Gentlemen, thank you so much for having me on my name, is Keith
Knight. I run the you don't tread on
anyone YouTube channel and odyssey Channel.
I'm also a contributor to the libertarian Institute.
I'll just go into my 15 minutes here.
The primary disagreement between Libertarians and nail.
Conservatives comes in the form of foreign policy understanding.
Generally the war on terror against al Qaeda, since 2001 has
consisted of not taking the talibans offer to hand over.
Our Bin Laden. Zarqawi, giving us Al Qaeda in
Iraq after the u.s. Overthrow Saddam, which there
was no Iraq beforehand. The u.s.
Siding with al-Qaeda in Libya against Gaddafi, an organization
known as El ifg, the Libyan Islamic fighting group.
Moammar gadhafi was the first person on Earth to put out an
arrest warrant for Osama Bin Laden in 1996.
It also has involved the u.s. Siding with al-Qaeda in Syria
against Assad. This is according to an email by
Jake Sullivan. This is one of the Hillary
Clinton emails, where he says a queue is on our side in Syria.
Siding with Al-Qaeda, and al-nusra to overthrow Assad.
Of course, they are also citing with al-Qaeda in Yemen until
recently against the current Rebel government in Yemen.
It's also cost hundreds out. Hundreds of thousands of
Civilian deaths. Millions of people have been
displaced since the war on terror.
Can you imagine if what happened in Iraq and Syria and all these
other places? Has the u.s.
Is bombing if it happened in New York or Los Angeles or Nebraska.
If it's wrong to do in this geographical area called
Nebraska it's wrong to do in this geographical area called
Iraq. We have thousands of drones and
bombings which have to store at homes, architecture and
businesses. We have thousands of u.s.
Veteran suicides because of the post traumatic stress disorder
that occurs in a ton of where we've had about 4,500 military
combat deaths. Thousands have been permanently
injured, not to mention, mental injuries along with
post-traumatic stress. As I previously mentioned.
We've spent trillions of dollars and are not safer as a causal
result. And there today are tens of
thousands of al-Qaeda members and more countries than there,
were in 2001. According to the Central
Intelligence Agency in 2001. There were about 400 Al-Qaeda
members today across multiple continents.
There are tens of thousands. The reason this is was stated.
And in one of Osama bin Laden's letters actually a number of
them. The first one was an open letter
to King fahd in August of 1995. In his second letter,
Declaration of jihad against America's occupying, the land of
the two sacred mosques, his Declaration of world Islamic
front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders of 1998, and a warning
to the United States. In October of 2001.
He primarily focused on the condom Massacre of 1996.
By the Israelis occupying Mecca and Medina with US military
soldiers and Iraqi sanctions imposed by father George Bush in
1991, which killed anywhere between 100 and 300 thousand
civilians. Bin.
Laden says, it's 1.5 million, obviously a lie.
We also have statements by three of the 9/11 hijackers according
to a researcher Robert Pape at the University of Chicago.
What is happening in Muslim countries today blatant
occupation of About which there is no doubt.
There is no Duty more obligatory after Faith then to repel them
to repelling. The Americans occupying.
The land of the two sanctuaries is the most obligatory of
obligations number three and I say to America, if it wants its
armies and people to be safe that it must withdraw all of its
forces from Muslim lands and depart from Powell, all our
countries. If you saw the way the left
flipped out about Russian interference in 2016.
Imagine if Russia had Chickens in America, and was directing
US, economic and domestic policy.
Of course, the war in Afghanistan had nothing to do
with 9/11. It was actually a military
operation planned on September 4th 2001.
According to Donald Rumsfeld. In his own testimony on Congress
at Congress rather on March 23, 2004.
He mentioned National Security. Presidential Directive 9, which
was the plan to have a regime change.
Change in Afghanistan. Now the criteria for a just War
this is not to say war is never Justified just because we oppose
the state's War just as we oppose State education, doesn't
mean we're against education, sometimes war is Justified.
We just have the same criteria for me, helping an old lady
getting mugged that we do me helping a group of people
getting mugged. And if that group of people is
far away in a foreign country, general principles.
Are we only Elliot against the aggressors, the war is to be
funded voluntarily if you don't want to chip in.
If you think it's a wrong thing to do, you don't have to fund
the operation and people have to join voluntarily.
You have no right to draft or enslave other people is far as
if we want who care about National Security.
We want to make sure that we do not have a government.
We want to embrace the principles of libertarianism if
a country invades, and there was a government there.
Well, people are just looking for.
A ruling class to obey if there is no ruling class and we have
embraced the principles of self-ownership and
non-aggression. They would have to go around and
enslave each person individually.
It would be a totally armed Society they'd recognize no
right to rule and you more or less would not be able to do it.
Libertarianism is basically a philosophy that says human
beings on their own bodies with regard to others.
They have a better claim to their own bodies because only
they can directly control their own bodies.
You can only end Directly control someone else's body by
first directly controlling yours.
Now. What does this have to do with
government? What makes government to Unique
institution? Is not schools or roads or
anything like that. It claims the right to initiate
aggression against peaceful people.
That is more or less, what Franz Oppenheimer.
The sociologist made the point of in his book.
The State, my proof that neoconservatism is actually
incorrect, is one it Has a double standard for this group
of people called the Congress group or government group or the
police group or the military group.
They're just different groups of human beings that have no more
rights than anyone else. It says that government has the
right to tax. But no one else has the right to
issue taxes only this group blatant double standard.
This group has the right to regulate which is a euphemism
for violently dominating peaceful people.
It says, slavery is bad, unless this group enslaves and we call
it the draft another. Are blatant, double standard,
you have to be consistent in your scientific method.
You have to be consistent in your philosophical method, it
grants the state, the right to kidnap it, grants the state, the
right to make laws. So arresting someone for murder
and stopping them, all of us have it.
But the state is a different organization, by writing words
down on paper. It has the right to initiate
violence against peaceful people.
The libertarian says, this is inherently immoral and of
course, the state's engage in war.
Which is a euphemism for mass murder.
If I don't have the right to issue taxes, or regulate or
draft people. I do not have the right to vote
for John McCain or vote for Barack Obama to do such a thing
on my behalf. All it is, is a group of people
claiming the right to rule everyone else.
There are a lot of criticisms of the free market.
There's greed and there might be corruption and all.
That is true. The problem with these
criticisms is they all apply tenfold.
You the state. There's corruption.
Yeah. Governments have corruption.
The difference is what makes libertarianism morally Justified
is you have the ability to opt out of funding corrupt people of
the ability to opt out of funding operations that do not
work. That kill innocent people or
that don't make the poor better off.
Economically speaking. We have two ways of achieving
this we can either fun things through a coercively funded
Monopoly, the state and Medicare or something like that or we can
embrace Brace, a philosophy of voluntarily funded competition.
All the libertarian says is the principles of Freedom.
We apply to our neighbors. We apply to a group called the
Catholic church and a group called arizonans and a group
called the Chinese. Everyone has the same moral
standards. This is a philosophy that goes
back deep into American history. All men are created equal.
This means no person has the right to inherently rule.
Over anyone else. There are endowed by our creator
with certain unalienable. Lights, if we are to embrace the
principles of Christianity, we have to be against murder,
theft, robbery, kidnapping, enslavement, even if a group of
people called politicians engage in such an activity.
If the Soviets did to, you know, chili what the US did to Iraq,
we would clearly see that it was immoral, just hold that group
called government to the same standards.
You told. Anyone else Declaration of
Independence continues people have the right to life.
You have the right to live. So long as you do not initiate
violence against others, then you are the aggressor in which
people have the right to defend themselves against you, the
right to Liberty. This is the ability to do
anything you please. So long as you do not initiate
violence against someone else that interferes with the freedom
of someone else. So while we Advocate Freedom, we
do not support the freedom to rape and slave kidnap or murder.
Is this a contradiction? Not at all.
It's a philosophy that says you have the right to Do anything
you want? You have the right to pursue
your happiness, as the Declaration of Independence.
Says, so long as you do not claim ownership or initiate
violence against a peaceful person.
The Declaration of Independence goes on to say, you have the
right to alter or abolish government.
If it contradicts the end stated at the beginning of the
Declaration. My proposal is that we have the
right to no longer recognize this group of people called
Congress as legitimate. We simply apply the same
standards we have for everyone else to that group.
And that is essentially embracing libertarianism.
We also have the right to free speech in the Constitution.
Well shouldn't we regulate speech to make sure it's for the
greater good? Just like we should regulate the
economy. The answer is no because any
group of people that you say has the right to regulate is
essentially saying that group of people has the right to rule
everyone else. Even if everyone else is
engaging in voluntary interaction, the Almost
neoconservatism. Is it grants the state the
legitimacy that it doesn't have? It says well, we can have a
government that sort of regulates.
You know that does a little regulation of the economy.
Boom. You've already granted the left
everything they've needed to justify communism.
If a little taxations, okay, for the greater good.
Well, then government's just engaging in helping the greater
good with regard to every one of its evil schemes Second
Amendment. Of course, is a A, a Libertarian
principle the state does not have the right to monopolize any
Weaponry. Another words for the same
reason, we have separation of church and state.
We should have separation of economy and state separation of
foreign policy and state. But what if someone believes in
a wrong religion, well, you know what, it's their life, but what
if there's someone who is uneducated and what if churches,
can't get funds, shouldn't we tax people to make sure we have
churches who get funds. So we could teach morality.
So people know what's going on in the world.
The answer is no. So whether it's a group of
people called the Catholic church, or a group of people
called Congress, the same moral pins principles, apply.
If we are to embrace the true ideology of conservatism a care
for civilization and the recognition that life liberty
and the pursuit of happiness are things.
Worth fighting for, we should embrace libertarianism
recognition of self-ownership, the non-aggression principle
voluntary exchange original appropriation.
These are the ideas that have made America great.
Not this idea. That well violence doesn't
violence. When the mass murdering theft
funded mass. Kidnapping government.
Does it? That is my time?
I will yield the rest. Who, mr.
Castelli. Okay.
Yeah, you still have a few minutes left, but he's good with
it. I guess Kevin.
You've got 15 minutes for your response.
Okay, let me reset this one sec. All right.
There you go. Wonderful.
Yeah, so just keep checking the private chat.
See when I got five minutes left.
I kind of thing. Okay.
So yeah. So thanks to Keith for coming on
and thanks to Henry for moderating and thanks for
everybody for tuning in tonight. So for me in terms of all of
this, I have, you know, a somewhat brief opening statement
and then I'm going to proceed to address some of the points that
Keith brought up and then hopefully we can get into a more
of a discussion afterwards. And so the case for
neoconservatives, and the cases that we recognize that the world
is an Arctic. We recognize that the that
Society in general. So if left to its own devices,
if essentially were we were to surrender or find ourselves in
the void in which there were a Chasm and no power, we would
descend into what Thomas, Hobbes described as the state of
nature. Now Thomas Hobbes for the record
when he conceived of the state of nature.
As in his words, nasty, poor brutish and short characterizing
life within it. He was not talking about a real
state of being that. Existed in human interaction.
Rather. It was a theoretical minimal
existence that that if it ever emerged and we'd immediately
find itself rendered, you know, not applicable because humans in
that state of nature, would immediately there by Covenant
into interactions with each other such that we would, you
know, by various means we would come together to Recognize a
legitimize Sovereign as having the power to order and provide
structure. In other words, we Covenant to
give the state the sole Monopoly, on the legitimate, use
of force. And that is to say that it's a
double standard. Misses the point that it's
inevitable that it's necessary and it's so necessary that not
only without it would we descend into Thomas Hobbes state of
nature as he described, but that State of nature wouldn't even
exist because we would immediately come back into
covenanting into a social contract, in which there would
emerge from that a new state, a new king, a new ruler, a new
Congress. What have you?
Whatever means, whatever. Body because humans understand
that hierarchy is necessary that that the tyranny of chaos is
scarier than a legitimised ruler and that the social darwinist
existence of the State of nature, they chaos of it
necessarily would would serve as a tyranny because now instead of
being able to be free to focus on doing whatever you do in your
free time and Civilization. Now, you have to spend all your
time watching over your back because somebody might murder
you etcetera, that kind of thing.
And and in that anarchic state, there is no police to call upon
we live in a world, which is in many ways, characterized by that
sort of state of nature at the international level.
In this International System, states can do to other states,
what they will. And the only Force that's there
to prevent, it essentially is power.
And and in this system, what we see is that there are there are
hegemon, 's there are great Powers.
There are super powers. And if one super power for
example, yields the world to another, the other will seize
upon that opportunity and take The world.
In other words, if America for goes her responsibilities and
says America, she doesn't want to be the World Police anymore.
Russia and China will be happy to step in and the world will be
far worse as a result of it. And, of course, so to well
American time because good like fighting off an invasion.
Once they've got the whole world versus if the war happens where
you're on their border. Now, additionally, when
neoconservatives understand is that the state is not this
maniacal Institution. Within the Western world that
the liberal democracy is we see. It is actually a Force for good
that we believe in a compassionate form of
conservatives and we believe in a compassionate and and
magnanimous sort of institution that's there to essentially
combine the pooled resources of the people which we as our own
Adam. I selves are very little but
that is a whole we can do. Do great things with it and
become greater than the sum of our parts that we can amass.
A large security apparatus to protect ourselves that we can
free up so much time that instead, we would have to devote
to our own personal security and our own personal agriculture to
survive that all of this. It produces an emergent system
in which we sow the seeds for prosperity.
And when we couple this with the liberal Democratic world order,
that of the capitalist system, the Republic the Democracy human
rights Etc. We find a meaningful existence
that we can Forge from it and that in this anarchic world.
We are, you know, incumbent upon and to come in and pain us to
essentially, you know, spread this to propagate this
throughout the world because if we don't, our enemies will
propagate their tyranny. And whether whether we like it
or not, the world is as it is. And we Must be the Vanguard of
Liberty. And so I want to now get to some
of the points briefly that were mentioned by Keith.
And so I did take notes during his opening statement.
So Keith, of course invoke the non-aggression principle.
I recently have produced the video called the non-aggression
principle is immoral degenerate and stupid.
My via the non-aggression principle is basically this that
it is immoral to Bear witness to genocide to Bear Witness to
Murder to Bear witness to the most Task atrocities that we've
witnessed and to have the capacity to intervene and the
not do it. And, and that to me, it goes
back to this point that we cannot surrender ourselves to
nihilism. We have to stand for something.
We have to be better. We have to be greater and that
in our pooled effort as a society, as, you know, in terms
of the West. And in America specifically
there is the capacity to intervene there is the capacity
to make the A better place to not, just take the world at face
value to not just say, this is the world.
This is how it is. The world is divided between
islands of freedom and countenance of slavery, but
rather rather we can forge the world into our own image.
We don't have to ask permission to go somewhere and topple a
dictator. We don't have to ask permission
of some United Nations or something to go and fight some
terrorists or to rid the world of Communism.
We can That ourselves, we don't need the permission of any, what
we can be Lions, we can be Hawks and we can, we can make the
world a far better place for ourselves or on security for
Humanity and for prosperity for posterity rather into
perpetuity. And so Additionally, the idea of
tyranny, I, you know, that it is clear that there is tyranny in
the world and one of the problems that anarcho-capitalist
and Libertarians will have is that they will often times.
Is regard the government in which they live over the
territory, which they live is the worst tyranny.
And it's Lux, the relative degree, of course, should not
exist. Where yes, it is.
True that in Canada, or the United States, the government
does require you to pay your taxes.
That's a little bit better than what happens.
In North Korea are communist China or fastest Russia.
And so in additionally it is a necessary evil.
If you will with the with the state, although I would know
that I don't even consider it an evil per, se it.
What ideology? But working in moving on, in
terms of security, I regarded and they think it should be
pretty self-evident that you cannot have a secure Society.
You can't have secure communities unless we are able
to through the direction of a state entity have an allegation
of resources, allotted to the security of our borders, as well
as the propagation of our interests abroad.
And that is John Bolton Said It is better to engage.
Age in a conflict over there than to wait for them to engage
in a conflict over here and proceeding onward.
I did want to talk about now. There was one thing.
Well, actually, there was probably more than one thing,
but there was one thing that stood out to me, that Keats said
that I agree with Keith on, which is that.
And I've talked about this for a long time.
I'm against the draft. I consider the draft to be
degenerate II believe that. If you can't get enough people
to sign up for the military, you have to offer higher salaries.
I believe that the Out is antithetical to our principles
and so II rejected. Now, there are cases of extreme
circumstances in South Korea and Israel that do necessitate a
draft but in Canada. And the United States, I'm, I'm
completely opposed to it and that in a, in a perfect world,
there would be no draft. You would have the military, you
know, offer higher salaries. I think that the military should
be paid higher salaries. So that was the one thing that I
would say agreed with Keith on there, though.
There were probably More, but I just missed them.
I, I did want to say that I didn't notice from Keith a
blatant, false equivalency that was drawn between the United
States, which is I regarded, not just as an exceptional country
because we know that the United Kingdom in Israel, and Canada,
and Japan, and Taiwan are all exceptional Nations, but that
they all would be Soviet communist school.
I colonies without America. And therefore America is not
exceptional as rather as I In a video about a year ago America
is meta exceptionalist. In other words, all exceptional
countries. If the West owe their existence
to America and her great nuclear, umbrella and her
commitment to the defense of the Free World.
And additionally, I did want to talk about how, yes, Russia does
things, there are state that does that engages in coercion of
force and America is a state that will also apply Force
abroad. However, America is the bank
Garda Liberty and fascist, Russia is a degenerate
oligopolistic Backwater and and to regard their actions in
America's actions. As essentially.
Oh, there's somehow morally. Quell, misses the point.
That America is an exceptional entity.
Additionally hero did want to get into the idea of the what
Rumsfeld had mentioned about the ganis tanwar that the problem is
the United States went into Afghanistan as a Of 9/11, but
even if it were true, what Keith had mentioned that war was still
good. That were was still just the
talibans control over Afghanistan was a monstrosity.
It was the sort of regime in which you could be murdered for
listening to music in which a woman could be murdered.
If the slightest bit of her ankle Hood being shown in the
wind, I kind of thing. And it was a it was it was
something that we can all be proud of that Canada and
America. And, and the Western coalition.
Went in there and destroyed the Taliban.
That was a great victory for neoconservatives.
And to the extent that the Taliban still exists.
They are less than a sixth of what they used to be in terms of
their territorial control. And they would be all but gone,
if it were not for the weakness of these anti-war leaders such
as Obama and Trump. So continuing on the idea of a
voluntary funding of War it. Misses the point that we have.
Negative externalities that come from voluntary interactions and
that he and that is these negative externalities that
exist in social interaction as well as the economy that we as
neoconservatives understand mandate and necessitate a degree
of Regulation and a degree of understanding that we can't just
leave everybody to their own devices because we will all
undermine each other. Even if we don't necessarily
mean to, because there needs to be some order in place to keep,
Keep us from imposing negative externalities upon each other
and there's a huge negative externality.
Insecurity that results from. If we only have everybody who
wants to pay for security pays for security.
We will then have the negative externality known as the free
rider problem problem where everybody will want security but
nobody is personally willing to pay out of their own pocket and
therefore nobody will have security and that's a huge issue
with it. And so I know that we're still
an opening statements time. But one question that I do have
for Keith and I'm looking forward to his response is.
Do you believe that negative externalities exist and
economics and social interaction to kind of conclude here?
Because I know that my time is running out.
I think that it's very clear. That as far as the liberal order
goes, as far as the Democratic World goes, it is obvious that
the neoconservatives are the champions of everything.
Good in the world today, and That and that we will often hear
a mischaracterization from our opponents for on the left, on
the right. That will regarding neocon says,
as a persuasion of failure that they just have a record of
failure. This, it could not be further
from the truth. In fact, we are the force that
brought about the demise of the Soviet Empire.
We brought about the fall of Communism in Europe and Central
Asia. We additionally destroyed the
baathist regime in Iraq. That was Total and complete
operational success acid. Am how he's doing today.
Oh wait, you can't, he's dead. We killed him.
You know, it would look at the situation in Afghanistan.
The Afghan people have a free government now and women aren't
just being completely butchered wholesale.
As they used to be, they situation everywhere that the
Neo cons of Applied, our our will the world has been forged
into a better status quo than it was Prior.
We are Victor's. We are Lions, we are hawks, and
we're not done yet, and we are rising up once more.
And we will have a neoconservative Renaissance.
And mark my words. We will Forge the world into our
own image once again, so, thank you.
And I yield my time. What little is okay?
Yeah, you're just about out. Anyway.
All right. Yeah, if you want to go into the
more open exchange portion of this and I guess we'll start off
key because I'm sure he's got a lot to lot to say in response to
that and I think he also has some questions for Kevin.
So if you wanted to go ahead and take us away on that Keith,
sure. I just want to address the
negative externalities claim. This is what my point was.
Previously, when I said there are, Number of objections to the
free market philosophy, the ideology of self-ownership and
voluntary exchange. However it in no way justifies
the state, for example, if a group of people in Congress just
like 260 of them would be a majority or let's say 300 of
them would be a majority. That would be a negative
externality on the 330 million Americans who do not appreciate.
Preciate or care for the laws that they pass considering they
never asked us before. I mean Congress has like an 11
percent approval rating. So the biggest externality we
have is the existence of government.
So it just focusing on negative externalities.
It's literally like saying negative externalities exist.
Therefore, the Koch brothers have the right to rule all of
America. And if we don't obey the Koch
brothers, we should be putting a Gunshot, if we were exist, this
is because negative externalities exist.
It doesn't solve the problem of negative externalities that
well. I grant, you absolutely does
exist. We have no ability or no
recourse against the state when they engage in their constant
negative externalities, as far as the free rider problem goes.
Well, there's a large number of people who do not chip into the
tax system, which Mitt Romney got in trouble for telling the
truth about this thing. 87% of Americans are not net taxpayers.
Both, he's right. So that is an example of the
existence of a state does not solve the free rider problem.
Nor does it solve the problem of negative externalities?
Therefore, the existence of externalities does not justify
the existence of a state or a ruling class or a group of
people that have the right to initiate aggression against
peaceful individuals. How do you respond?
Mr. Castelli? Yeah.
Okay. So yeah, two points there.
Basically, the first was the The point about externalities, the
second was on the Free Rider program or problem rather and
the 47%. So on the issue of
externalities, I think what what were missing here is that if
there were yes. I will grant you a hundred
percent that there are still negative externalities that
exists as a result of the state. And that there are new
externalities that can result from the state's presence, such
as corruption. And we can see that in Russia
for example, where it's extremely heightened in that,
you know, there's obviously a a Massive problem with the
government picking winners and losers in terms of the oligarchy
and everything over in Russia. Now in America though, in
America. Yes, there are externalities
that that do emerge. However, if the government were
not there, if we were to go to a stateless society, for example,
you would have so many new negative externalities that
emerge from that coupled, with existing externalities.
That would be exacerbated as a result of no more regulations or
anything that on the whole on the net, you would be worse off.
Thing, you were under the current status quo.
And when I say worse off, I mean, orders of magnitude worse
off. That's not to say that it's
perfect. Now, by any means, there are a
lot of reforms that I advocate for all the time.
But we at least have the means to go about doing them and
everything that the second was actually, there was a third
point. It's all get to that briefly,
you mention how Congress has an 11 percent approval rating that
tends to be fairly consistent around there, between 10 and 20
percent over the years. The thing that's missed there
though is when you pull each, A particular district and you ask
people what's your view of your Congressman or your
congresswoman? Most people have a favorable
view of their own personal representative, but they regard
Congress as an institution fairly objectively negatively,
but their own Congressman, they're like, oh well, he's
great. But we don't like the others and
and everybody has that view where they like their own and of
course that's the case because they had to get it.
They had to win. If they didn't like them.
They vote them out in the next election.
And so that's how that results but it makes sense that you
don't you see a lot of the gridlock that happens in
Congress and everything and and and so people don't necessarily
like that. Even if they like their own
Congressman. So it is a it misses the broader
picture there. But the last point that was
brought up was about the free rider problem problem.
And you mentioned how and it's true that about 47 percent
roughly are they are Are on the whole trains on the tax system,
they aren't positive contributors to it, that that is
true. However, I would argue that if
there were no State, you would go from having basically, 47% of
people that were in essence leeches to having say, 99% of
people that were late is because yes, in theory, it would be good
to have security, but nobody's going to pay for it.
If they aren't required to wear as at least.
Now, it's 47%. I would argue without a They
nothing would basically get done because you'd have a very, very
small, tiny minority of people, that would make it like their
charity sort of thing and everybody else.
Even they said. Oh, yeah, that's good.
But like I'm not paying for that and the whole thing would fall
apart. And so this does raise one
question that I have over to Keith, which is that, how would
a stateless society be able to defend itself from a rival
superpower such as Russia or China, that did have a cohesive
order and had nuclear weapons. That's how would militia is, how
would a voluntary system be able to win a war with China?
If they decide to invade, for example, so the best mechanism
for defeating a super power, would be to turn the populist
against the current ruler, for example, whether it's president
G or, you know socialist, secular dictator Saddam Hussein.
The method you would use is to hack their computers and send.
A PDF to all the emails of a document titled anatomy of the
state by a professor from the University of Nevada.
Las Vegas Murray and rothbard. What you essentially would do is
delegitimize the existence of the ruler in that country to
strip them of their power. There currently exists a general
understanding between the rulers that they will not either Target
each other nor will they go to their populations and explain
why the other ruler? Is inherently illegitimate, so
if you were to go to China and explain the principle difference
between the Marxist ideas that they sort of generate the class
struggle that they Advocate and you were to say, hey, the real
exploiter is not the booze y z or the capitalist or people who
would invest their time and efforts into products and
services and voluntarily make them available to the masses.
The great exploiter in society is President.
Gee. And his allies, this would
actually turn people against the current regime.
The Central Intelligence Agency actually did this with documents
in Nicaragua where instead of fighting the people that you end
up punishing civilians for what dictators do and as much as the
dictators kind of suffered the civilians really suffer and
there are already suffering under the dictators as far as
the free rider problem goes. Well if you Take all the time
and effort and energy. We currently put into begging
politicians to pass laws on our behalf.
And then hopefully, the judges rule in such a way that the laws
are beneficial to the masses at large.
Well, then maybe you can reap benefits.
The free rider problem would be less of a detriment in a
volunteer, a society that recognized the principles of
natural law. The principles of the
Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal with
rights endowed by our creator. The reason you would have less
of this is because you would have more charity.
People would find it in their self-interest to increase their
social status by tweeting about how they donate to this
organization. And how there are member of this
police department and how they're a member of donating to
this fire department. You don't get real Innovation.
If you have coercive funding, you get the same thing.
You have always gotten with terrible government.
G. So if we want Innovation, if we
want Improvement, if we want an increase in accessibility to
people at lower income level, so everyone can have security.
The last thing we would want to do is give the state a
coercively funded Monopoly on providing such security.
Again. I just want to point out that
mr. Castelli has not explained why
this group called government has a different standard.
Whereas if it were generally Justified that it's okay to
force, someone to pay for something because they might
Free Ride. Well, then, everyone would have
the right to do with the Catholic Church would have the
right to force you to fund them and their Security Agency.
Any Security Agency would have the right to force you to fund
them because if you didn't find them, you'd be engaging in the
free rider problem and Amazon would have the right to force
you, to fund their Security Agency.
The neoconservatism standpoint, rather has not explained why
this group? Of people has the double
standard and not this group. It's not because government is
some moral and so kind and so virtuous and the people, there
are so smart and so consistent. It's just a contradiction that
has yet to be justified. Okay, so there are a lot of
points there. The first one that I wanted to
get into, was you brought up the case of if A-Rod.
If an enemy superpower invaded America, you would wage an
information war against them. You would get everybody in the
country does, send PDFs of Roth bards work over to people in
China Sea, delegitimize Xi Jinping.
The problem with this is that we live in a free country already.
I've seen some of Roth bards. Thoughts and everything and it
hasn't convinced me and I live in a free country.
Now, imagine you're in China and now all of a sudden, you open up
your email. And you've got this leaflet from
this internet e, slit from leaflet from somebody in the
United States, you're like most people aren't even going to open
it. Some are going to report it to
the government and the ones who might start reading it.
If they actually start taking it seriously, they're going to be
disappeared in the night and taking a gulag.
So it's not going to do anything to undermine their state and
additionally. On top of that.
It would be very hard to get very many people to even send
this out because it's hard to coordinate these sorts of
Endeavors without a state. Additionally, you'd have to keep
in mind that at this point. Chinese troops are occupying
like US cities and everything because there's no big standing
army to defeat them. No big funding or anything.
Additionally, you mentioned the idea that governments clunky
government stagnant and doesn't do any Invasion very well.
Where's the I have an Enterprise and charity is far better at
doing that. The problem with this is, I
don't necessarily even disagree with you.
It depends on which government because, of course, we could
look at the UK before Thatcher and see, that they were very
inefficient, very big government, very not Innovative.
Right? But but that Thatcher's reforms
made them better, but that sure didn't get rid of the state.
She she took the necessary institution of the state and,
and made it so that it would be smaller and allow the private
Enterprise to take whole. But that if you Got rid of the
state altogether. Eat free companies, would
immediately devolve into monopolies and whatnot.
And additionally, I did want to say though that this isn't even
necessarily necessarily true though, because well, the big
state Enterprises, the big state institutions, might technically
be slower on the margin then then say a company like Amazon
or something. The problem is even a big
company can't pull the necessary.
Resources together to create the internet, for example, whereas
the u.s. Pentagon can because they have a
much larger budget that comes from this emergent system where
all of our tax money, as an individual taxpayer isn't that
much? But that in aggregate, it adds
up to do great things. And that these great things that
the US military is produced that have made civilian life so much
better, the internet, you know, you were taking like
freeze-dried food, all this kind of stuff that came out of the
military. All this stuff sell like,
communication cell phones, Etc. All this stuff wouldn't even
exist. If it were left up to private
charity. We would still be in basically
almost a feudal era except we wouldn't because a state that
was against us would have taken us over by now, because that
kind of system cannot stand up to States armed with nuclear
weapons and cohesive standing armies.
That could just you know, like how is the militia in the woods
going to stop a nuclear weapon? For example, that's that's my
issue. Great.
So so again, I guess a bit broader than the last question.
But if well, two questions, if rothbard isn't convincing to
people in a free Society, how would that strategy working in?
Tyranny like China? And second, how would the United
States without a government? Be able to actually defend
itself from an invading Army that did have a cohesive
standing for such as China? Russia, Etc.
Even even Canada in this example.
Would have a more cohesive and an equipment military at this
point. So, so Stefan molyneux goes over
this in his book. Practical Anarchy.
He says, you are the king of a geographical area.
You have, two countries to invade one country has a disarm
populist, because they have a government and a monopoly on
violence. And all you have to do is defeat
that Monopoly on violence, those people, end their bases and You
have the allegiance of the country, all the propaganda that
country uses to get its citizens to obey them.
You now have because you've defeated that single Army, the
second country that you can choose to invade has a populist
that does not recognize your right to rule and you will be
facing a guerrilla War. You could say that you might get
bogged down in Afghanistan, like a British and the Soviets and
America currently is, you would get bogged down in such a place
that it would be so hard. Hard to rule over the
geographical area because no one recognizes your right to rule.
It would literally be the equivalent of me.
Putting a crown on my head and walking from Chandler, Arizona,
to Tempe, Arizona and say, hey guys, I just want to let you
know. I am currently the ruler of
Tempe, Arizona. As I tried to dictate people
around. I would have my head blown off,
certainly, in Arizona before I was able to enforce any of my
edicts, because the people don't recognize your right to rule
that would say Rip away the very power you would have.
So whether it's literally sending emails to the citizenry
of your opposition. It might even include
assassinating. The people at the top echelons
of your opposition. For example, Ho Chi Minh during
the Vietnam War was actually according to Bob Bergen at CI.
A.gov was a collaborator with the office of strategic
Services. What we today, call the CIA,
just as Saddam was, paddling around with Donald Trump.
Eldon, the Iraq Iran War just as the mujahideen were being funded
by the Americans. If you want to know who the next
enemy is going to be. All you have to do is look at
who they are currently funding. These are not words to defend us
what they are our strategic games to build up an enemy to
justify the existence of a next War even the Soviets.
According to of all people National Security, adviser
zbigniew Brzezinski, and I believe it's his book between
two. Just where he cites the work of
Antony Sutton. It's titled Western technology
and Soviet Economic Development. 1945 to 1973.
He cites that you can't have a state without you can't have a
parasite without a producer. You can't have a state without
the entrepreneur. So what happens is people like
Frederick and to all who funded the Karl Marx to write the
Communist Manifesto. Jacob Schiff, who funded the
Bolshevik Revolution, George Soros, who is funding
bolshevism? And America today in order for
these tyrannies to exist. They need a productive people to
exploit. If you focus on getting the
productive people to no longer recognize the legitimacy of the
actual exploiters, not the Marxist nonsensical exploitation
Theory, then that is how you would defeat them in enemy along
with not recognizing their legitimacy or their right to
rule. You would more or less
assassinate the dictators of the opposition.
That is how you would fight a nuclear power.
Okay, so I've got some responses to that.
So you talked about how you would basically engage in Korean
girl war against this power. I would argue though that they'd
still be able to take over and occupy Central facilities and
whatnot to make life very difficult and that Life Would
Suck under that. And that even if you were able
to wear them down that that that wouldn't actually result in a
stable equilibrium because then somebody else will just come in.
Need be in this Perpetual state of fighting, you know new powers
that would come in. And additionally, one thing that
I wanted to mention was that the characterization that you've
kind of been engaging in here? Is this implied stance of mine
that I'm somehow anti Second Amendment.
I'm a huge fan of the Second Amendment big fan and gun
rights. And I think that a state is,
like, you mentioned those two examples.
One where the people have no guns in the state, has the guns
versus one. Are the state doesn't exist in
the people of the guns? Well, no, here's what I would
argue is the best Hedgehog, the best security.
The best position to be in live, in a state where the people have
guns. And the government has guns like
the United States where you have a strong collective security.
That's a mass by the Pentagon and everything.
But at the same time, you have a defense from any potential
excess of ambition by the government because you've got an
armed population to The government in check and
additionally, if anybody does invade the United States, they
not only do they have to go through the United States
military. They also have to go through,
you know, 150 million Americans, with 400 million guns.
I like that. So, just for the record here,
I'm a big fan of the Second Amendment.
I'm also a big fan of the state. So that's my view of that.
So, so what if there is a government and another
government takes over? Wait, can you clarify what you
mean? Exactly?
So if there's a government in Poland and a government invades
Poland and takes over, then what happens because you've lost your
terrible. Anarchic scenario, has come to
fruition in Poland, and France, and hundreds of millions of
other geographical areas that have existed since ancient
Egypt. My position is not anarchism is
perfect because my position is anarchism is superior.
Does, it doesn't rely on initiating violence against
peaceful? People allows Percy people to
pursue their happiness so long as they don't initiate violence
against other people and coercively funded compete.
Coercively funded monopolies are inferior to voluntarily funded
competing organizations. So the idea that look, there are
terrible, shortcomings in a free Society.
There are terrible. Shortcomings, in a society, that
allows for voluntary marriage that does not justify the
existence of the state. Arranging marriages just as
there are terrible. Shortcomings in the existence of
the free market society. That doesn't justify a state
anymore than it justifies George Soros ruling over us.
Because in the absence of George Soros ruling over us, there
would be negative externalities and we might get taken over by a
foreign regime. If the people do not recognize
their right to rule. They cannot take over any
society. It would be as dumb as me going
into Afghanistan with a crown on my head.
Head saying, I am mullah Omar. I hereby declare being the ruler
of this geographical area. It just cannot happen without
the general recognition of the populace at large that this
person or group of people have the right to rule this general
area. Therefore the best defense
against aggressing Nations is the general institutionalized
recognition of the self ownership principle voluntary
exchange and libertarian anarchism.
Okay, so, You mentioned your, you ask, what would happen to
Poland? If another state invaded?
We can just look at history. The Nazis had a stronger
military. They invaded Poland and in
Poland was butchered and in afterwards, the Soviet.
While at the same time, actually, the Soviets invaded,
the eastern part, and then butchered the pulse.
So what happened was the poles had a weak state made a weak
government and they didn't have the same hard military power or
alliances as Nazi Germany and their serve influence in the
USSR, so they got totally butchered in car.
Up, and, and that's what happened.
And then after that they became Nazi, then they became
communist. And now they're a free country.
And now, one thing to note about Poland, Poland has a very base
and strong State now. And they also have a very based
militia, that's actually bigger than the Army because the people
there know their history, and they know what happens, if
another state takes them over. So, they understand that you
have to combine personal militias with with the thing.
You can't just do one or the other.
And so it Poland is a hedgehog and If Putin tries to invade
Poland, now, he's going to have a hard time of it.
Plus, they're in a do, so they have the alliance, there.
You mentioned the case of Afghanistan, but actually be
relatively easy to take over Afghanistan.
If you had no morality all that you would do is go in with a
superior Force, round up all the men, execute them enslave all
the women. That's what they used to do.
Like in the Peloponnesian War for example, and then there you
go. You want Afghanistan.
The reason why the British didn't do that, even the Soviets
in do that and why America In do that is because none of these
countries actually had the interest in actually 100% doing
that. You know, now, obviously, the
Soviets were brutal and they were obviously the closest to
that. The British were also pretty
brutal America in contrast was there to fight terrorism and
everything, but but on this point and would actually be
relatively easy, it'd be like making mincemeat of the mean
lian's you just go in, do all the men enslave all the women or
just kill all the women to and then bring it over your call.
And I Visors and set up, you know it like New Britain in
Afghanistan. They actually be pretty easy to
do. If there was no cohesive state
to defend itself what you're missing, Keith is that in
Anarchy and the absence of police, the absence of a
leviathan to invoke, Thomas Hobbes, you can do anything.
And guess what would happen in that case?
You could say? That's horrible.
That's brutal. That's a, that's a barbaric
thing. But guess what?
Two thousand years down the road Afghanistan.
Still New Britain. They won.
Nobody's going to do anything about It's like, yeah, you
killed all the men, killed all the women now you want.
It's like the estate with no morals would be able to take
that territory pretty easily. So now I'm not saying to do
that. I'm just saying that.
What happens if it's Hitler? Hitler straight up was fully
intent on Exterminating every single Ukrainian.
And let's say he did that and he got away with it.
Would anything happened to him? No.
Because he get away with it because there is no guiding
police force in the world. I want America to be that
guiding police force to keep order.
And Anything in the west that large, I want us all to spend
eight percent of on the military, but you mentioned
something. And I want to go to this.
There were a couple points, the first, and I'll make this quick.
The first question. I have, I'm going to need a
citation on George Soros, funding bolshevism, in America.
I'm not a neoliberal. I don't even like George Soros,
but that's a bit hyperbolic. And second.
You mentioned the mujahideen. I have a question for you.
Keith. What do you think was a greater
threat to America in the 80s? The evil empire.
The Communist aiming for A thousand nuclear weapons in
America with the potential to kill most of America's
population in 3 or 4 hours or some guys, in the desert.
Some of whom 25 years down the road helped others kill 3,000
Americans in 2001, which is a bigger threat in the 1980s.
So those are my two questions bigger threat in.
The 1980s, is the Soviet Union proof.
George Soros is funding bolshevism.
In America is His open funding of the open societies
Foundation, which Advocates the ideology of socialism, the
institutionalized recognition of private property.
I'm sorry, the institutionalize aggression against private
property, which is in contrast to civilization and cap known as
capitalism, the institutionalized recognition of
private property and non-aggressive, contractual
exchanges between private property owners.
There is my Mi evidence. Okay, so We'll go Point by
point. So the first point you you came
to the same conclusion as me. The Soviet Union.
So then that raises the question.
What do you do about it? You got to do everything in your
power, to fight the evil empire. Because if you don't fight like
your life, depends on it, they will.
And they will bury you. And so, you have to work with
Pinochet. Even though he's a bad guy.
You have to work with the contras even though they're bad,
guys. And you have to work with the
mujahideen, even though they're bad, guys, because the
Communists are worse. So, you can understand that the
mujahideen was the guys to work. With as opposed to letting the
Soviets, take over Afghanistan, right?
So it seems like, we're almost an agreement.
There. Is that correct?
Correct. There is that there are times
where you have to side with evil people in order to conquer a
greater evil. There's nothing anti-liberal
tearing about that. As I mentioned in my opening
statement in order to justify a war which you would want is
voluntary funding voluntary Association and to We use
aggression defensively against people who are already
aggressing. I do want to ask you about
Afghanistan. So if I look at decision points
page, 192 by George Bush, I laid out an ultimatum to the Taliban.
They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share
their fate. We had little hope that
Afghanistan leaders would heat it but exposing their Defiance
to the world would firm up our justification for a military.
Three strike. If I look at the guardian
article and along with CBC News, White House says, no to Taliban
demand for proof that they were behind 9/11, or they are
associated with Al-Qaeda. Operatives, Gareth Porter, u.s.
Refusal, 2001, Taliban offer gave Bin Laden a free pass.
According to the internal press service, u.s.
Rejects new, Taliban offer, ABC News, October 14. 2001, Bush
rejects, Taliban. Bin Laden offer, Washington
Post, October 14 2001, along with new offer, on Bin Laden,
according to the guardian October 16th 2001.
Should the u.s. Have invaded Afghanistan or
negotiated to hand over Bin Laden and Anwar Al zawahiri?
Yeah. Yeah.
We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
The Taliban are in and of themselves.
Absolutely. Terrorists, terrorists.
They were accomplices to 911. They were as responsible for
9/11 as, The driver in a drive-by shooting, who's driving
the vehicle while the passenger riding shot gun, shoots your
kid, you'd still want that driver to go to jail for a long
ass time. You wouldn't be like, oh, he's
just the driver. It was the passenger who shot
the gun. It's like, no, they're both
accomplices now. Yes, the Taliban didn't want to
be invaded by America. So they were happy to sell out
these terrorists that they work with.
And be like, okay. Well, we'll rat out on these
guys. Now just spare us.
That's what happens with Enterprise's, oftentimes likes,
let's say two guys. Let's call them Al-Qaeda and
Taliban two guys in l.a. They go and rob a bank and then
the cops catch up with them. And then Taliban says, hey man,
I'll tell you where I'll kinda is hiding.
Just like, don't put me in jail, man, that happens all the time.
That doesn't mean they're not both guilty of robbing the bank
or both accomplices. It simply means that the Taliban
was perfectly fine to sell out their old comrades.
That doesn't make them the good guys, and it doesn't make them
not responsible and you got it. Kill the Taliban and you gotta
kill the 10. You guy, go all Qaeda because
they were both responsible and you don't negotiate with
terrorists. That's my stance on it.
And I'm very glad that the Bush Administration had the moral
High Ground to go after both and bring them, both to justice.
That was based in hock built now.
Additionally, I did want to get to something, which the you
mentioned you mentioned Keith. You mentioned about how that
you. Well, actually you mentioned a
couple of things. The first thing that I wanted to
mention was when you talk about how It's not in congruent with
libertarianism to actually work with Bad actors abroad, you
know, to help you. That's actually a point there
where, when you were talking about how, yes, you sometimes
have to work with bad guys against bigger bad.
Guys. You're now an agreement with
Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the notorious neoconservative.
So that's actually a point of Common Ground.
Now you're having with a neoconservative.
Jean Kirkpatrick who had the Kirkpatrick doctrine of you
know, supporting Right-wing dictatorships out there in Latin
America, in the Middle East, Etc, working with, you know,
Muslims and stuff against communist.
So, so that we have an area of agreement between a Libertarian
and a neoconservative. So that's cool.
Additionally, you mentioned defensive you mentioned the
defensive aspect of it. I guess.
I got a question for you Keith, which is that if it's very clear
that a future enemy or an enemy, the day that hasn't attacked yet
is building up their Arsenal. Doesn't it make sense to go in
and kick their ass before? They come for you versus waiting
for them to come for you? So you can have some moral
justification to fight back. So for example, let's talk about
North Korea. It's very clear with North Korea
that they're building up enough nukes.
As I talked about on my channel for a long time, the blackmail
America, so that they can invade the self and tell America.
You're not going to stand up to your security considerations.
You're going to let us go in there and take your guys
prisoner and you're not going to stop us because if You do will
new go to your city. So it's obvious that that's what
they're going to do. Should America launched the
first strike and take them out before they get enough nukes to
do that? Or should America wait and be
caught. I guess that's my my question,
because it seems like waiting for the enemy to fight on their
terms is stupid. So that's why I'm a massive
Advocate, a huge supporter of pre-emptive War.
So, So is far as a preemptively striking an enemy.
I would simply have the, you're going to be shocked, the
libertarian response of making sure that we don't have a double
standard for government as opposed to aggressors.
So if I have a plan and here I have it written out.
I'm going to kill Bob. I'm going to go to Bob's house
and then I'm going to wait till he's asleep.
And then I'm going to kill Bob. If at some point, if I say I
hate him, that is not a justification to shoot me in the
head. Well, if I have a total plan and
all out operation to murder this peaceful individual, then you
would not be initiating aggression.
You would be responding to an open-ended aggressor.
Again, I am not against stopping people from initiating violence.
When they have already demonstrated themselves to be a
threat. All I'm saying, is I don't have
a double standard. A government.
So when it comes to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, if I cite a June
14th, 2001 before 9/11. Mullah Omar says about Bin
Laden. Bin Laden is null and void.
This is who is often referred to as the father of Afghanistan's
Taliban. Mullah Omar also known as
Mohammed Omar. He said that Bin Laden is like a
chicken bone in my throat. I can't either.
Call him nor spit him out when we're talking about Al-Qaeda and
the Taliban were talking about two different organizations.
Granted were talking about two different competing evil.
Tyranny organizations, who I am not siding with at all.
But the idea that we had to invade Afghanistan, and we had
to be bogged down in a 20-year war is not the case at all.
We could have treated 9/11 as we treated something like any other
terrorist. Crime as a crime, we would have
gone after the people. We would have looked at who had
the incentive to create the bombs, or fly the planes in the
first place. And then we would have gone
after those individuals who actually participated in the
immoral actions. We would not have Justified a
war. For example, if I commit an act
of evil you wouldn't go to war against ever Zona, he would go
to war against me and my co-conspirators.
All I'm saying is the same principle you have for people.
In this geographical area called America.
You have for this geographical area called Afghanistan or
Africa or China, or the Middle East, or anything else?
Because the neoconservatism, philosophy does not address that
double standard is why it is wrong and libertarianism is
right. We do address the double
standard that you bring up. I just want to quickly go to the
point about the Taliban. Do the Taliban harbored
Al-Qaeda. They were Supporters.
And then afterwards, when it was clear, that the u.s.
Was going to invade, they sold out Al Qaeda.
That's pretty clear. That doesn't make them the good
guys. And additionally, when you
mentioned those incentives and stuff, I want to touch on
something that you mentioned in your opening statements.
You talked about how Al-Qaeda used their justification being
that, you know, they hate the Saudi royals and they hate that
the West is in Saudi Arabia. That's like their main point.
They want to get the west of Saudi Arabia.
It almost seemed like, victim-blaming, where he was
almost impossible. Saying that America asked for
9/11 by standing with her allies, because Saudi Arabia is
a great Ally of America, for example, and the Royals are
friends. And, and, and without them, you
would have an Islamic State, like, Isis led by wahhabists.
Clerics, that would be causing Untold destruction.
And the region, the house of solid is a great force for
stability in the region. And they actively help against
Iran and Russia, for example, and in terms of oils, as well as
military considerations. And so, when you talk about the
investigate their incentives, we know what, Al qaeda's incentives
were they hated America. They wanted America out of Saudi
Arabia, so that they could butcher Saudi Arabia, and go on
their Jihad and everything. And, and so, who would you go
after? I've got a question for you
keys? Because when you say, you would
go after those who did it, and look at their incentives, who,
who would you go after? But would it just be Bin Laden
and you leave? The Taliban alone?
Is that it? No, I would have taken the
Taliban has offered a Handover Bin Laden.
I was always, I would also have them and over Ayman al-zawahiri,
the Egyptian doctor who took over the Azam group with Osama.
Bin Laden. I would also have them hand over
zarqawi who was advocating an Islamic State in Iraq.
This is someone clearly in opposition to the non-aggression
principle, that totally would have been Justified, maybe, even
some Taliban. Leaders, I don't know, the all
the specifics, but all I know, is that starting a 20-year war
against a nation where according to the official story written by
Philip zelikow 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi
Arabia. Not Afghanistan.
The other words came from the United Arab Emirates.
No, no Bin Laden. And those guys were exiled, not
all them were exiled. But to say that they were, oh,
they were Saudi. That's like saying that if
somebody from Canada, Goes and signs up with Isis and they go
and committed terrorist attacks. A in Lebanon that oh, well,
actually that guy was from Canada.
So, therefore, it was Canada's fault.
I got news, man. Saudi Arabia, the the house of
Saud despises, Al-Qaeda their enemies, they've been at War to
blame, Al Qaeda. And, and those guys being Saudi
on, the Saudi government is like, I'm just going to say.
It's basically racist. It's basically saying like
they're Arabs Saudi Arabia, like they have, Nothing in common
with the Saudi royalty. So they hate this out a Royals
not at all. Do you s sided with Saudi Arabia
and in doing so they supported al-Qaeda in Iraq.
While taking out Saddam, they supported al-Qaeda in Syria
against Assad. They supported Al-Qaeda Libya
against me. Funding Al-Qaeda working with
al-Qaeda in Syria. That's not true.
That's like a Jimmy boy shit. It's completely true.
It's that is not true. I need a citation Pro operation.
Timber, Sycamore in which Jacob Sullivan.
The current national security advisor for Joe, Biden sent a
memo to Hillary Clinton. Make sure Hillary knows were on
Al-Qaeda side in Syria against big news.
Literally. The u.s.
Is signing with Al Qaeda against Assad in Syria.
How about Joe Biden? The current president of America
at Harvard saying we cited with Al nusra in Syria, because
there's no Thomas Jefferson. There's no James Madison for us
to side with how about General, Michael Flynn on al-jazeera
saying we saw the rise of Isis because we wanted Assad gone to
weaken Iran. How about John Kerry when he was
on recorded tape saying? NG we saw the rise of the
Islamic State, but we thought we could handle it.
This is what they do with it on creating them out.
Like I'm not a fan of John Kerry.
He's a pigeon. Look here's the deal.
Here's the deal with everything there.
You talk about Al-Qaeda and al-nusra in Syria.
I got news dude. Those guys are horrible and to
say that the United States worked with Al-Qaeda is
basically conspiracy theory that's been debunked.
However, even if it were true, even if it were true, but
Charles the butcher is killed. Five hundred thousand syrians
and for State million, to flee to Europe in comparison to that
those guys look like Angels, you know, why not work with the
Lesser evil. We work with Pinochet work, with
the mujahideen work with all kinds of actors before.
Now. I'm not saying that the United
States worked with Al-Qaeda that the u.s.
Work with some aspects of for example, the free Syrian Army
that turned out later on and as well as some of the democratic
opposition that as the war Drew on.
Became more radicalized because they saw that the Westin offer
very much support at all. And and they turned to more
extreme routes. You mentioned Afghanistan.
What would your not in favor of starting a 20-year War?
Neither? Am I?
The war would have been over way sooner.
If we had just stayed the course, and done the Surge, and
then proceeded it up with helping the state get itself
together. And doing some nation-building,
most of that time when they've even been conflict.
The war would have been over in like 10, 15 years, the age draws
on because Have people like you trying to undermine the
commitment? The Troop presence.
The force application in these areas.
And so I want to end the endless Wars by winning them.
I don't want to do a yo-yo thing where we pull out after 20
years, but we haven't solved the problem.
So now they strike again and then we have to go back because
now the people want to get blood for those that killed their
families in another 9/11 and so on and so forth.
I let's just get rid of the problem.
Nip it in the butt. You talked about working with
Saudi Arabia's, if that's somehow bad.
Bad. Saudi Arabia is, is one of
America's most loyal allies. They've done so much to help the
West as they work with Israel. Think about that.
This is a state that used to embargo America, for recognizing
Israel. And now they work with Israel.
This is a state that used to ban women from doing anything that
now women have some minimal freedoms and they're moving in
the right direction that Saudi Arabia has done world's to help
with Iran with Russia. For example.
Old undercut Putin on oil prices and that hurts Putin big time.
You look at 2014. For example, I mean, it looks
like you're taking Taliban and Al-Qaeda talking points and
saying they're mad about us. So therefore not, let's not be
us. It's like how will this?
Let's be lions and Hawks and admit that, yes.
Al-Qaeda doesn't like what we're doing, you know what?
They can go and cry about it. They can go and jerk each other
off and be upset about it and everything.
That's their business. That's they think they're going
to be upset about that. You know, what good.
I want them to fume and doom because they're my enemies.
It's kind of like, saying well, you know, Kim Kim, scared that
America's Got nukes. So he wants nukes.
I'm like, oh, yeah, I get why he wants nukes.
I get what he's scared. He should be scared.
I'm not playing Sympathy for the Devil here.
I want a nuke his ass, you know, that's me.
So the problem is you're not nuking Kim, you're gonna end up
nuking the civilians that Kim is already oppressing.
When it comes to Saudi Arabia. They are an hour.
In the same way, Glenn Maxwell is an ally to Jeffrey Epstein.
They are an ally in the mass murderer.
Atrocities that exist in Yemen. Let me give you an example that
the houthis to let him finish. Kevin, gotta let him finish his
stable. So II, do want to move on.
Please respond to that in your response to this as well.
In 1993 Bill Clinton gassed his own.
Own people in Waco, Texas, would Russia be justified in
blockading America staging, a coup and installing a new
president because Bill Clinton gassed his own people in Waco,
Texas. The people at Waco were
criminals and Thugs and insurrectionists in seditious
Traders, Russia. In contrast is an evil empire
that has no moral High Ground. America is an exceptional
superpower and to say, oh well, Russia is a different state
would if they did something. Of Russia does something.
Like, let's say, Russia goes into Syria.
I don't like that. They're my enemy.
If America goes into Syria, great.
I've been advocating for that for a long time, you know, it
should happen in 2011. There are different states with
different ideologies, different morality.
I support America. I don't support Russia.
And as far as the Thugs and terrorists at Waco, they
deserve, what happened to them. I'll say that.
So, how about the children at Waco?
Did they deserve to be lit on fire by the FBI?
By Spring CS gas and initiating a fire after a 51-day standoff
in blockade. Collateral damage happens in
every conflict. It's not something you root for
it'll but it's an inevitable part of dealing with those that
wage violence against you. So exactly.
And the Branch Davidians were not initiating violence against
anyone. The ATF originally came there to
Stage an operation Showtime which was to resolve them of the
atrocities. They committed against Vicki
Weaver at Ruby Ridge. So, this this, again, Is more
false nonsense that the government creates a problem so
they can allegedly give us a solution which is no no more
Justified than what was happening.
But beforehand, for example, you're a cult.
They were called dude. They didn't look the other be
able to leave. Yes.
They work. That's why David koresh allowed
people to leave the I think there were 31 people who left.
Before day 51, that's according to David Thibodeau.
A Waco Survivor who wrote a book called the place called Waco and
I interviewed on my channel. This is all fake news.
It's the idea that well government murder isn't really
murder because there's other bad people for example, Mormonism or
Scientology or the believe in statism is a called.
The idea that the president said words and then wrote them on
paper. So we have to abide by his
executive orders. That is a cult that does not
give me the right. To murder you any more than it
gives the FBI, the right to murder, the Branch Davidians.
They were totally peaceful until the ATF initiated violence
against them. That is an actual example of how
people like you will justify violence against American
citizens, because you've already Justified it against people in a
different geographical area. That is the problem with
neoconservatism. It hurts.
You just as much as it hurts anyone else and it also happens
to be immoral and inconsistent, but Is the utilitarian argument
against it is the chickens will come home to roost.
Wait, so you're just gonna tolerate that sort of that sort
of behavior to go. Unchecked.
Basically, that's it. That's what it is.
That's what we're dealing with. And you also mention.
Oh, well, just because the president signs it what?
It's just a social construct, bro.
That's sort of thing. No, I actually happen to believe
that the president is the legitimate leader of the Free
World as elected by the people of the United States and that
his or her words mean things. And that you can choose to go
the sovereign. And round and say, oh, I'm not
going to pay attention to that or whatever.
That's fine. As long as you still follow laws
and everything. And if you violate that, I know
I was listening to one of your episodes that you had done
recently. And if I recall correctly, you
said look if a citizen goes out and kidnap somebody that's a
crime called kidnapping, move the government put somebody in
jail, that's called incarceration.
I got a question for you Keith. Are you actually opposed to
incarceration? Are you opposed to prisons in
jail? Not at all.
All all my standard is is if I have the right to do it then a
group of people called Congress would have the right to do it.
If I don't have the right to do it.
Then I don't have the right to delegate to Congress, people are
right to do it. So, for example, I have the
right to put people in cages for murder most types of fraud most
types of theft and for things like, kidnapping and trying to
enslave other human beings that is not a violation of
libertarian principle. It is embracing the In principle
of self defense and non-aggression to deter, the
aggressors, not to Nuke, the city that they happen to live in
because everyone is a co-conspirator.
All I'm saying, is that I hold government to the same
standards. I told anyone else, too.
So you have the right to cage a murderer and shoot him if he
resists, because he has demonstrated himself to initiate
violence against peaceful people.
That is the root of libertarianism.
What differentiates murder from killing someone.
One who's initiating violence against you there, invalidating
your consent, the difference between sex and rape consent.
Embracing the libertarian principal difference between
employment and enslavement consent.
The embracing of the libertarian principle.
The difference between trade and theft, the principle of
non-aggression, that is who belongs in a cage.
Now, most of these people happen to belong in politics who engage
in the large-scale violations of the non-aggression principle.
So, of course, I'm not against Reasons I'm against caging
people who initiate violence against peaceful people because
I do not recognize that as a legitimate form of civilization,
and human beings interacting with one another.
So, okay, couple points here. The first is he's so yes, you
can do a citizen's arrest but you can't just do all kinds of
things that your own will you need to have, you know, the
legal authority to do so and we have a justice system so that we
don't have cruel and unusual punishment, all that kind of
stuff. We have established.
Standardized system of just of Justice by, you know, train
judges and everything that can meet out a fair punishment, in
that case. And that's why we have police
and everything. Now, here's the problem is,
somebody could just as easily say, hey man, he didn't do
anything wrong. You're the bad guy in all this
and it creates this infinite Loop, or now.
Somebody can kill you because we need to have standards.
Now. I'm not saying you can't take
matters into your own hands out of self-defense.
That is true. You can do that.
But you gotta call the cops and other circumstances, but as Our
as you know, incarceration and everything goes basically
sounded like to me. What you were arguing was that
oh, well, it's just the state and the state doesn't have any
sort of like higher legitimacy or whatever which misses the
point that the state in an, in a representative democracy as the
United States has a higher order legitimacy because we entrust
into them, you know, when Authority that as individuals we
can't necessarily do. And so, So I've got a question
for you Keith, which is that should individual citizens be
allowed to just mine, uranium, enriched plutonium and build
nukes. Is that something that should be
tolerated? Because the government can do
that, should individual people be able to do it or can you see
why there would be a problem. So at some point you are engaged
in activities that are such a threat to people around you that
they would be unjustified. So an example would be, do I
have the right to load a revolver and Spinner.
Round and pointed at your head and then cock the trigger.
Well, no, do I have the right to own a revolver?
Well, yes, at one point, it's me owning a weapon for my self
defense. At another point.
It's an actual threat to you the way that we are able to find
this equilibrium. It's not by entrusting a group
of line Mass murderers theft funded called Congress.
The ability is for us to judge for ourselves.
Now, this sounds Out of chaotic, and how will anyone.
Agree on anything? Well, no one agrees on history,
but we have a free market in history, more or less.
If there wasn't a state, we'd have a free market in order for
people to recognize something as legitimate history.
What you have are competing authorities that are voluntarily
funded, who generally give us an idea of History.
What we have in science is people who engage in hypothesis
and experiments and voluntary funding, that would give us an
understanding of science. Just as we would have a
voluntarily funded organization who gives us an understanding of
natural law and objective morality for the same reason.
We understand that one plus one equals two, we would understand
that initiating violence against peaceful people is inherently
immoral. So to answer your question,
sometimes. All they are doing is finding an
equilibrium. It's not immoral for me to Pat
you on the back. It is immoral for me to hit you.
Thousand times as hard as I possibly can.
What is the exact amount of force?
I have to use at? Which it's a point of an
assault. I don't know.
Let's have voluntarily funded competing judges as bad as those
voluntarily competing funded judges can be.
There were hell of a lot better than a coercively funded
Monopoly that claims a double standard on the right to
initiate violence and put people in cages for victimless crimes.
Okay? Okay.
So there's a few points there. I guess.
It's just very, very quickly though.
So you're saying that the Citizen or the individual person
shouldn't be allowed to build up a nuke, right?
Like even if they don't cock the nuke.
It says they shouldn't be allowed to have.
It is what you're saying, right? Yes, and the principal
difference between and and this doesn't apply for the individual
citizen. This is all people, even if
they're in the department of energy Department of Defense
Department of Congress. This would still apply because
something like a nuke. You do not have the ability to
discriminate. Eight between violence, but
between people, initiating violence, and people who are
innocent civilians. So after the municipality should
have a nuke, then is what you're saying.
Is that, right? That way, you would be justified
in stopping. Anyone anywhere from advocating
arms that do not have the ability to discriminate against
peaceful individuals and individuals initiating violence
against peaceful people. Yeah, so This is with this
society would not have any nuclear weapons.
Okay, just just for the record because a lot of the
technologies that the military has now that minimize collateral
damage such as drones and whatnot, which are far less
deadly to civilians than carpet bombing, which they used to do.
Back in the day, all this was brought about by huge investment
by the government that individual even billionaires
couldn't have done on their own, and yet, the government was able
to do it. And now we have a means of going
about strike. Acts that are more precise and
whatnot that limit collateral damage, but I initially wanted
to just get to a different point of this, which was that you you
would mention the, The Mercenaries, or you talk about
private Enterprise earlier. And so Machiavelli, you know,
more than more than half a millennium ago, wrote about how,
you know, never trust the mercenaries, you know, always
have a national standing army because in peacetime The
Mercenaries will command from you a premium.
Any more time, they'll just take a bid by your enemy and go and
work for them, you know, because they offered more money.
How would you, how would you approach that?
Don't you understand that? There's a point to patriotism
and to a national standing army that's committed to defend One
Nation. Not just beholden to whoever's
got the highest contract. The highest bidder is like,
don't you understand that there are some elements of security
that can't be privatized because that in its in and of itself
would Induce a security externality against the people.
Yes. So for this example, I only
refer to what I said in my opening statement, about what
makes the state and illegitimate institution.
Is it initially its aggression, against peaceful people.
That is the only thing or rather it has the institutionalized
recognition of initiating violence against peaceful
people. That is the only thing that
makes it legitimate. So another We have constant
allegiances, to people who don't profit us.
We have allegiances to our children.
Our mothers, our fathers. Our churches.
Our friends, our allies people who we trade with constantly
people, who we just see valuing people.
We may have a crush on or a desire to be friends with this
desire to be loyal and to have a in identity with other human
beings is totally in line with the non-aggression principle and
the principle I love self-ownership.
So long as you don't have an external party claiming extra
rights, that no one in the group has the right to have again.
If none of us have the right to tax people then we can't
delegate that right to a congressman.
We can't delegate the right to kill innocent people.
To a congressman, the idea that well it's going to exist,
anyways is not legitimate because then it says, well it's
going to exist. Anyways, there for the Catholic
church has the right to do it in Amazon and Walmart and the Red
Cross and Blue. Yeti microphone and Cox
Communications. And Apple has the right to
initiate violence because if they didn't do it, someone else
would that is not a general recognition of the conservative
principle of a natural order of a justification, based on
natural law principles. So, therefore, natural
neoconservatism is in opposition to natural law.
Ha and the natural Order of Things, far from it being in
opposition in opposition to a hobbesian war of all against
all. Wait, but we don't we don't
Covenant to allow Amazon, the Monopoly on the right to the
legitimate use of force. We Covenant to the state to have
the legitimate use of force. There's a difference there.
The state is special. We agree in our social contract
to have the state. And in this case, an elected
representative democracy to have that, that that Use the force
Amazon is different than the US government.
They're not morally equal. The US government is, is an
exceptional entity, additionally, when it comes to
all of this. I'm not saying that in a vacuum,
for example, this wouldn't be something that you maybe could
do. I think that life would really
be hurt by doing this? Because you'd be stifling if not
rendering totally impossible. Any big project innovation such
as the internet, you know, Sal lights, missiles, Etc.
All That kind of stuff, wouldn't really be possible in a
volunteer or Society. But additionally, when I talk
about how it couldn't work because there would be a new
state that would emerge from it. I'm not even necessarily
implying there that the people of what would become the United
States. If we were to go in this
direction that you're laying out, would just immediately,
say, okay. Let's go back to what we had
before. I'm saying that Russia or China
would just come in and now, you'd be under a new state and
any state that had Moral depravity to just kill all the
men. Enslave all the women would be
easily able to take over America if they had nukes and all this
kind of stuff and they had huge tanks and a voluntary Society.
They might have some Modern equipment right now.
Let's fast-forward two hundred years Russia and China have been
doing big government research projects.
They've got the latest weapons and everything.
America's still 200 years old because it's good like funding
anything big to keep up when you can't induce tax taxation or
anything. I mean, The idea that taxation
is is theft is insane to me. I think that taxation is
necessary for civilization to and not just exist.
But to be good in any way. Life Would Suck Without The, the
pool of the public purse to put towards Big projects that are
bigger than ourselves. And so I had an another sort of
question though, which is that getting back to what we were
talking about before about, you know, crime and everything.
I got two questions, the first is she Would the should police
have the right to arrest criminals and when I say police
I'm not just talking about some Private Security Agency.
I mean, you know, the, the actual police should they have
the right to arrest criminals right now?
In second, you mentioned victimless crimes.
I've often heard of things like drug crimes as victimless.
I've heard of tax fraud or accounting crimes as victimless,
but we know that those hurt people.
So my question is first off. Should police today.
Day have the right to arrest people and S.
Should it. What is it?
What is a victimless crime in your field?
So a right, if someone has a right to do something.
What I am talking about is they are morally justified in so far.
As they do not initiate fraud or violence, violate the consent of
a person or their justly, acquired property that has done
so through voluntary exchange or original appropriation.
If you violate the rights of a person You are an aggressor.
Therefore you are a criminal there for people.
You are justly to be arrested whether it's by a person with a
badge or a person with camouflage or me on my off time.
So yes, police would have the right to do something just as
Walmart would, or I would or you would or any of the viewers
watching would have the rights to do something.
As far as a victimless crime, if you cannot say that you have
violated. Added the rights or a voluntary
agreement with a certain person or party of individuals.
You have not committed a crime in order for a crime to exist.
There has to be a victim and the victim has to have their rights
violated. It's not enough to hurt someone,
my previous employer hurt me when they fired me.
My girlfriend hurt me. When she broke up with me many
years ago. I've gotten over it since then,
so don't bug me in the comments about this.
Many people you have offended me in insulting, the Branch
Davidians for whom David Thibodeau is a friend of mine.
That doesn't give me the right to a, to arrest.
You the fact that you have hurt me or negatively, affected me
does not give you the right to does not give me rather the
right to arrest you because you have heard me.
What would give me the right is if you initiated violence or
fraud against me the principal, but when those two things
violence and fraud is you have violated my consent.
So let's say, you take this phone, you break into my house.
Take this phone and you leave, well, you have taken a scarce
resource that I have justly Acquired, and you have taken it.
Therefore. I would just lie seek
restitution against you. That is an example of when I
would have the right to take something back from you, plus
restitution because you have taken a scarce resource.
From me. Well, what if I said that, I
will give you this phone and give me $300 within the next
month if five months go by and you haven't given me the $500.
Well, you are in breach of our agreement and you might as well
have stolen it from me again, fraud and voluntary exchange are
perfectly in line with the self-ownership principle and the
non-aggression principle. Therefore, they are criminal
actions. Whereas hurting someone is not
in violation there. For you would have not have the
right to use violence against them personal story.
My father was a crack addict, certainly hurt our family.
Honestly, it was terrible. The only thing that would have
been worse for our family to suffer was if the police would
have jailed him and then brought him into prison, where he would
have made friends with other drug dealers and become even
more of a criminal where he would have had an arrest record,
which would have heard his job prospects, which Of stop him
from helping my mom with paying child support again, kidnapping
people for victimless crimes or crimes that have not violated.
The rights of other people is unjustified both on a deal
ontological rights, ground along with a utilitarian Mass, utility
recognition of whether, or not Society is Justified in caging
people for, for victimless crimes.
So, so, just to clarify here, you don't, you would say that
it's a very Victimless crime to sell meth or crack, or whatever,
you will to somebody and then it causes in them an addiction that
ruins their lives and ruins their family.
You don't think that the family then even in a stateless society
should have the restitution to either Sue in private
arbitration or outright get revenge and vigilante form
against the drug dealer. You mentioned how you didn't
support somebody who became a drug addict being arrested, but
would you at least get behind? Going after the guy that sold
your dad, those drugs. No.
No, where would we really hate proliferators or drugs or evil?
I mean, like, hardcore drugs are literal filth.
So so not only would you not be justified in caging someone for
engaging in a voluntary exchange with with someone else in a free
Society where there is no drug war.
You would not even have such potent drugs.
So just as As during prohibition, you had things like
moonshine where you had to hide it from the kidnapping cops.
So you had to have a small amount that was really potent
today. There's a drug war so you have
to have a small amount that's really potent.
Just as you don't have people. Drinking moonshine today, at
bars have people drinking beer. You wouldn't have people using
crystal meth and crack cocaine. You would have people using some
derivative of Adderall to give them their fix today.
So, and also, Pursuing a policy against people like the Al
Capone's of the world actually makes things more violent, just
as there's no shootout between Miller Lite and Bud Light.
Today there wouldn't be shootouts between Mexican drug
cartels. If it weren't for the drug war
in the United States. I'm sure it would still exist in
Mexico Mexico's more violent than the u.s.
Mexico governments evil. I have no problem, it mitting
that but the idea that well there's violence and then the
government Jen and solve things. The fact that the government
intervenes in what would otherwise be a voluntary.
Interaction, makes things more violent than they, otherwise
would be because they initiate violence in to what would
otherwise be a voluntary exchange between consenting
adults? Wait, so I just, I just want to
get this this clear here. So in this example, you're
basically saying that. Well, it would be better and
less toxic and everything. If we were in this like A
utopian model and everything. The problem that I have though.
Is that okay? Let's just talk about from a
standpoint of Liberty and everything.
How do you talked about a voluntary trade interaction,
where you've got a drug addict and you've got the drug seller?
I don't consider somebody who's under the influence of drugs.
I don't consider their decisions to be voluntary.
How is an addict who needs more to get his fix.
How is that a how are you able to exercise Liberty?
You're addicted to an evil substance.
I don't understand that because you still have an adult brain
with a Neil frontal cortex that has the ability to weigh costs.
Benefits short term effects and long-term effects.
Maybe they should read Henry hazlitt second, ah, mix in one
lesson. So they recognize not only the
short term, but the long-term effects, not only on one group,
but on all groups considered the fact that there are negative
externalities with drug addicts is not justified.
Why the existence of one group of people initiating violence
against all drug addicts, and all drug dealers for all of
eternity? This is a voluntary exchange
between consenting adults. I don't think you should give up
your kidney. If you want to sell your kidney,
your body, your choice, your life, your choice, your
business, your choice. This is the fundamental
difference between the conservative principle that I
actually Advocate the principle of civilization, and the left is
principle of Activism with a collective Heaven, given you the
right to engage in such an activity that is totally
unjustified. If we want to embrace the
principles of americanism, the right to life liberty and
pursuit of happiness, the right to abolish government the right
to freedom of speech and the Second Amendment we have to
recognize people's self ownership and their ability to
live their life. However, they please so long as
they do not initiate violence or fraud against peaceful
individuals. Okay?
Okay, so Like my dad was addicted to drugs, for example,
ruined my family, all I kind of stuff.
I consider those that sold him drugs, that kind of thing, as
perpetrators of violence, both against him and my family, for
example, you see there's a non-violent voluntarist sort of
voluntary interaction. I completely disagree with that
characterization. I think that one reason why the
government exists is to have moral standards for society, to
keep us from falling into the state of nature.
If you will and that, you know, we can disagree over to the
extent of what should be legal, what should in etcetera and
what's, you know, like a gray area and everything, but but
that there is, there is a clear case here for this to be seen as
a violent sort of act. So this leads me to my next
question and that is and I guess, you know, I'll say to the
moderator Henry or you get if we do like a two minute
intermission. In or what?
Yeah, I was gonna say something. I was going to say something
around the to our Market. Eventually.
I figured either you guys want to wrap it up or take a break.
I would assumed use the restroom or something to you guys.
You know, what? Good could we wrap it up,
please? I just have to get ahold of my
mom. I also have a number of
obligations before the night, the night ends.
Okay. We got, we go ten, more minutes.
Thank you, sir. Yeah, I'm sure.
So I got one last question then that all all clothes on and then
you can get question and then we can do our closing statements, I
guess. So, my last question then is
going to be in this Society. How would, for example, how
would you enforce the age of consent?
How would you prevent people like it?
Seriously. Think about it because you might
have some people out there that don't share your moral compass,
that regard being safe 52, and having sex with a 13 or Called
as totally fine, even if you could argue that it violates the
naep, but they say it doesn't, and they claim to be a good
anarcho-capitalists or whatever. How would you go about stopping
these people? And where's the line?
And how would you enforce an age of consent in this system?
Keith the way to enforce an age of consent can be done.
Two ways, one by a cohorts of fully funded Monopoly known as
the state or to buy voluntarily funded, cooperating, competing
institutions, it is Superior to have a group of competing,
voluntarily funded institutions to enforce, a genuine age of
consent, rather than a coercively funded in voluntary
group of people called the state.
No, I am not saying that. I know, for a fact, the age of
consent will be justified in the absence of a state but the
existence of a state does not stop people from engaging.
In violations of consent. The obvious example would be
Ellie Cohen the Mossad agent in Syria, who would have literal
miners sleep with Syrian officials so he could get
information on the Syrian officials.
So he could help Israel in the Six-Day War, of course,
background about Israel. Israel is the freest nation in
the Middle East and of course, I support them.
That was simply a, an example of how the existence of a
government. Does not stop the age of consent
from being. Elated.
We're not talking about a Utopia as my opponent.
Mr. Castle, we mentioned earlier.
All I'm talking about is I want X achieved.
We want something achieved, we can either do it, voluntarily,
or violently. We could either do it through
voluntarily funded competition, or coercively, funded Monopoly.
My position is superior because it allows people to opt out of
associating with evil, and it allows the masses to allocate
resources in such a way that they are desirable to.
Make sure the vulnerable are protected that freedom is
achieved and the principle of self ownership can be practiced
in the real world. Okay.
Well, I guess we'll what we'll wrap up the debate that I guess
we should probably go door, closing remarks.
Yeah, if you want to do, I don't know who wants to go first, but
I think you guys are okay with like brief closing statements
like three minutes or so. Is that maybe five minutes?
Is that better? I'm good with three like 3D
printing that we Very good for shorter ones.
Yeah, three minutes. All right.
So who went I guess Kevin. Do you want to go first since
Kieffer? First of the beginning running?
Yeah. We lost last word sir.
Yeah. No, that's fine.
Yeah. So yeah, so I think it's been
clear tonight. My friends.
So thank you for tuning in and everything.
Thanks to Henry for moderating things to keep for coming on.
It's always good to see people who you know, they disagree, but
they at least have the courage to come here and debate, you
know, because some people out there that are opponents of
mine. They just don't have the courage
to do it and, you know, it's always better when we can have
an exchange of ideas. And so, what I what I think in
terms of my thoughts about everything the night is, I think
I made a fairly third case, why we not only need a state at a
domestic level, why it is, you know, it is the case that things
tend towards Monopoly and therefore, we're best to have a
monopoly in which we have a universal Covenant towards You
have a legitimate Sovereign and I prefer representative
democracy there. You know that that's the best
system. I think that it's very clear
that the state that exists to the United States.
For example, as well as all Western Nations is exceptional
compared to the countenance of slavery that existed throughout
history and exist. Today.
I think I've made a very clear case for government
intervention, in obviously in the market is In society Etc to
protect us, you know, not only from violence from the outside,
but also in many times from ourselves, from from doing
things that might at the short run seen, good but impose harm,
not only on ourselves, but on others and that we need a
mechanism there to correct for that behavior.
We didn't get to as much a foreign policy as I thought we'd
get into, but I think I've also made a fairly clear-cut case as
well for interventionism for pre-emptive action, for
pre-emptive Warfare to Casualties in long run because
we recognize that war between Powers is inevitable.
And therefore we are better to do it earlier on our terms.
When our enemy is weaker than wait for them to engage in
violence against us later on on their terms, when they're
stronger. It's a difference between maybe
3 million people dying today, and 50 million people dying six
years from now. For example, depending on how
fast they are able to amass their Arsenal's and so high on
the domestic level that we were talking about.
I think I made it. Fairly clear-cut case for the
state as the command compassionate and and ultimately
necessary force that has the legitimate Monopoly on the use
of violence because then it's the externalities that exist
necessitate in any intervention both abroad and at home, so
thank you for watching and with that I yield my time.
All right, so if you want to go ahead and close this out.
Mr. Castelli, thank you so much for having me on your program.
I greatly appreciate it. I as well, appreciate you and
the fight against leftism, socialism, communism.
And tyranny, I will say that I believe my position is still
Superior one because there are two ways of achieving your ends
in society. Whether it's what you want to
have for lunch, or what you want to be 100 years from now, you
can either achieve your ends violently or voluntarily through
the political. Ins or the economic means where
you engage in voluntary interaction or you engage in
interaction at the expense without the consent of other
individuals. The way of the free market the
way of libertarianism cellphone or stripping, the non-aggression
principle is consistent. It is morally Justified.
The state is inconsistent and is immoral a Justified and in
opposition to civilization because it claims the right to
initiate violence against peaceful people, this claim that
some people have the right to rule over.
Over others is literally the claim of the slave owner, the
right that we own you. People called the citizenry, the
group of people called the Congress group on the lives and
they own the bodies of the people called the citizenry
again on the economic point. A coercively funded Monopoly is
inferior, both productively and morally than a competing
voluntarily funded group of competing organizations.
So a Again, every criticism that can apply of voluntarily funded
competition applies tenfold to the coercively funded Monopoly
of the state. That mr.
Castelli. Advocates.
If we want to embrace the ideas of Thomas, Jefferson all men,
created equal endowed by our creator with certain unalienable
rights, the right to pursue your life liberty and the pursuit of
happiness without a group of people claiming the right to own
your body. Then we must embrace the
principles of self-ownership, voluntary trade, and the
non-aggression principle. Mr. Castelli.
Thank you for your time. And thank you too.
Henry for moderating the debate as well as the listeners for
taking the time to listen to us. For the same reason.
We should have separation of church and state.
We should have separation of economy and state and separation
of dispute whether foreign or domestic and State.
All right, great. Obviously, you guys know, this
is Kevin's Channel where to find him.
I think you can find key that I believe is YouTube channels.
Don't tread on anyone if you want to find him, so, I guess
that wraps it up. Have a great night, guys.
Yeah. I'll be doing a post-show to and
Keith gets the right to mirror this over on his channel.
If you want to debate me to out there, just send me a DM on
Twitter and we'll work out the time as well.
So you can debate me like Keith did tonight.
So thanks for watching.