proud of. In any sense, so I find it
funny. He's using the example.
This it's like look if you're big in the biggest engineering
projects is that you're building bombs, right?
So this is supposed to be some Marvel, some big thing.
We're supposed to look at. It's like, it seems to me, not
even if you take out the morality of the issue, the idea
that you're putting all this, all this engineering into
blowing it up is seems to be a complete waste of value right
from just an economic perspective.
So the fact that okay, we're going to put all this money.
And all these resources into a bomb that's going to just just
destroy things. It's like that's not generating
wealth in any sense, right? That you're just throwing
something away and you're doing worse than throwing it away or
throwing something away in an aspect where it's going to kill
hundreds of thousands of people in a single and a single
explosion. So that that's terrible.
As far as the Apollo project. There were close to 400,000
private contractors a part of the Apollo program.
Right, so you could say that in some sense.
It was, you know, a waste, you know, I'm sure there's an
emotional aspect to it. But he ultimately doing this.
It showed what we could do. So that's good.
But ultimately, you know, it was still done by many private
individuals and you know who's to say that those were that was
the best use of resources. Perhaps we could have done it in
other ways. And if you look at SpaceX now,
you know, private companies are doing this so they're doing it
on their own dime. So whenever Trying to say, We'll
look at all these marvelous, engineering projects.
We did. If you don't have the ability,
if your government, if you're looking at the government's
engineering projects, you're like, okay, how could this money
have been spent in other areas, right?
You always have to imagine, you know, the opportunity costs
here. What was lost by doing
committing this action? Yeah, if you want to go to the
moon or go anywhere, just just voluntarily fund, it, please
just let people opt out. What, why is this such a hassle
for us to have the same standards for others?
We have this like the most basic thing, and they just continue to
reject it the A-bomb. So you have the result, which is
indiscriminate mass murder. But then what conservatives,
what Dennis prager's of the world would say, is well, sorry,
but that's the kind of Leverage you need in reality.
Just like the gun does can't be uninvented.
So yes, even though the rosenbergs then gave it to the
Soviets, it was going to be invented anyway.
The Germans were working on it. And now we need it.
Well in the yarv inion response to this could be a bad thing
because less Monarch achill, America had more leverage
against more Monarch achill. Soviet Union China.
Today Russia today, it will comparing Russia Today to
America as far as which one is more of a monarchy certainly
places like Iran and North Korea are more Monarch achill than
than Erica. So if it's good that we have the
Manhattan Project then he's also saying it's good, that less
monarchy America had more leverage over monarchies.
Like the Soviets, the Chinese today, North Koreans today and
Iran today, where alcohol is still illegal.
So I don't I don't see how any of this adds up to him.
Making a really good point. I think it's just the right look
it up. What?
Can be done. So whether it's good or bad, big
thing can happen. Therefore, we should recognize
the legitimacy and do other good things with well, with this and
are darker for a second. They always able to government
invented the Internet. No, not really.
Because if you if you actually look at it, they hired the
people who were already building the substrate, that would become
DARPA in the internet already. So people like private people
private Engineers were already working on this type of stuff
and they essentially just got co-opted.
Into a state project, so it's not that you know, well the
state we never have internet. That's not true.
Yeah, I mean I guess the thing is is that when you have an
organization this big it's not like well, what does you know, a
company like Epson printers, you can kind of gauge the number of
people who use the printers and what those things are what's
printed and who the consumers are of the stuff that's printed
even though it's kind of hard because there's a big chain who
reads the books. What value do they get from the
books? So it's hard to really gauge the
value of the Epson. Company, just by looking at
numbers. Well, now, imagine if, instead
of a, you know, relatively big, but small in the span of things
company, instead. You have a government that has
trillions of dollars every year that it taxes and redistributes.
Of course, they're going to affect directly or indirectly
anything. If you gave the Koch brothers of
Magic Money printing machine in the right to tax and regulate
then the Koch brothers would be making things like the Manhattan
Project and they could You know, fund, one thing that later
became the Apple computer or they could regulate an industry
in such a way that later resulted in something good,
like, wireless routers or something like that.
If you give anyone this much power and this much money, yes,
good. Things are going to happen.
If you shoot money out of a helicopter.
Some people are going to catch it, spend it on things and
they're going to benefit. That doesn't mean hey, we should
have a general rule of shooting money out of a helicopter, but
only a monopoly, can have it. And Yeah, this this might be his
strongest point that look at what can be done through
government monarchies and I still don't think it.
It holds up. Yeah.
Here we have the pencil analogy, which he gives to Thaddeus
Russell. I tried to summarize this, the
best that I could. So in other words, when things
are going well, you can have small or no state or Center of
massive. Disproportionate power is
necessary. If things get really bad, such
power becomes necessary to re-establish, an equilibrium.
Well, even my summary was bad and I spent like five minutes
trying to do trying to write that.
So he's saying, if you have a pencil and it sort of wobbles,
you don't need much power to pick it up.
Well, imagine if it's now a telephone pole, a telephone
pole, if it's up straight, you can put your hand on it and
actually hold this thing up, but if the telephone full the
telephone pole, Paul being Society, if it's on its side,
you can't. You need a crane, you need
something with a lot of power in this case, if Society is totally
just degradation everywhere. Total degeneracy.
Yeah, you need a big Monarch, heavy State very powerful.
So just because libertarianism is true under normal
circumstances that does not mean, it's true in emergency
circumstances and we cannot engage in passive action.
Thoughts on the pencil, and LG. Yeah, so there's a couple things
I think, I think there's wrong with this.
So his it's true in some sense is analogy speaks to the fact
that it's also tautology where it's like, yeah, when things
were going good. They're going good.
Right? Like obviously, you know, most
systems can survive when most things are going good for them.
That that's just true. It's a truism.
So when he says well, you know the past when the telephone pole
falls down and that being, you know, an analogy.
Society, you need some stronger power to pick it up.
Well, I don't think his analogy accounts for the fact that what
happens when the state isn't it in a state of chaos, for lack of
a better term, right? What happens when things are
going terrible in the state? Or what happens when an outside
Monarch or an outside state is like tries to take over that
state, right? So the fact that I think I would
disagree with his point that will you need this powerful
structure, this state to Pick it back up.
Right? So you might say, you need some
form of organizing principle or some sort of organizing
structure to pick the telephone pole back up, but that doesn't
that alone doesn't imply a state that just implies some
organizing structure with power. So there's no reason.
It has to be a monopoly on violence and also, you know,
it's his analogy doesn't preclude.
The fact that the state itself could suffer from that very
predicament. That's that the state itself
could be the telephone pole falling down.
Exactly. If we cut, if the falling poll
is society in Decay states have cause Decay since the beginning
of time. Anyone trying to monopolize
territory. They haven't, justly acquired
through original appropriation, or voluntary exchange that has
been chaotic since I don't know forever.
So, to pin this on the market, I mean, mom, you could just say
yeah, monarchies good. When everything's going well and
you know, the guys not too tight.
A radical. But look, if things get bad in,
the Monarch is a tyrant like in North Korea, or Chairman Mao, or
Joseph Stalin or something. You just can't have that.
So that's when you need the power of the free market,
decentralized information, freedom of Association.
That's how you pick up the telephone pole.
I don't see how this is anything that uniquely applies negatively
to the voluntary sector again, also, he uses the term passive
action, so you can't just have passive active passive.
He much assumes a person standing still and things just
passing them. So I was assuming that non-state
that, that people aren't acting and the absence of a state.
There's no one who's ambitious. Jeff.
Bezos couldn't have been ambitious to lower the price of
books to the point where I have access to more information than
most of the Kings throughout history that because that wasn't
done by a monarch. The that's just passive, right?
Yeah, this is Like I'm sure I don't want to assume Alice.
I assume is intentional. But this is comes across to me
as the most straw, man of all his positions Society of passive
action. It's like, I've never heard any
libertarian or any Anarchist thinker thing that thinks we'll
just flip a switch and then we'll be on autopilot, or
something like that. Is it, is it in just, that would
completely it? Just discounts the idea of
Entrepreneurship in like a Mississippian theory in the
first place, right? Entrepreneurs are not passive
actors. There's there.
Problem solvers, which in turn generates value for people,
which in turn implies that they are directed towards actions and
ends and means that would complement your get them to
those ends. So, this idea of passive action.
I don't know where that comes from quite quite honestly.
Yeah, the entrepreneurs is the great example, but even in
ambitious employee, yeah. All right.
Anyone for someone who's just like very caring, I guess.
Very wanting to. I really want to help the poor.
We're going to, you know, build st.
Mary's food. And I think it's the name of the
place and Phoenix. I mean that could be, you know,
trying to pick up the worst parts of society.
The people in most vulnerable positions, let's call it.
That could be trying to re-establish the pole through
the voluntary sector. So if he's just looking for
sometimes you need heavily centralized power.
Since again, he doesn't like to differentiate between the
voluntary sector and The alternative you could have
churches the story of Jesus. There's, are there any
Christian? Are there any theocracies in in
the world, like explicitly for just in practice?
I mean, I guess, Iran, I mean, I guess might be outclassed you in
some sense. Yeah.
Yeah, really the Vatican.
So the churches have the ability to influence people heavily.
Look at the amount of money that churches race people go there.
Once or twice a week and churches, make tons and tons of
money by people choosing to give, I mean, talk about if
schools could be privatized how much money they could raise.
Look, the people who want to give, give if you don't want to
give and just go for free, the church is happy to have you.
So churches companies like Odyssey, that is an example of
non-passive action of ambition, trying to lift up the pole of
censorship from YouTube and you have thought leaders John Locke,
Martin Luther King, you have Gandhi.
People are widely recognized. Of course, I think people like
molyneux and rothbard would would, of course, fall in there.
And then I, of course, but they're still down sides of this
heavily centralized power, such as genocide Mass starvation.
There's no correcting mechanism. They could contribute to poverty
and misery. So, any final thoughts on, I
think this is just part one of any thoughts on the pencil
analogy further. Yeah.
I think that you pretty much summarized the beautiful like
this. It's like I'll also I I would
just end with, you know, you know, the data for when I I
think the the most annoying thing about you know, this part
is that he equivocates power to assume state power.
Like it just like power. You don't have to have state
power to have power. Right?
The power is in some sense. It's not exclusive to the state.
So, you know, going off that your example, the bottom here,
you know, when the state falls into chaos, what happens when
the state itself is the pole that falls down, right?
Well, do you need them? The state to pick that up or
what if that pull falls down. Do you need another state to
pick that stayed up? It's like, you know, you kind of
get into this infinite regress where there's no actual solution
and you just had. And that's what, you know,
Market decentralisation is in some sense, the best solution
because there's always someone else out there.
There's always another entrepreneur out there, trying
to solve the problem better than the last entrepreneur.
Oh, yeah, certainly. If you look at like the problem,
if we think of major problem being ignorance, certainly
places like Barnes & Noble Andrew Carnegie establishing.
The first libraries in America that we still have ambitious
people who can have a disproportionate amount of power
and it's good that the smart people have more power in
certain sectors. For the same reason that it's
good. That people can buy a lot more.
A Dell CDs than Keith Knight CDs, which are never Just so
even though there's drastic inequality and she has so much
power one Adele tweet could change, what people are talking
about all over the planet. Whereas my tweets try, as I may
doesn't exactly do that. You can still have massive power
centers. He continues with the pencil
analogy saying, moreover the further your pencil gaps from
Top Dead Center. Imagine now, your pencil is the
size of a telephone pole. Sorry.
I did not time this correctly, right?
The farther your pencil. You can actually hold that
steady with In your hand, if you're at the top of it, you
could hold that telephone pole with a pencil point on it.
If you let it fall over, you're going to need some heavy
equipment to pick it back up. So consider that just being the
clarification. All right.
Next. We have his criticism of the
free market of ideas. He says one of the ideas that
got me away from anarcho-capitalism.
This isn't a video type of marketplace of ideas is the idea
that the principle that sovereignty Energy is conserved.
There's always someone in power has never really been violated
thoughts on that. Yeah.
I actually have a pretty good. There are a lot of thoughts on
this actually. So first I would addressing his
free market of ideas criticism. I would agree that the Fremont
and I think most Libertarians and a would agree.
The free market and ideas does not.
We're not saying that the, the best idea wins, right?
The most, we would say the most dominant.
Dia would win in generally, the whole idea, the whole concept of
the free market of ideas is that decentralized actors are going
to try different things. And when they fail, the costs
are localized to them, mostly in a, in a, in an actual free
market there, the costs are localized to them mostly and we
can learn from their mistakes. Right?
So it's not to say that we're, if we thought a free market of
ideas, met the best ideas win. We would think that
libertarianism would be dominant right now, right?
The Paseo. That's not what we're saying.
So down to his idea of that. So he's making an analogy here
with with physics. So the first law of
thermodynamics is that is the comfort of conservation of
energy, right? Energy is always just
transferred or it's conserved, sorry, and it never actually
changes it. Never like just loot.
It's never gone. It's just transformed from one
form to the other. So right here, he's talking
about like how Society, so if we assume that, so what he means
here, he what he's trying to imply here is At you can never
get rid of the power structures of the society, you can only
transform them from one form to the other, and it's all its
constant. So, if we assume that the value,
the power of the value of power in a given, geographic area is
like X, let's say right? Well, we can still have that
does not preclude anarchism. So how this could work.
Is that even if you assume that the power is conserved, you can
divide that power. Our infinitely depending on like
the structure of the society itself.
So, an example about this, right?
Is if you, if I'm playing pool and itay t.i., You have the pool
cue and I hit the cue ball into a group of other balls on the
table. I can the amount of power, the
amount of force. I used to shoot the cue ball
into the other balls and if it hits them simultaneously, the
power is the from the original Cube.
All the momentum is dispersed. To the all the others, it's
divided, right? So it's the fact that power in a
society. If he, if he believes that power
in this Society is conserve that doesn't it all imply.
Now in any form that it's going to be conserved in the form of a
state, right? So you can think about this in
the ways of of so, I I'll explain a little about like
whatever. So, theoretically in a
decentralized society. What you want is a rhizome.
So rhizome is a like a root system.
Mm of a plan of certain types of plants.
It's a horizontal root system where each and every single part
of the root system can Branch off.
And it's they connect to the different nodes on the system
and what this means is ultimately you have a structure
where there's no centralized structure to it.
So you when there's no like place you can like, put Power or
put pressure on it, that would collapse the whole system.
So this is the weakness of centralized systems that if you,
if you consider Of power in a centralized system.
What you're going to do is you're going to make that you're
putting all your eggs in one basket.
Essentially, and that's the point of attack in a
decentralized system. Power is dispersed through all
the different nodes and all the different connections people
make and every node connect to any other noted any given time.
So that is why a decentralized system can still concert.
You can still conserve power essentially in a given society
that you don't have to conserve it in a way where it's a Mystic
state. Yep, this again comes from the
concept of if we want this goal, the good idea.
Even if you disagree on what the good ideas are, what process
would you want? Which set of rules?
Would you want in a society to hopefully, get those best ideas?
Would it be? Let's just compare monarchy to
more of a free market and ideas. So when he says something like
well the average person who believes in democracy is
ignorant, so Taking away their Vote or their voice.
It's not really that big. The problem is, you don't know
who the people are in advance, just like in sales.
You waste 80% of your time sometimes.
So why did you waste the 80? And not just do the 20?
Well, at the time when you're starting, you don't know which
20% of people you're going to hit with.
So you don't know which ideas are going to be best.
That's why you need to embrace the principle of free market in
exchange of ideas, as opposed to coercively funded 12.
Increase the likelihood. You'll come across that good
idea. He uses it sort of just pleases
us to think that it's sort of like Bitcoin.
No one's really in charge. Well, still, this would be his
monarchy idea of Satoshi Nakamoto, whether that was one
person or a team that would be the Monarch in the Monarch
delegating power. And this power transforming just
like he says, FDR used to have a lot of power.
Now, the cathedral has the power It can still change.
So the fact that it can change doesn't rule out that you could
still have a system where people don't recognize some people as
having the right to violently dominate others and unilaterally
issue. Contracts, strongest ideas,
verse darwinian ideal selection. Yeah.
Now that was just the general topic for this.
He had mentioned that people don't want freedom.
They just want power, and this excites there that their inner
chimpanzee. Well, if people just Our make
sure you don't have a monarch. We can't disassociate, right?
I don't know. I don't know what else.
It's also every shortcoming every shortcut.
I'm sorry to interrupt you, but no, no, my find your, my point
is every shortcoming in this free market of ideas.
Yeah. There's going to be a ton of
garbage. Well, there's also a ton of
garbage when the monarchs are calling the shots.
So that's, that's not enough of a criticism to rule out giving
people what Kant would call treating them as an end in and
of themselves. Yes.
Yes, yeah, most ideas are trash. She says, which I agree with.
You could, but Malla says 99% of everything is trash.
Podcasts. Movies shows authors, leaders
journalists actors, voters, politicians.
Most your trash. It's that 1% and the marketplace
of ideas process just like the sales analogy that I use.
That's how you find that better. 1% thoughts on most ideas are
trash. Therefore, monarchy of ideas is
superior to a Marketplace. Yeah, so it's like you can
agree, most ideas or trash but the reason we kind of know most
ideas or trash is because we've gone through the marketplace of
ideas in the first place to determine which way in which
things like like serve a utility function in which do not write.
So it's because we are knowledgeable about this.
So his whole, the whole critique implies, the existence of the
marketplace of ideas working in the first place, right?
So, I think it's kind of a weird critique.
It's ignoring the system. He's building his premises.
Off of he says the system purports to yield good ideas.
Does it? I don't think I've want to see
if that I was going to say is that that's his premise before
its conclusion is that premise even true.
Good ideas. No better than the alternative
and still morally Justified. Yes.
Why I think it when he said about Marketplace of ideas.
Like he says it, purports yield good ideas.
Well, in some sense, I would disagree that it purports to
healed good ideas. It's just it's just a way of
people trying to like discover. Like which ideas would serve my
personal utility. Do you know what I mean?
And so it's not even best in like a moral good sense.
It's just trying to see okay from a market incentive from
one, just a purely Market incentive.
What ideas don't like blow up in my face that type of stuff.
Yes, and then he goes on to say, the question is, can it be
hacked? So, in other words, which
claimed to have the system, but if it could be hacked by, you
know, journalists or Liars or self-interested people.
Well, then we don't have the system.
We thought we had and therefore, we're not really advocating what
we think. We're advocating.
Yes. It can be hacked.
Technically with good ideas, or bad ideas, or overrun by good
people, or bad people. Yeah, just like, monarchy cam.
This is not a criticism of allowing people to talk free.
Yeah, you could have a bad Monarch and now it is pretty,
right. You could have any sort or you
could have a monarch who was influenced by bad people.
So it's just the, his criticism, like, boomerangs back, right.
Back at him on his idea. Well, that's not true.
You can't have a bad Monarch, take that with Edie, take it
back. That's right.
That people only only exist in the voluntary sector, right?
And you can go to someone else or or seek Alternatives.
He says that there's a problem with modern society.
People are unwilling to serve. Of a master like we need a
monarch, but they are willing to serve a mechanism.
Now this I think is a very productive idea that people
might I guess we should just talk about Americans because
that's probably what he's referring to.
If you say to the average person, you need someone like
Bill Mitchell. Mind control level to say that,
which is Justified. As that, which Trump does you
really have to go search far and wide?
The average person would I don't think would say, Biden has the
Hiromi Trump has the right to roll me.
They say it's this mechanism called democracy where the
president sets, that's where the right to rule is.
So I think this is a good point that he makes you see this as a
problem or what are your takeaways on this?
I think it's I do I agree with you.
I think it's a good analysis because I do think he is.
It's impersonal. If people feel they're being
ruled by a mechanism or stair serving a mechanism as opposed
to a person there's less emotional tie or there's less A
feeling of another person, encroaching upon you, right?
It's like, well, we're just a part of the system and when I
get, when my taxes get taken from me or something, that's
just the system working. It's not this guy holding me up
in a back alley. Robbing my money.
Yeah. Yeah.
I think it's a good point. Not sure how it refutes our
position. But he says, people have a
luciferian idea. Since they were 4 years old.
They were told that they are perfect.
They are the king. You're a free, man, you Deserve
to serve anyone. You don't have to serve anyone.
I don't even know if that's true.
Because I remember I don't think young kid.
You have to obey your elders and you have to obey your parents
and you get spanked if you don't or you get yelled at or you're a
bad kid or you get grounded or you have to obey the teacher so
you can get the good grades. I don't see this and this but
but of course we've gone from children to luciferian.
So maybe that's an increase in the last hour or so, right?
And this statement invite him is one of the most odd to me
because it's just, I think undeniably untrue like people
grow up and they are in. They grow up in an incredibly
structured way. Like from there, for years old
on like you're going to kindergarten, you're going to
school. And the first thing you learn in
school is submission to Authority, right?
So like kids are given like psychedelic they're assessed
with psycho. Logical disorders when they're
not able to respect the authority of teachers and their
given drugs, right? To make them more susceptible to
just following what is following the structure of the school
itself. So, yeah, I think this is
completely backwards. People are told from a very
young age and one they had follow this, the school, they
have to listen to the teacher and not only that, they also
told through their school years, that you're a part of this
system that we call Democracy in America, and it's your job to
imagine yourself as a little Tyrant and imagine yourself.
Okay. He what is, what do I want?
And what how, like, let me put a vote in to get what I want even
if it's going to involve other people losing, right?
So that's how they're taught to think about the system in the
first place. So, we open statement here.
I don't even understand how he could think that's quite
honestly, I don't see, like, I'm not seeing the point.
So I guess luciferian in the sense of yeah, you are a God.
You are the light bearer. You are the liberty, and
Lightened and you are enlightened therefore entitled
to more than what you actually are.
Doesn't that sound exactly? Like monarchy the luciferian
idea that, you know, other people matter.
I'm the ruler here. I call the shots screw everyone
else. I don't I'm not humble enough to
let people disassociate from me. That's how smart I am.
That's how valuable I am to everyone else.
I'm so enlightened. I'm so brilliant.
My ideas, get to be forced on others when people do it to me.
It's evil terrorism and they go to jail when I do it, too.
Others. I'm engaged in a low time
preference. He then he finishes by saying
there's an old Prussian saying that people need to appreciate
that as those who wish to command must first learn to
obey. So in other words the an caps
going around telling people the rights of the right way to live
as self-ownership voluntary exchange.
Well, they're trying to call the shots and Society.
You first have to learn to obey don't be afraid to obey people.
The reason this pisses me off. It's because again, he has to
frickin know as someone who's right rothbard conceived in
Liberty. That's not.
That's more than anatomy in the state.
That's dedication. Yeah, you have to know that my
hatred of one group called The Congress group, or the cops
group will talk about being four years old.
You have to blindly obey the cops and do what you're told by
them. But if, if I don't like this
group called Walmart, or Has on or government.
That doesn't mean I'm against obeying.
Anyone or taking any Commandments.
I mean, it must like it would probably shocked him if he
really believes this to see that I have references from from
previous employers because we just hate obeying and we just
want to be Lucifer doing our own thing everywhere.
That's not the case at all. Just because I hate this group.
You don't want to blindly obey the Church of Scientology.
What will let me tell you, Curtis those who wish to
command? First learn to obey.
So, I hate this group and I like other groups.
It's not against obeying or following rules.
Right? It's this group a mass, murderer
and Liars. You don't obey the New York
Times. Well, if you wish to command,
you must first, learn it, this is so ridiculous.
You know, Roderick long says that I think he's 78 summarizes
anarchism beautifully, which he says anarchism is set is
essentially the idea that other people are not your property and
you're not allowed to treat them as your property, right?
So So, the whole idea of him of this saying, like, well, we're
just trying to, you know, we just want to be king.
We just want to do whatever we want.
No matter the cost is like, no, the whole point of why I'm an
anarchist is, I believe other people have boundaries that I'm
not allowed to encroach on and you're not allowed to encroach
on them either, right? So the idea is that every like
if we were just a king, we wouldn't care about other
people's boundaries. If we were really a monarchist,
we would not care about the, you know, the subjects boundaries.
Great points and you have a final thing on the marketplace
of ideas. I think what he might be hearing
when people like Dave Rubin say it is that every idea is equal
and should be equally heard is that is not at all.
Like like I support a Marketplace in well ideas, I
guess is what we're saying, but I believe in a Marketplace of
communication, which means Curtis Jarvan.
Gets a lot more views on YouTube videos.
When he doesn't even have a channel.
It's other people uploading is stuff.
He has a lot more. Than probably I could ever dream
of his sub, stack readers, and his, what was his first blog
called o on my dresser. My reservations that has more
readers than I'm ever going to have and there's nothing wrong
with that. That's still a marketplace where
people with a lot more intelligence, who went to Brown,
should probably have a bigger than someone like me.
So that is not in any way, a refutation of, you know, the
Marketplace of ideas. He goes on to say in why
Libertarians should be monarchists Libertarians, really
think they have a solution of you know, who will watch The
Watchmen, right? And they're like, we don't need
any Watchman. It's completely automatically.
We just flip a switch. How do you respond?
I just I don't know where he is. What Libertarians?
He's reading or where he's getting that from.
I've never known a Libertarian to just assume that.
Well, this is just it's an automatic system.
We're just going to flip a switch.
And directly to his point about. Well, we think we've solved who
watches the Watchmen, the point of that is that there's no good.
Answer to that question, right? That's implicit in the who
watches the Watchmen. The implicit nature is that
there's no perfect answer, right?
We it's in some sense, an infinite read and inescapable
infinite regress, but because it's an inescapable infinite
regress. The what you want is as many
Watchman as possible watching each other, and that's what you
get with decentralisation. You have infinite.
You have a System where everyone is going to be responsive in
some sense just to because of the way markets work and the way
information travels, you're going to be responsive to
informational changes in the market depending on people's
actions. So it's true that someone like,
we're not saying that once we just get to like a decentralized
Anarchist Society or something. There's, we're not saying that
well, it's just all going to be perfect.
The point is that it? No, there will be problems.
Of course, they'll be problems. Is that there weren't problems.
If it was just automatic. We wouldn't spend so much time
talking about court systems at Ready and all this, right?
So obviously we're accounting for the fact that there will be
problems. So watch it note for the watch.
We don't need any watch up. No, we do need Watchman.
We need a lot of them. In fact, we need a market full
of them watching each other, right?
That's the best way to secure it.
Is it foolproof know? There's obviously there's no way
to escape the who watches the Watchmen answer sufficiently.
So what you want is as many as possible watching each other.
Yeah, I've not only never heard. We don't need any Watchman.
I I haven't even heard anything remotely like this in all the
years that I've been in and cap. I guess when he says something
automatic. It's much.
Like he said, previously passive action.
Yeah, I don't know, none of them support that either automatic.
They don't say nothing needs to happen which act to be fair.
If people, when they say spontaneous order, a lot of new
Libertarians have only read. R.I.P.
To their brains few only read. Hi.
They might literally be saying no one needs to do something.
The market takes care of itself. Yes.
I actually think our Bill O'Reilly say that but that's
classic simpleton nonsense in the same way.
I'd never go up to a random monarchist and try to, you know,
refute them with a Sarkis for two hours.
I try to take the best of the best.
So if he could not strawman us, that that would be nice when it
comes to the Watchman. My position, my understanding of
the and cap position has always been Watchman exists.
Whether you think of Watchman is a bad actor or just a powerful
person, Watchman always exist. So recognizing that reality
under which system can Society get the most benefits out of the
Watchman and which society or set of rules gives us a
correcting mechanism to best limit the - reach of Bad
Watchman like Kissinger or persons gear, Madeleine
Albright, so we don't need any, I don't believe that.
And I've yet to meet anyone who who write believe.
I mean, you can structure it. Like, you know, there's this
concept of like the prison started like a panopticon where
you have all the prisoners can see each other and the Watchman
that the top, can see all the prisoners, but none of the
prisoners can see the Watchman. So that is analogous to a state.
What you would have with a state with a decentralized system.
Mm, you have it where it's like, it's kind of like a spider web
or nodes on a decentralized point.
Everyone can see everyone else in most cases.
So the decentralized system has obvious advantages in my view.
Yeah. And Monopoly Watchmen, which a
monarchist would Advocate. You could sell other technical
Watchman, but the Monarch by definition has to have rules
that? Apply to?
What uniquely all of the shortcomings of?
Well, the average the Non-state actor might do this terrible
thing again, all of those biases just like when they say well we
need social media regulated or we need the market regulated so
bad ideas. Don't get out or something like
that. Every criticism of the average
person applies. Not only to the Watchman there
just as bias there just as self-interested regardless of
what they say, but that's like level one.
That's if we randomly distributed government titles.
Who gets attracted to that? Kind of position people like,
Larry Summers, just explicit Liars, president of Harvard,
Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, people like Kamala
Harris, who think it's like really funny to be on a debate
stage and say Joe Biden use of were opposed to bussing.
And this is terrible and racist, and then, Stephen, Colbert, ask,
sir, how can you be vice president to someone you had
such blatant? Disagreements with.
And she starts cackling for a Change and says it was a debate.
It was in the tired of debates. That's what we're doing there.
Like they just explicitly lie so much.
That's who's attracted to that kind of position.
That's why monarchy Watchman is worse than free-market Watchman.
That's right. Yeah, you what you don't want is
a like, in some sense people talk about, like time
preferences that will you want to lower time preference?
So it's like, yeah, in some sense.
That's what you want to lower time, preference in the
production of goods, but Lower time, preference in the
production of bats can also be just, as bad is like, you know,
erratic bad behavior. So, you just have to kind of,
make sure you're separating those two things.
And again, the Austrian would say, sometimes you want low.
Sometimes you want high. So, the best way to find that
equilibrium is the market process instead of the political
process where people more or less pay no penalty for bad
decisions. In fact, they often get rewarded
9/11 happens on Bush's. Watch and Is his approval goes
to 91%, I mean, just so ridiculous.
Jarvan continues the idea that you could build a system without
any sort of that would just run by itself.
But of course, when we actually see it, it doesn't seem to
really work like that. How do you respond to that II?
Just it's an OnPoint to me. It's like it's not actually
addressing what libertarian least Libertarians.
I've been reading for 10 years. It's not a dress.
Missing anything they've ever said.
It's like, it's hard for me to address the point.
I don't told myself because I don't think that it can just run
by itself as if it's just. So it's like I don't even know
what that would mean a system running by itself.
Like you always need some input from people to get some output.
So yeah, it's like yeah, I don't know how much more I can say
about that than what I've already said.
I just do, I think he's just incorrect here on the most basic
level, any I'm an employee makes a decision to get a raise, try
to get more training, look for a different job.
That is a person acting and trying to change the system.
The system, not just running by itself, where people are
passive. And then the biggest one, which
you mentioned previously. Any entrepreneur gauging in
postponing consumption and capital investment is an actor,
but he's, it's literally seems like he's saying if there's no
violence if there's no State, then people aren't acting.
So, No, violence equals. No actors, but that's not the
case at all. People acting in the realm of
voluntary, contracts, and harmonious associations.
So this is just not what we're talking about.
He then goes on to say, since you can't dispense with power,
how should power actually work? And you basically get outside
the libertarian regime and then you're like, oh, the libertarian
regime. Is just a special case of when
this is going really well and it is an EFT up and everything is
working fine. You don't get that telephone
pole lift it up by taking your hand off it.
So we're back to the pencil analogy.
Yeah, I again, I think this is just an equivocation again.
Like, I think that's been the constant throughout all this
whenever your oven or some people sometimes people in
yahrens. Footsteps mentioned power.
I just see it as a quote in equivocation because libertarian
position is not, we are against Power, because if you define
power in a very general sense, my ability to exert myself on my
external environment requires power, my ability to defend my
rights requires power. I am exerting Power by speaking.
I'm exerting Power by it in, like incorporating the external
resources of this world into my ongoing projects and means.
Right? So whenever I so, we're not
against Power, we're against a certain way that power is used
on individuals and their property.
So and it's good. I was just going to and it's not
like it's so utopian to wear. Well, what happens?
Everyone has to read Lew Rockwell?
Well, and then develop the Austrian theory of power
analysis. It's literally extend the
principles you have for the average person to either the
church or your family or the state, especially in the case
that that were discussing here. So it's not some pie-in-the-sky,
it could be a special case in the sense of statism has mostly
existed throughout history, but because it is totally playing
human grasp, really, and Military conscription.
And Don't jump, no, property rights for women or whatever the
idea that even if it is a special case, doesn't mean that
it's something. So, like, far out of the
ordinary. I mean, the telephone is like
something way more complex and bizarre, but after enough time,
when I say telephone Sun, computer microphone, Monster
Energy, Drink, people are so accustomed to hearing that that
were on the same page because they know of that thing, as
well, to the point where we could say.
Non-aggression principle and people will have a general
understanding and recognition of what that means.
Yeah, just over time even though no one knew what microphone
computer monster ceiling fan were 300 years ago.
It was just a special case microphone seldom exist.
So what? So yeah, things can change just
like he wants to change us into a hereditary.
Monarchy things can change for the better towards a market.
That's right. Yeah.
So yeah, Bryan Caplan actually talks about this like how, you
know, people Most people have this moral intuition of the nap.
They may have a moral intuition of like it's fake.
When you ask them on a case-by-case basis.
They'll say that well I'm against, you know, I think that
assaulting that person was wrong.
I think stealing that person was wrong or that person's property
was wrong with what distinguishes Libertarians is in
Libertarians. Engage in, what would be
considered over learning, which is we take these truths are
these into moral intuitions. We experience that murder is
wrong. Rape is wrong, theft is wrong.
Ang and we expand them out into the all the boundaries where
they lie where they would logically apply, right?
So like there's no like, Libertarians aren't some other
creation or creature. We just follow them.
We just follow the moral intuitions.
Most everyone has to its logical conclusion.
That's really it to be quite honest and look and Roses point
is not that God we have, we got to teach people about health
care and then education and then agricultural subsidies.
He goes, really, it's actually on.
Learning something, which is the belief in political Authority or
anything illegitimate, which anyone in like any society, even
if you have like no practice property rights, David Friedman.
So I love David Friedman sport about this, he goes.
Yeah, you know, we see it in Birds.
We see it in animals protection of property and protection of
self and people immediately defending themselves.
So you don't get to say, well, this is a thing that John Locke
invented and the Koch brothers are just carrying on
arbitrarily. Yeah, any day now we could lose
it just As soon as we gained it, no, it's in animals.
It's pretty much. It's pretty much it and
everything and as far as things getting effed up, so to speak.
Well, you don't get to say things are effed up.
Therefore. We need a state and
libertarianism is bad. If you look at all.
This is the Eric Garner case, of course, this the guy who
murdered them got. Now works a desk job and got a
raise. Look at all the effed up stuff
that exists as a cause of result of their bingo.
Eight the early 20th century. Yeah.
Yeah really. So we have what is called the
iron law of oligarchy. I thought he he did a great job
with summarizing this and in the interview he did on on my show.
This is referred to. So, this is the reason why did I
bring this up? Eventually?
I knew I know I put it in for some reason.
I think the reason is that Matthew Raphael Johnson, the pH
She always says that most disagreements are regarding the
meaning of terms. I think with either your oven or
a lot of his supporters, his a lot of his sub stackers.
They recognized the iron law of oligarchy as we do and they
confuse this for a justification of monarchy.
This is what Richard. This is something.
Richard wolf never is able to understand that's why his
pictures here. The iron law of oligarchy is a
political Theory. First developed by German born
Italian sociologist, Robert Nichols and his 1911 book
political. These inserts that rule by an
elite or oligarchy is inevitable as an iron law within any
Democratic organization as part of a tactical and Technical
necessities of organization because theory states that all
complex organization, regardless of how Democratic they are when
they started eventually develop into oligarchies mikel's.
Observe that since no sufficiently large and complex
organization can function purely as direct democracy, which
arvind says, and he's absolutely right about correct premise,
wrong conclusion. Power within an organization
will always get delegated to individuals within that group
elected or otherwise. The reason this is so vital is
because even in a union, so you think of there's the bosses, and
what the workers can do is unionize against the bosses or
four more power. Well, not everyone goes to the
union meeting and not everyone talks, and some people make
better points than others and the whatever rules you decide
on. We're not in the heads of
everyone. The beginning, some people are
better persuaders than others, and they got their rules into
the Union, whatever, the committee decision making
process. So, some people are.
So even in that, that sort of mechanism of Association.
You still have an oligarchy. This is what he's right about.
This is what's so important. This is what, and calms and left
us. Get it wrong all the time.
So they assume democracy is inherently good.
And that's why we can, that's why there's so much Alignment
with us and Them thoughts on any of that stuff.
Yeah. I mean, I think that's right.
Right? Is that you like in any type of
structure, organizational structure?
You're going to have an amount of people that are more
dedicated more committed than just care more than other people
and that's going to be reflected in the work and that's going to
be reflected in the outcome of their work and they're going to
be more rewarded in that system as opposed to the people who
don't care as much or don't put in as much effort, right?
This is overlaps quite well. The Pareto Principle in, it's
good. It allows for the division of
labor specialization. Absolutely.
There's nothing terrible about this.
There was a God. I wish I could find this quote.
I keep forgetting to look. There was, I remember when I was
really into basketball. It was something like a very
small percentage of kids who play basketball get to go to
college and even smaller portion, get to the NBA and
that's where it is. No, no, even within the NBA,
there's an oligarchy where 1% of the players cell 9 99% of the
jerseys. It's like Kobe, Bryant LeBron
James, Dwyane Wade, and the fourth guy is like, way down on
the list as far as sales go. So the fact that we see this
everywhere in human structures is why hierarchy is legitimate,
but monarchy is not so bright. Again.
I'm saying this because they will often say well hierarchy
exists and monarchy is legitimate as a result.
They're talking about to toe. Right.
It's the difference between like a du jour, monarchy Institute
through law and a de facto or I'm sorry, does your hierarchy
Institute through law and a du jour de facto hierarchy
instituted through just interaction.
Here is a excerpt from why I'm not a Libertarian by her to see
Arvin. I think this is the most
underlying point that he makes against the ideology.
Would you mind reading this please?
Oh, Salute. So this is a from his post, why?
I'm not a Libertarian and he goes on to say, in my opinion,
the Practical problem with grounding libertarian
libertarianism in the ideals of the American Revolution, is that
Americans no longer hold those ideals and Europeans never did
both today. Follow both today.
Follow a moral code, which is essentially socialist.
It is true that this is the natural consequence of education
at the hands of the government, which is essentially socialist.
It is also irrelevant. The consequence is the Reality,
you cannot explain to people that they ought to believe in
say freedom of contract as a fundamental human, right?
When in fact, they do not as human again pointed it out.
Ethical axioms are not debatable.
And so when it comes to this, he's saying that look.
But people believe in socialism generally, some didn't in the
American Revolution, whatever it is what it is.
Now. Well then, why do you get to
convince people monarchy? Yes, better.
Then democracy which they claim to believe in but so the
consequences the reality. So stop advocating for stuff.
This is the control. Stop trying to write in sub
stack, people's minds are made up.
You're trying to convince me that people can't be convinced.
Yes, exactly. That's exactly it.
So this is my this I think out of everything.
I have one this and of couple other things will get to later.
I have the most problem with this sentence right here.
You cannot explain to people that they To believe in say,
freedom of contract is a fundamental human, right?
When they in fact, don't the only time it's appropriate to
explain something to someone else is when they don't already
believe in it. Yar.
That's planning. Yeah, that's the only time it is
legitimate to explain something to someone else is if they don't
already understand it. Okay, let's so.
So if we follow that to its logical conclusion, as you
pointed out Keith, it would be like, okay, we're never going to
argue for anyone to ever change your mind.
Because the right, the consequence is the reality,
their current beliefs are the reality, so you can't change
your mind. Which also, that, that's just an
empirical claim, which I think is just incorrect on if Really
could not change people's minds and they're so, so it's not
displayed here. But earlier in this earlier, in
the why I'm not a Libertarian, you have been talks about like
how social progress is essentially a lie, and these
critiquing progressivism, which I actually I agreed.
The progressive view of progress is a lie mostly but he
critiques. This idea of social progress,
which is he believes just is not true.
So, Society does not progress. There's nothing new Under the
Sun. Okay, and it's reflected here in
this, in this statement, if he really Believed that people just
didn't change. You can't, it's way.
It's pointless to try to change people's minds because their
minds just don't change. Well, we would still be living
in caves. We would still have chattel
slavery. There's all these things
throughout time, which we can observe that don't exist anymore
Blythe's on people that just don't exist anymore because
people's morality shifted their moral views changed over time.
So the idea that you can't explain to people what they
ought to do. Is just that's just insane to me
to be quite honest. Yeah, and it's not like he says,
it can't happen on a large scale.
Well, because the things have happened on a large scale, all
the end caps. I know today.
None of them say I'm in and cap because my daddy was and his
daddy before him and all the way back to our his ancestors and
Scotland and 14. Yeah.
No one's. They say, you know what?
I really like to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul said, so many weird
things. That I had to look into it and
then I found rothbard, and right then Michael humor, and then Tom
woods. And I've been an cap ever since
no one's ideologically know, what ideologically starts his
libertarian. Almost no one, right?
So at this all? Yeah.
Yeah.
At this point. Yeah.
So, so to say so for yaran are do, like, do libertarian just
spawn out of The Ether, like, I'm curious.
Like if he was right and just going to your point
libertarianism, which is not exist.
Right? If you look at the course of
human history, Rotarians have should not exist.
If what he said was true. Yes, and he says, as Hume again
pointed out, ethical axioms are not debatable.
Okay, then no one has the right to initiate violence against any
peaceful person or fraud and you can't debate that because it's
an ethical Axiom. What of course?
Of course, it's debatable. That's usually what do you think
philosophy departments do besides spread evil and
socialism. They sometimes debate ethical
axioms, right? So humans coming at this from
it. So you Humes Guillotine or the
is sot Gap is I think what he's referencing here and you have to
remember humans coming at this from a skeptic or in a this
perspective, right? And it kind of a skeptical
perspective or he's trying to say that look you can't ground
something. You can't get an odd from an is
you can't say that you can't look at like Hugh a human being
and therefore say that person is a human being.
Therefore now, I think the problem with that, the problem
with Hume saying is that he starts from an assumption that
you don't have. There's no good reason to
believe. If anything, you should, sorry.
You should not necessarily believe something unless you
have a good reason to, and that's kind of like the skeptic
position, right? The problem with that position,
just real quick before we move on, is that that applies to the
Axiom of skepticism itself that applies to the fact that okay.
If you don't have a really good reason, for believing, if you,
you shouldn't believe something, unless you have a good reason
for it. You don't have a good reason for
believing that Axiom either. So, I think a much more gretton
grounded starting point for moral reasons.
Reasoning is moral intuition, right?
And people seem to have a moral intuition that murder is wrong.
And this seems to apply, you know, there's some edge cases,
like, Psychopaths sociopaths, but in general, most people do
have this moral intuition. That murder is wrong.
And I think that, if you start from the position that, unless I
have evidence to the contrary by intuition is, is something I
have to go off of. I think that's how you ground
moral reasoning. So again, this has to be
falsifiable. So by the case, Of people having
different moral views in their earlier years.
And later years regardless of what they are, the fact that
they change a lot, can refute this you have approval ratings
of politicians, which I guess wouldn't be ethical axioms.
But the idea that you can't explain to people that they
ought to believe in a lot of people change their opinions,
whether it's rational or irrational, that still can be
refuted by the fact that it's changed, and again, well, like I
can tell you, there are a lot of that is true that when people
are much younger, they believe in concepts of progressivism, as
they get older, they believe in the much more constrained
worldview, Jamie White's explanation is everyone, you
know, when I was younger, was a liberal and now they're all
conservative and I think what happened is, you know, we saw
that people that we knew who were scumbags got government
positions and we just stopped seeing them as, like a totally
Legitimate Authority. That is a large-scale
explanation, or large-scale? Example of people changing.
If you ask them in college versus, when they're out of
college versus when they're in their 40s, 50s and 60s, people
can change so that I thought was his best, his best point.
Oh, and also there's a concept called revealed choice
preference. So there's this idea, you know,
I really want to see Grandma and hang out.
With our but I just can't. What do you mean you you can't
you have an access to a car, you know where she lives.
You don't really want to see her.
It's been a year. You have time.
You watch chose, you could have done it.
So that's how we really know where people stand.
So because of something like revealed choice, preference
looking at people's actions. Your preferences are revealed by
your actions. Are there any people who engage
in Freedom of contract, and then later disassociate with people
and then feel like they have the freedom to do so.
Of their action, certainly tell us they do and yes, if you ask
them, they'll say that they do. It's the equivalent of saying
you can't explain to people that living in a house or using
languages beneficial if they don't believe that maybe they
don't, I doubt it, but they do. That's what their actions show
us. So therefore, it's believable
that that they're engaged in believing in Freedom of contract
since they do it. So often his final In response
to this could be well, yeah technically they do it but they
don't like consistently believed in Freedom of contract like Dan
caps do, so. If you push them, they won't
have good arguments and that's why they don't really believe in
it. Well, you know what else?
They don't believe in monarchy and statism because they don't
have any good Arguments for those just like luddites and
protectionist don't have any good Arguments for their
worldview. Most people don't have
consistent beliefs for anything. So like that, that make follow
to the logical conclusion. So, yeah, it's not a knockdown
argument at all. Yeah, just as you said, right?
Like your means trying to say that what we shouldn't for try
to persuade anyone because trying to change people's minds
when they don't already agree with you which is like defeats
the purpose itself. But whatever.
He says, that's just pointless. It's like well, you're a
monarchist dude, you're yours writing to people trying to
persuade other people of your ideas.
All right. This is where it gets a little
sad. This one.
This is one of his sub Stacks that sort of went viral because
the men chest mold bug account, which is not run by arvind.
This guy had said I'm so sick. I shouldn't get into that.
That's why this is popular that account tweeted.
This out here is, would you mind reading this course title and
then one paragraph at a time? Sure.
So this is a I think it's free reason, isn't it?
I don't know when he wrote this but it's pretty recent how to
gently suppress any Airborne virus.
That's the title. He goes on to say clearly.
We are utter fools if we cannot learn from the success of the
Chinese regime, despite its clear complicity and covering up
the leak in the first place in suppressing.
The novel coronavirus actually suppressing a respiratory virus
is a crucial test of the state capacity and it is no surprise
the world's most economically successful.
Cecil regime would prove its most epidemiologically
successful. That's a statement.
So, so, so many of the people who, like, your oven will say,
look if we do nothing, we can sit back and be cool, principled
voluntarist. But if we do nothing will be
like Australia. So sadly, we have to do
DeSantis. So we don't end up like
Australia. Well, China is worse than
Australia. In this case.
They were bad from the beginning as far as covering it up.
Yeah, that's one way to put creating the lab and creating
the virus in the Wuhan lab of biology and not not to take away
credit where credit's due fauci and the NIH gave ecohealth
Alliance the money for the gain of research function.
I dead. Now, I never want to deprive
that kind of man of credit. Actually surprised is a crucial
test. Yeah, it is a test.
So he must really like the country of Nigeria since Nigeria
has very low rates. Maybe it's because they take
things like Ivermectin, and other antiviral anti-malarial
medication. We also have places like
Cambodia where the numbers are very low.
Also, I don't believe the Chinese numbers.
They have every incentive to diminish them in America.
They have every incentive to inflate them because of the
press and you get more money for and hospitals.
Get more money if they are dealing with these patients.
So they have every incentive to call comorbidity deaths.
Covid deaths. So again, I He puts so much.
You put so many eggs in this basket of look, a good thing
happened. This is why we needed as far as
it being most excellent on economically successful.
It's been a monarchy for a long time.
But only once it embraced a more free markets and more private
property in 1979 as Ronald coase showed in his economic research.
That's what's making it more of a Powerhouse than it.
Otherwise is or else North. Korea would be the economic
Powerhouse in South. Korea would be the Slater at
night thoughts on this first paragraph.
Yeah, it's really depressing. I would also like to I would
want to know what exactly your oven means by most economically
successful regime, because first off it, well, I'm not, I'm not
going to deny that obviously, China from where it was when it
was communist or fully communist.
It is certainly improved by Leaps and Bounds and it
certainly economically successful that I would just
want to know him jarvan's methodology for determining
Meaning what economically successful is.
But that's that's a little side. His idea of that China has done
a great job at suppressing the virus.
It's like you can't determine necessarily that one.
We have a good reason to assume they're lying from this.
That doesn't prove they're lying.
But you know, it's a good assumption.
It's good intuition. I would then go on to just
wonder why he thinks necessarily that because We assume the
numbers are accurate that it's necessarily because of the
government's, little Chinese government's lockdowns, that
Corridor, the corresponds directly or caused the numbers
associated with the numbers that are presented.
I think this without further Evidence, or without a more
evidence to support his claim. I think this is falling into a
correlation. Causation fallacy again.
Yeah, for a guy who likes to go on very long about things which
of course we generally appreciate the fact that he
doesn't give like a sentence to what he means by most
economically successful and most epidemiologically successful.
Look, you create the virus. That's not epidemiological
successful. Not cool.
That's like a 0 out of 10 on the epidemiological success scale.
Also. So the current number according
to World Health Organization is like 5.3 million.
That is Like 1/4 of what the Japanese killed in China in the
second world war alone, during their monarchy Emperor.
Hirohito with Hideki Tojo. Calling a lot of the shots.
So you don't get to say oh there's a virus and that's
killed people and therefore we need a monarchy.
Well, let's look at what else monarchies do and what Emperor's
do when they have a lot of power.
That's one regime in China from what when was man chair?
Area Invasion 1931. So in in a 14 year, span, that's
1/4 of what that one government killed.
Let alone all the monarchies throughout history.
So enough of this looking to someone and look, all the Asian
countries have lower numbers because that's where tsarskoe V1
came from. They have a higher immune system
could have to compare two Chinese people in America Who
weigh the same as the Chinese people in China.
Yeah because look, I'm the first to say I'm not I am the typical
not in good shape American but so if I got it, what, which I
did in December last year versus someone in China getting it.
I'm much more likely to die from it.
If everything we know about, you know, people being overweight
and exercising less but being more likely to to die from this.
So this is just week. Yeah, it's dudes.
He makes a claim and then he makes another claim but there's
no like link to it. I don't see, like, like there's
so many Any other is you're saying there could just be in
it's very likely they could have just more natural immunity.
If you even believe the numbers in the first place.
So there's so many other variables that he doesn't
present here that are considered.
There should be considered to make the claim as feel stronger.
And would you mind reading the next?
Yeah, absolutely. So he goes on to say this next
paragraph. It is unfortunate that China's
success with lockdown. In quotes, policies has spawned
a range of generally ineffective watered-down Western quota.
Lockdown theater, it is not clear.
That any Western going, quote non-pharmaceutical invention has
had any significant effect on the shape of Western covid ways.
In any case, the waves and the variance.
Keep coming Chinese covid strategy Works in China, but for
the West inventing, a strategy from scratch will probably work
better than copying China. Here are some simple options in
case anyone cares. No, he'll be the next part.
But yeah, that Okay for someone so smart for him to say blank
works that is up there with studies show with.
That's how I know I'm speaking to someone who is not really
caring to make a valid point. What do you mean Works?
Compared to what at what cost, what's your definitive evidence?
So yeah, I guess if no one was ever able to leave their house,
it would work. Yeah, because it knows things
China was welding people in their apartment buildings at the
Start this like fine. Maybe if we did that and maybe
that might work. In fact, you know, what?
If we just lock key hear me out. What if we just locked every
person in America in prison, they would have food.
They would have, you know, all this great stuff.
When that be great. We could probably want to make
covid. I think that would work.
Yeah, and now that I've called it working work, good assumes
effort in a Direction. So it's good.
I've made a, did you know that genocide Works.
Did you know that slavery Works? Did you know that, kidnapping?
Or did you know that it works? And obviously the policies in
the west also work almost perfectly.
Considering the idea is work means allow for the politicians
and their collaborators to coercively rule over the rest of
us and gain us under mind control.
It works out very well that like good job.
Yeah, it works. He acts like the US has
intention is to like well, we just want to end the virus.
It's like okay for me there. Incentive from just their
incentive structure. Just imagine how much power they
have amassed from this virus. Now whether you think the virus
is like legitimate or not. I think it's very, I think it's
real but the fact that it doesn't matter, the fact is
that, you know, this is the right, the ratchet effect where
it's like the state in like, incorporates more power and then
they have known scented like get rid of that power.
So, things are going very well for the state and it's going
very well for their cronies and big business who are profiting
immensely from this. This.
So like to hit his eye, he has an implicit belief here.
It seems that the Western lockdowns have not worked.
No, I on the contrary. I think they have worked just
how the policy makers intended them to work.
Exactly. Yeah, and as far as Lockdown
theater, he's admitting that governments have no problem
pretending to want to do something that inconveniences
millions of people especially the kids.
Oh God. I tweeted something out, John
Ziegler. A talk with his daughter on his
show and she is just the way she talks about how she hates.
I think she's like nine how she hates the masks in school and
how ridiculous it God is that just that's so sad.
And so unacceptable that if they're willing to do it for
that. I mean Heavens, what are these?
People not capable of. So you don't get to say it's a
crucial test to see if, you know, we could help people live
because people living is good, by the way, it doesn't really
matter that monarchs. And big governments have killed,
people all throughout history. You have to choose one either
the, your the humanitarian or the brutalist when it comes to
monarchy justification, and you have to mention the people, the
CCP killed in order to get their grasp on power.
Both in the war against Shanghai Shack in the second world war
with the Japanese and Mao's Great Leap Forward.
You don't just get to have the pros on, on your side.
You also have to look at the And so these were just things that I
had already mentioned earlier. Robert F.
Kennedy used an excellent work on this has said that he thinks
approving chloroquine, which is their version of HQ.
Let's just call it. It is why the China the China
numbers are much lower than they otherwise would have been.
Where was all right? It gets worse baby?
Oh, yeah. So here is the next paragraph?
Yeah, it's titled seal International borders.
The word seal. It's such a childish cover-up of
what's actually happening. Like you're just stealing the
Ziploc bag on a sandwich. Like it's just like no persons
are getting hurt. Just sort of ceiling like
closing the door real tight during the Windstorm.
It literally Only means anyone who moves out of this
geographical area. We blow their freaking head off
in front of their family. And by the way, I care about
people so much. That's why a crucial test for a
state is seeing if they can pass a respiratory virus.
I mean, you can't both, you can't play these.
Look, I care about people living.
By the way. I don't care how many millions
of people died. We have to seal international
border, stop, millions of people from achieving their ends
voluntarily. You get so obsessed with the end
that he forgets the me else, right?
Right, or I'm sorry you forgets. He forgets.
What his ends. The original motivation he had
for those ends in the first place.
If it's human well-being. It's just like, the, the Neo
cons. Yeah. 9/11 was such an evil
tragedy. We must avenge it.
And I don't care how many children we have to kill to
achieve that. Okay, you're Now worse than been
lauded. You should treat it as a
criminal act like anything else. Jarvan says, if the 2020s have
taught us one thing. Fun things.
All right. So this is the one thing.
This is the one thing that he's learned.
Everything else is up in the air.
There's a one thing that he's learned.
It is that Humanity can live without travel.
Yeah. Humanity can live with rape with
slavery. It can live with stabbings.
I'm not sure what this is. Proving you can live.
So what if you can necessarily do?
It does doesn't mean you should. And all I shows us that we could
live under democracy so we can live there for democracy.
Okay, what is this? Psychopathy on a lawn?
A lot? Like you can say, well, humans
can live theoretically without travel in, you know, every once
awhile, but if you really like abroad in your time Horizon,
that's not a true statement. Like if you don't like if humans
had never traveled, they would have just died.
Over a certain amount of time and go go and continue.
I don't want to interrupt, though.
I before you been reading. Nope, sadly, we have to take
this one sentence at a time. That's how bad this is Humanity.
Humanity can live without travel.
I don't even know if that's true today.
What would that have to that would have to entail planes
being sent that are remote controlled planes because you
can't have Pilots, right? Because Pilots are human beings
traveling and that's not necessary.
So all nations would have to be independent.
I guess Humanity, like the human race wouldn't go extinct but a
lot of people would die. There'd be a lot of shortages,
Zimbabwe style or Weimar, Germany.
Yeah Styles, but again, the fact that they can live, you know,
people can live without marriage.
Therefore marriage should be outlawed, people can live
without friends there for friendship should be outlawed,
right? All absolute evil nonsense.
This is, this is just like a difference between We all have
the same ends. We just have different means.
This is literally some people own the bodies of others.
I don't care how much misery it costs.
Yeah, it's one of the great things of Life, seeing the
beautiful cathedral. Maybe I'm just thinking of
cathedrals for talking about him, but the beautiful
cathedrals of Europe and traveling, you know, on road
trips with friends and you know, this Mortal life engines
existing, if you're just existing you like in a technical
sense or a living, Yeah, but you're not really like
fulfilling any type of human end that you could fulfill as a
human being. Yeah, so I mean, we can live in
the concentration camps of Australia as you see in the
bottom right-hand corner as reported by the New York Times.
Not just something on Twitter because even when I see
something on Twitter, I'm like, I really seeing that.
Or am I just seeing what I think that was sort of, right?
This is a legit thing, quarantine coercive.
Yeah, quarantine centers. Of course, they're called in
particular, Jarvan continues, in particular.
It is simply an urban legend that trade.
Wires travel, a Visa governance, feeder that harks us back to the
day of the real life traveling salesman.
I guess people have to be on the ships.
I mean, can people go between states, your highness.
Is that okay with you, do the idea that do I need a license.
That's worse. That is just as bad as the
Swedish microchips, that are planting in people that's
mainstream news. By the way.
That's not David Icke nonsense. That's worse.
That's way worse than that. Passports, because you what do
you even need the passport? For just don't, don't get it.
You don't need to travel. Anyways, tree, doesn't require
travel. You can still live unless he is
literally talking about drones flying into places and get
giving people like dropping off supplies, trade, literally
requires travel. So I have no idea what he means
when he says this. Like that statement trade were
the, it's an herb that it's an urban legend that trade requires
travel. I'm perplexed.
I'm legitimately blown away by this statement because I cannot
think, unless he's talking about like a completely like
artificial drone based like delivery system.
That's just untrue. Like, if we're in the time about
the real world, if we're down about like the the consequences
are, the reality is your oven said before, if we're talking
about the real world right now, trade requires travel.
If the like, if all the trucks start, if all the trucker's,
stop driving to deliver trade and food, too.
Grocery stores people will die. Okay, like people are gonna buy
Humanity can live. There's our Humanity can live if
there's one person left after all the devastation.
He's right. Yeah.
That's right. It hurts us betrayed requires.
It's an urban legend or have we beat this dead horse, but we'll
look just look at Australia. Is betting on remote quarantine.
Here's what I learned inside. That's the New York Times
article. This is this piece on sub stack
by The way is titled Omicron and governance theater.
So yeah, I guess I guess the thing that just boils me about
this is that you're assuming goodness on the half of the
state where they have this thing called terrorism that they're
against. So once they solve it, then
they'll give us our freedoms back.
There's this thing called illness and once and they just
need to take it away, take away some freedoms because they're
doing the best they can, and they'll give it back to us,
right? When they're done.
It's this, I guess you could call it childish as he called us
earlier. This idea that I one single
person who is fallible. I'm going to violently stop
Millions, but I'm sorry billions of people from achieving their
ends based on a China model that I think is successful.
Even though I don't use the numbers, comparatively to other
Asians in America and other Asian countries.
So, based on pretty much nothing.
He's willing to usher in like the closest thing to
totalitarianism. Yeah, that one could probably
but one could probably achieve. Flatten high waves, with short.
Lockdowns is the next paragraph. So every time there's a
technical waive, the state gets to murder everyone who exits
their house. Yavin says, quote in a true
lockdown. Not a lockdown theater.
No one leaves their house supplies are delivered.
Who is doing the delivery of this, that no one's able to
leave their houses for right? And who's doing this trade?
If people aren't able to travel, it's an I'm just perplexed.
I don't understand how to read this in any coherent way.
No one leaves their house. And the sad thing is is this is
not descriptive. This is the great and it's a I'm
saying we need like a China model, the US was good in the
Gilded Age. It's like China today.
Cheers. What?
China did? Here's what we need to learn
from them. Here's what we do.
He's literally saying this. That's why it's so dangerous is
this is right after he was saying, it's a waste of time to
try. You know, prescribed ideas to
people when they don't already believe those ideas and yet he's
trying to advocate for something that people luckily don't
believe in America right now. At least, you know, it's not at
least it's not this bad yet. But he's trying to prescribe
something even worse and I hope they're not listening to him.
So 99.99% and that and that's what it takes.
That's the survival rate. It takes for people to entertain
nonsense like this. It's just so evil.
Since the I meant knows who you are.
And where you live. It knows what you need.
Okay, so we have to literally I just read that sentence.
This I had to take a screenshot because I go if I I only took
screenshots here because I go. If I copy and paste this, I'm
going to get accused of Fraud and I wouldn't blame a single
person for thinking that I've been.
I've been The Host this long. Just this this statement might
be the most insulting that I've read.
I'm not joking. So for someone Who claims to be
a like, a follower of mises, someone who believes that the
austrians are brilliant. The that mises was brilliant.
The statement that since the government knows who you are and
where you live, it knows what you need is insane.
Like, I've, I'm sorry, I can't take this year.
I can't take Yavin seriously right now like it's just such a
non statement. Knowing what?
I know. He knows that I it has to be
like an elaborate role or else. He's just incoherent.
Here. Like it's so hard for me to like
honestly, take that seriously. If you think that the what like
just okay, breakdown, what makes you think, the government knows
what you need? How could they ever know what
you need at any given time? What if you change your mind on
what you need? What if your hierarchy of values
changes from moment to moment when, you know, they're already
trying to supply you something, you know, there's all these
different effects without the price system.
How do they know how to accurately allocate resources?
It's all these Elementary questions that the Austrian
School has been dealing with for so long and they they're right
about and he our man who claims to be at least a fan of the
Austrian School could make this audacious claim.
Here is perplexing to me. Yeah.
So my good friend at The Institute, Patrick McFarland.
He knows who I am. And he knows where I live.
Does he know what I need? How did the government knowing?
They'll know? Knowing A and B does not mean.
I'll no. See.
Yes, equals need also. Well, maybe see, just means a
rice cake and water. Like a the very least if you're
just talking about survival and since you don't need to travel,
if the 2020 sawdust anything, then, I guess he might literally
be saying that, but just because we need it.
We also need courts, and we also need police, but government's
terrible at providing those. So we'd want competitively.
Competing voluntarily funded organizations to achieve those
things. So, just even if, even if I sent
them a list of what I need, I have no incentive to economize
if there's no price mechanism, and I can't go to my job, and I
can't trade, and I can't compare two Alternatives at the store.
And why would they go through the work of pleasing me, no
matter what I serve them. Oh, yay.
A new sentence. If you have this. if you have a
car you may even If you have a car, I love how he's admitting
that. There's going to be so many
shortages under this. If you have a car, I don't know.
It looked like Henry Ford made the Model T available on NASA's
like decades and decades ago and he goes well, if you have a car
in the 2020s, he knows there's gonna be so many shortages when
the government's calling this and Sean's, you may even be
drafted into doing deliveries. Okay, so no one leaves their
house and people are doing deliveries.
He's young and people are traveling.
I'm sure this. He's one of the smartest people
on the planet and he hasn't put a lot of thought into this or he
has and he is not the good person that I thought I admired
either way. He is unfit to exist in.
Hello. He's unfit to be a monarch
rather. Yeah.
I didn't mean that at all, but I was trying to Channel The
Spooner, quote of the Constitutes and that no matter
what. It's unfit to exist.
He is unfit to rule. And he'd be a better Monarch.
Probably the most people until I read this.
It's just so bad. I might be, I might be enslaved.
That's my system potential slavery, but they'll never abuse
that power. We're going to give them tons of
power and they're not going to abuse it.
And what if they do abuse it? Well, then you'll just say,
well, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
We just need a different type of government in a true.
Lockdown. You test yourself every day.
Fuck you. I'll test myself in a walk.
I want then show a photo of the test to your pandemic app.
I'm glad that won't get corrupted.
If you test positive, you are taken to a pandemic Hotel.
I'm sure feels nice. Doesn't it Kia?
Pandemic Hotel. It'll be like the Four Seasons.
It's not right. Yeah.
We're you get antivirals. How do you know that they'll
give us that? How do you know?
Oh, they won't mistreat us. That kidnappers at the employee
of the state won't mistreat Us. By the way, have I left my
house? Because I'm not allowed to leave
my house to go to the hotel. Who's taking me people who are
not allowed to leave their house.
He's insulting in Yerevan, stand in his head.
So he and also the, in America, the government was totally
against antivirals. They had basically said nothing
until the vaccine antibodies and chicken soup.
Yeah. There's not going to be at
Orders of chicken or super travel, the government's in
America and it could happen under a monarchy as well.
They were very against the use of alternative methods to the
point where anyone who so much as talks about them gets called
a crazy horse, dewormer conspiracy theorist.
It wasn't until Joe Rogan said, I took Ivermectin and I took
monoclonal antibodies, I believe that's how it's pronounced.
I don't know what it is. To Sanjay Gupta and then Sanjay
Gupta when I'm Don, Lemons show, and Don Lemon, of course, gave
him the Jeff Zucker ringer of. We need to bring this guy back
in because he didn't serve us. Well enough and Sanjay Gupta
says, will Rogan said that he took Ivermectin and he took
these antibodies and I think it was the antibody treatment that
really helped him recover. So quick, right there.
We have an admission from the CNN doctor hnic of the CNN.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta said, he I thought that there was something
that made people better and he isn't out there, recommending
it, to every single person saying this is what works.
This is what, in my medical opinion is going to help people
recover faster. That is how, you know, there is
no innocent explanation behind me.
Well, they just forgot to mention potential and some hoops
treatments. No, that's how they got the
emergency authorization for Pfizer AstraZeneca and moderna
Johnson & Johnson, there. Is no need to prevent contagion
within the hotel, the staff, where high-performance
respirators. Okay.
So once there's this big, monarchy ushering in tyranny,
he's he knows that they're going to have high performance, that
they'll be performing. Very high quality service.
They're going to have every incentive.
They're going to make your veins going to be calling the shots.
When someone else is a monarch who never answers to him, right?
Two weeks of true. Lockdown is a long time.
It will end with certain pods, which have to stay home in.
What an appropriate term. Because they were exposed again
99.99%. Yeah, once every home is past
the incubation period, Any kind of massive sustained infection
will be gone. What's left?
Will be the residue of accident and non-compliance.
All right, I think anything else on that.
I don't think I said, well, I said on this bar too much faith
in people who have no incentive to provide a good service.
I don't know how else beside it being evil.
My whole thing that what I got from this and maybe this was me
just being emotional was there's just no worry of imposition.
Not just on one person or two or every system people are
inconvenience. He just has no problem and
millions of obligations on billions of people and no matter
what his positions, unfalsifiable.
Hey bad government, government's neutral tool, gotta try
something different. I don't care how many millions
of people I kill and it's also very weird going back from the
other slide when he's turned out like why I'm not a Libertarian
because he's trying to say that prescription that prescription
is somehow How useless, it's not it's not helpful to prescribe
certain outcomes to people because the consequence of the
reality currently is the reality, right?
And now he's trying to prescribe a solution to lockdowns, which
is much more tyrannical than what's going on right now, and
he somehow I get the this like this D, go back and what he's
done for. Does he now think that?
Oh, now it's actually useful to prescribe certain things to
people. It just kind of contradictory.
Yeah, you know, it certainly feels like the disarming your
enemy. It's Bad to have guns says the
US government. Do they have any guns at
government or do they just persuade people vile when
someone starts shooting at other people, they just send them a
strongly-worded letter from Jen saki?
No, of course not. They know that the guns are
important. So he knows that ideas change
things, which is why that's so sad.
If I look at a book. He came on my show to talk
about. This is a chapter in democracy,
The God That Failed on the errors of Classical liberalism
in the future of T. So, it seems like he has this
like, moral nihilism, so something is inevitable.
Therefore we should submit to it.
I believe that ideology can win and I believe this is where the
left power lies when they talk about racism, colonialism,
sexism homophobia, but whatever else they don't say, I have
studies and the majority of the studies tend to show that it
Doesn't work. They'll say that sometimes I've
had very few things their biggest points where they get
the most amount of power is racism, inherently bad,
unacceptable, sexism. Inherently bad unacceptable.
We cannot have this colonialism is pure evil and and all the
stuff. So.
Well Hans Hapa says is that we have the moral High Ground
actually and that's how we can have a stable Foundation of
promoting our ideas. He says, would you mind reading
this? The highlighted part.
The whole thing. I'm sorry to do that to you.
Oh, no, then the liberal has no principle.
Moral case to make to lower taxes is not a moral imperative.
Rather. The liberal case is exclusively
in economic one. For instance, lower taxes, will
produce certain long-term economic benefits.
However, at least in the Run. And for some people, the current
tax, recipients and lower taxes. Also imply, economic costs
without moral argument, at his disposal, a liberal is left only
with the tool of cost-benefit analysis.
But any such analysis must involve an interpersonal
comparisons of utility. And as and such a comparison is
impossible. Scientifically impermissible,
hence the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis is
arbitrary and every proposal Justified with reference to them
is mere onion in this situation. Democratic Socialist only appear
more upfront, consistent and consequent while liberals come
across as starry-eyed confused and unprincipled or even
opportunistic. They accept the basic premise of
the current order of the democratic government, but then
they constantly lament is anti-liberal outcome.
If liberalism is to have any future, it must repair, its
fundamental error. Liberals will have to recognize
that no, government can be contractually justified that
every government is Give of what they want.
Yeah, when I look at the power of someone like ALC, one of the
most powerful people on the planet, Jimmy doors made a good
case for, she's one of the most well-liked by or definitely
well-liked by the media. I think our numbers are much
further down than the then it then it seems she basically gets
all of this power. And as does Bernie won through
historical narratives and giving people the ideas of You know
what happens? The New Deal was good.
We need a green New Deal. So fake historical narratives,
give her a lot of power. So as Hapa says, in libertarian
quest for historical narrative, we need to embrace narratives
and stories as well to really grab it people's heart strings.
So their mind is able to work harmoniously with their
feelings. But what she says, Health Care
is a right education is a right. Other people are doing it.
That's as far as I'll go with making my Empirical case other
people do it. Well because as I also told the
kids, I used to babysit for if other people told you to jump
off a bridge, would it be okay? That's not where the real power
lies. It is education is a right to
healthcare is a right course, it involves enslaving others, if
it's a positive, right, but if we take this case and compare it
to, there's look that there's just no there's no on inventing
this concept this Jeffrey. Tucker says, ideas are like
viruses. And once this lie of political
authorities exposed, it's it's hopefully not going back.
It's not inevitable roulette. This can win just as the left is
wins with. Oh, yeah.
To talk about can people change, there's the levels of racism,
sexism and homophobia have changed.
But whatever you think they are. They are not the same.
Therefore if people can change both at an All levels and
societies. So, yes, we are not dumb.
Idiots. Bumping into walls because we
care about ideology where we're looking at who's winning and
what they're doing your VIN in Waimanalo libertarian.
He specifically rejects like any moral Norm, right?
He's thinking about things just through like an engineering
perspective about like, what is right?
And what can be. So he rejects the moral basis
for libertarianism. And that's one of the reasons.
I think he's not a Libertarian, but I just did.
I wanted to address the inevitable inevitability issue,
right? So here's the thing, most
people. Still hold moral Norms against
things that are genuinely considered generally considered
inevitable, right? So let's imagine a scenario
where most people most people around the world are against
murder. Most people would also would say
that murder can never be ready. Katie from the human species,
right? There's always going to be
murderers somewhere, some, in some time.
So the fact that we can't get rid of murder, doesn't entail
that we should submit to the murderers or that we should let
ourselves be. I murders or be killed same for
rapists and thieves, right? So this this is in my opinion.
Why I like if you're an anarchist, even if you believe
that the state would not go away.
Now. That's I'm not making that
claim. But definitely, even if we
assume that the state would always be there, that doesn't
mean we should still submit to it.
Right? If you like.
If someone if a time, traveller came to me and said 10,000 years
into the future, there are still States.
I would still be an anarchist because I still believe that is
morally unjustified for the state of role in the way.
It does. Now.
Your point to ideology is great. This is you said this is where
the left wins. They have better rhetoric.
They can use the rhetoric in a way that appeals to moral
intuitions that people have. And now the left, of course,
defiles these intuitions into, like the state aggression, but
the there's like, a moral Intuition or premise that people
have that. Yeah.
People should, you know, have money.
They shouldn't have starve to death on the street, you know,
there's the people shouldn't treat others as low less than
them, you know, there's a certain something that they're
pulling from there and they're able to, you know, Torque Lee
Drive that into different policies in two different
policy. Proposals that gained steam over
time. So people do change their minds
and in fact, the greatest example of this would be the
abolition of slavery at one time.
Everyone thought it was completely legitimate to own
another person to like explicitly write.
And now, if you thought about that legitimately today, people
would like run you out of town, right?
So, so we obviously are your ovens.
Empirical claim above like, earlier on that people just
don't change your mind or it's pointless to try to change your
mind. I just think that's false.
You ignore like every single possible outcome that has come
from people having their minds changed even whether they've
been like deceived in some sense, right?
That's still a changing of someone's mind.
Even if they've been deceived by something.
Yeah, you don't say, you can't logically say, people don't
change their minds and then just ignore the people who have
changed their minds. Yes, because that does That's
like saying, you know, everyone's Muslim except for
except for all who think they're not Muslim.
Yes. They're just so dumb and that's
how deep into Islam. They are for peddling that they
can't even see the Islam that they believe in.
Yes help. Right.
So when it's unfalsifiable like that again, well, then, of
course he can always be right. So these when I think of
comparative questions, I say, alright, so he rejects the
morality of the situation, which I think we just need to start.
Taking people at their word for and just start demanding of them
that. So you don't have a preference
whether I stab you or you choose to get surgery by a doctor
because in both cases, you're getting cut and you're bleeding
and there's sometimes pain. There's no difference between
those. So we really, I think it's
important to really push it in someone's face.
So me shooting into a crowd and killing a random person is just
as bad as a woman murderer. Guy raping her because in both
cases, people get shot. There's no like, who cares if
one person's aggressing and the other person's not aggressive.
It's the same thing. That is how dumb you have to be
to say that. Well, the nap is just
ridiculous. So the that that's just my final
thing on the moral nihilist thing when it comes to, all
right. He's an engineer who just cares
about efficiency. The questions that I would have
that. I still think the free
marketeers win is because every shortcut Meaning of the free
market applies tenfold to the state because they don't face
competition and you can't opt out of funding them.
So I would ask him which system incentivizes Innovation.
Well, the King has a low time preference.
Everyone can have a low time preference at some point in
their own life. The king who whoever is the king
in that society would be of the same species as other people in
a free market. Someone have low time,
preference, others, high, and that's how we trade and that's
why I try It is Meaningful. Any thoughts on this first
comparative question? And anything else you have on
the moral status of rejecting, self-ownership voluntary
exchanges. Well on the comparative
advantage here, I think it's absolutely what you said is
absolutely true. Right?
So like I want to be very clear to anarchists and Libertarians
are not saying that the free market is only going to ever
produce good results. Or there's ever only going to be
good things in a free market Society.
It's the fact that every single problem of the free market is,
Just a problem with existence itself and they get more in the
problems become more, and more apparent, and more costly to
more people, the more their centralizing monopolized.
So, that's why, if I take, if I'm just a decentralized actor
and I take an action, which affects me it's going to cost is
going to be on me. And then I also get an
informational signal because I suffered a loss that's going to
like direct me in a way where I can say.
Okay, if I want to get, if I don't want Two losses anymore,
how it can kind of show me where, how did I go wrong?
What can I improve upon? What did other people around me?
Do where they improve where they succeeded?
Where I failed. So you do have this comparative
analysis from decentralized actors.
When they when they fail. So it's not that you know, it's
always going to produce good things.
It's that when people fail, they can information from it and most
importantly the cost is genuine generally directed towards that
they feel the cost. Whereas when you have a monopoly
structure and something goes wrong everyone.
Pays for it, right? If the state messes up, guess
what? That money is coming from your
taxes, bud. Exactly, when well which system
incentivizes growth. Again, you can say that the
Monarch might or is likely to have a low time preference
again. Maybe he's a psycho, like other
people who don't even value their own property.
Yeah, so generally speaking, which system has less menaka
call South Korea, done better, or worse as far as Innovation
and getting shit done as he likes to say, then North Korea.
He's got to Handle that objection because those are the,
that's the best example of to comparative populations.
That's reasonable. It's not like China and America.
What are dishonest comparison for covid?
A second? What what we said about the
Watchman? Bad actors exist.
Always everywhere as humans which system best counteracts
them. Again, think it's the free
market that at least it one you can disassociate with them and
not fund them and they don't A magical money printing machine,
that attracts the most evil people ever second.
If we have someone evil, like Bezos or Rockefeller Carnegie
Ford, let's say they're all pure evil.
They can't get a penny out of my pocket unless they make me happy
with a product or service. Yeah.
That that I want to purchase in exchange for them.
And if they try to force you, you you would be legally
justified in resisting. It would be widely recognized
that I have lectures. They'd be seen as any other
criminal. That's right.
Whereas the Monarch would have this Halo of legitimacy.
Yes, not justified at all. Where does the equilibrium lie?
Again? He can say that.
Well, the Monarch is not going to totally deplete his future
income because he has a low time preference.
Maybe, maybe not. How do you find that
equilibrium? Should you consume everything?
Now everything later? Well, neither of those what you
want to find is a balance, a free market that allows people
to innovate and come up with substitutes is a much better way
to find an equilibrium rather than will.
The single psycho feel like the costs are now beginning to
outweigh the benefits right? And no correcting mechanism,
right? And with an equilibrium, you in
some sense have to use the market processes, like a filter,
like an evolutionary filter. And Some sense to find out where
that magic sweet spot is for anything.
Because if you try to centrally plan, you have no idea where the
equilibrium is because you can't like a net, you can't engage in
analysis in regards to prices and the scarcity of resources.
So when we feel when we're talking about prices in the
market, what we're really what prices are ultimately, are they
will they give an incentive? But ultimately prices are
information, right? So whenever we're engaged in a
local transaction, Keith you and I are engaged, you want to trade
me, something I want. I do something.
We have knowledge over like it of things within our like,
vicinity, right. That we trade with what we don't
have. Not like direct local.
Knowledge of is like the what the resources that went into the
things we were training and what those scarcity is of them right
now. And what are the production
levels, you know the transportation to get from A to
B, like all these different things, but those things are
communicated. Educated to people through
implicitly, through the price system, right?
So you have to, if you, if you just don't engage in the price
system. You're not going to find an
equilibrium whatsoever. Yeah, I think Alex tabarrok, uh,
said it best when he said a price is a signal wrapped in an
incentive. Yes, the higher prices will
signal that some things are more scarce than others and provide
an incentive for people to use the scarce resources that
Society has In a much more efficient way again, never work
Cummings with that but it's still in the voluntary realm.
What do you can? Never hit me delivery.
Mmm, but you can always get you oriented towards the
equilibrium. Yeah, again, what which process
is superior? It's not like instead of being
imperfect. We should be perfect.
There's there's always, always constraints that.
And then I just tried to summarize my general position.
And what yarv anism leads out and I didn't mean to that was
more note to myself than calling it that what I said, the concept
of monarchy being superior to the free market has a
shortcoming which I see as the following.
It's a worldview that does not distinguish between a boxing
match and assault. It should be rejected because
any attempt to design a system for human beings.
Should recognize what distinguishes human beings as a
These namely the ability to reason and act in comparison to
ideals some having the right to own the bodies of others, roll
them a monarch or any sort of State reject, the human capacity
to reason and diminishes the incentive for the aggressor to
act in a beneficial manner. Pleasing others while creating a
world less desirable. Imagine.
All 30 year olds have the right to Monarch or rule, 20 year
olds. What if Asians have the right to
rule White's? The you could say that there's a
lot of benefits to some of these things Asians have higher IQs
than whites on maybe a lower time preference that doesn't
justify us having this one sacred life of ours being used
as simply. The Emir means to to other
people, while aggression can be beneficial for some at the
expense, non Harmony of interests of others.
Not everyone benefits, if Everyone does.
So overall the examples would be standing at a show allows you to
see better. Everyone standing does not allow
everyone to see better. If one person is given a PhD by
Harvard that person can make a lot of money, if everyone's
issued a Harvard Ph.D at Birth, then no one's going to be better
off. So, the assumption is, is that
if some people can benefit from monarchy and some examples.
Well, then monarchy is beneficial.
It does not allow for the harmony of Jurists, which allow
some people to disassociate, or say, give me a better offer.
Give me more money. Give me something more valuable
and then I will trade with you Garvin.
ISM. Does not allow that monarchy
doesn't. So that is my general claim.
That's like my foundational. Yeah, opposition to this.
What would you say is the main reason you are not a monarchist
because I don't believe other people are my property.
Love it. Yeah, he also engages in the
rule versus the exception fallacy.
So if I have some examples of mass murder leading to good
outcomes, so mass murder should be widely practiced.
What this does is not addressed, alternative outcomes.
Doesn't recognize the rights of the murdered nor does it explain
how this incentivizes future behaviors of production or those
aggressed against So when you Advocate something like, never
leaving your house or advocating a monarch with all this power,
you're just not appreciating the value of human life and how
complex life can be if we're not allowed to leave our house.
Can we really appreciate the Human Condition and the world
that the that we live in? And then finally, once the
Monarch is Empower, you think he's going to be reading gray
mirror gray with a navy American way as He would as you'd like me
to say, they're not going to listen to you.
They have no incentive. So this again is a major
shortcoming. I that's pretty much all I have.
As far as criticism go, anything else.
I would just like to say, I think the biggest criticism is
probably his use of equivocation.
That's the thing. I found most like apparent to
me. Is that how he would?
Equip a quiz that can speak. Equivocate power with state?
Power, right? Which is not a parent when you
just say power. It doesn't imply state power
necessarily and his equivocation of a governance structure.
Like of a person's property like such as if I have a monarch of
great governance structure that does not imply that if you apply
a monarch going governance structure to the government.
It's in any way going to be analogous to a gov of private
property governance structure. Yeah, yeah, so he finds the
exception in monarchy and says well, this is the general rule.
He then finds the exception in the free market and says, this
is the general rule, just great lessons from Yerevan that I
really appreciated. Just so people know of these
Cathedral, as we mentioned earlier deep, deep state public,
and private is vitally interests.
You can't just be an NPC who says State bad without
recognizing their collaborators, the Press controlled.
State concept, vitally and important inner and outer party.
I'm not going to explain these but people need to look into
him. Yeah, there.
Oh, I loved this by seeking expertise universities came to
rule by politicians seeking good.
Press, the Press came to rule that sent.
It's just so important. Great.
Yeah, and I mean, it's like every, every regime needs like,
some amount of popular support to exist every regime even a
dictatorship requires some either acquiescence or support
of the public. To remain of course, of course,
that's that's what the cold Warriors left out, when they
thought, well, all we got to do is kill the leader of these
communist countries, and then they're gone.
Now, it's in the minds of the masses or that's why we we've
worked so hard to change that public opinion.
The next regime which involves paying off potential employees
loyal to the previous regime, you buy their silence.
He uses the example of where Mach bear mock officers in
Germany, still getting a pension.
That is so important to know just how people operate and how
you can have a soft cool like that.
And that sort of change of power vital white.
It's like Hillary Clinton did not actually get locked up by
Donald Trump, right? Because once you do that, then
you open the door to old. Maybe they'll lock up me next,
right? So you kind of have this like
backdoor, handshake. Oh, yeah.
He also mentions to get grants groups will exaggerated threats.
So when you're getting money from the government, how do you
stand out? You?
Don't say we don't have anything now, but give us money and we'll
maybe find something. No, you gotta say, there's a
virus going to kill people. We got to find gain-of-function
research that the planets gonna freeze and we need global
cooling funds. We need global warming funds,
when climate change funds and this creates an oligarchy.
Where, who do you go to, to find the best people in the in
medicine? We should probably go to the
Rows of the Pfizer GlaxoSmithKline.
Johnston Johnson. Okay.
Well, then they make the rules and this creates a technocracy.
That allows that this self God. What would you call it?
I'm trying to think of the regulatory capture term that
Anthony Davis uses, but by exaggerating threats, they gain
power, those involved in the industry, make the rules for the
industry regulatory capture. So that's a World logic of how
something like regulatory capture can exist.
Any great lessons from Yerevan that people need to appreciate.
I think these pretty much nailed the.
These are the exact same. I would mention to, yeah, I
would just say, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me at
Ace underscore artist. I do want to plug my friends
store neophyte gear.com, my friend Greg made a story if
you're Into like 3D printing or like 3D printing you like gun
accessories, gun parts, stuff like that, anything from that
took manuals. So even hot sauce.
If you don't have enough money to spend on some of the more
expensive stuff on the store checkout, neophyte gear.com, and
I would just say Keith. Thank you so much for inviting
me. Well, thanks everyone for
sticking with us. Hopefully, thanks for watching
the libertarian Institute and don't tread on anyone.
Ace, brother. Thank you for your Time.
Thank you so much, Keith.