Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in the
libertarian Institute. Joining me.
Today is Patrick Smith of disenthrall Patrick.
How is it going brother? Oh man, it's good.
It's always good to be back on your show.
I enjoy every conversation that I've had with you today.
I'm looking forward to another one though.
I must apologize in advance for my unpolished turd like
appearance. I was told specifically though
that if I didn't Rock and Nick Beard, at least once in a while,
I couldn't call myself a Libertarian.
So I apologize. But Such hi Karen.
I think that's why we're not seeing the growth that we
absolutely deserve too many. Too.
Many hurdles. People have to jump over to to
be on our Squad. We're shading.
Yeah, really? Where is the best place to find
your collection of work? Disenthrall dot me is the
website. You can find all of our
platforms and links and content and most everything.
We do on all of our channels there.
Isn't it? Cool.
How nice? Is getting and how user-friendly
it is. And how float is getting better
every day. Let me tell you how awesome it
is. Yeah, I'm doing a stream
tomorrow. And for the first time I had the
ability to schedule a live stream out in advance, so that
people aren't sitting there waiting not knowing when it's
going to start. It's like one of the final
pieces of their streaming puzzle that they're putting together.
It's getting so good. I'm talking to Stephan kinsella
tomorrow on intellectual property and I was able to
schedule the stream. So I'm super excited.
Let's get into some of the things that well at first glance
seem very philosophical and rather esoteric.
I think they are the general Bedrock assumptions that allow
things like the covid regime the war on terror.
The world wars the regulatory State.
I think these basic assumptions make us so much worse off and
because they almost go unexamined to a to a large
extent. So let's start with James.
Since work in Federalist number 51, it's quite a long paragraph.
But here is the vitally important sentence, but what is
government itself? But the greatest of all
Reflections on human nature, if men were Angels, no government
would be necessary. If Angels were to govern men,
neither external, nor internal controls on.
Government would be necessary. How do you get into that
mindset? Give it?
It sort of Steel, Man, that concept and then refine it.
I mean it's sort of self refuting logic like men are
evil. Therefore we need government.
But who do we have other than men to run this government?
And if men can you know I have this capacity for evil then.
How are we going to possibly have this governed government
thing? Govern Us in an evil way
especially because the evil are attracted to the power of
government. So it's almost like if anything,
the only useful thing that government could possibly be
would be Honeypot to catch all the Psychopaths and just like
anybody that tries to get involved with government.
We put their name on a list and then sort of disassociate from
them. Well get.
Could you imagine being like Madeleine Albright or Henry?
Kissinger is a big new Pierzynski.
They came from like all over the globe to come to America and
they were able to tyrannize people in such a way that they
never would have been able to in the absence of a state
apparatus. I mean, is Bad as CEOs, can be
in the free market, which they absolutely can have.
They still can't take a dime out of my pocket, unless I
voluntarily give it to him. So it almost like it takes this
evil and it channels it in a much more productive way.
Of course, there's still shortcomings and everything.
But if we're against people having power, why do you think
that people just refuse? They can write these big books
on very big topics, but they just don't differentiate between
social. Economic power, and political
power, voluntary, power, and violent power.
I mean, I think we talked about this before, maybe not, but I
firmly believe that it's their parenting, because we're brought
into this world in a power structure in a hierarchy where
our parents sort of rule over us for a number of years and most
parents rule over their kids. In a very matter of fact, it is
what it is. It's right.
Because I say, so do what I say because I told you to sort of
Paradigm that's the relationship that most people have with their
parents for. Most of the beginning of their
life. And so it just makes sense, then
that simply because they get a little bit older and become
adults that they won't still expect that to be how the world
works. And so when they're no longer,
sort of under the direct control of their parents, they still
have a built-in innate. Sort of subconscious expectation
that there needs to be some parental figure out there, still
telling them what to do and controlling them and saying, do
as I say, because I said so. So the government naturally
fills sort of their parents shoes, which is one of the
reasons why I spend so much time talking about parenting and
principled parenting and how to create a free Society in your
own home. That way your kids will grow up
to not have that subconscious expectation of being ruled.
There is one critique of the freedom position that I've
started to hear more from monarchists or people who
Advocate, national socialism, which is that in order for one
to give orders one must learn to follow orders.
Another words, don't be thinking that, you know, how to run, so
many things, you need to sort of submit to the government and
maybe you could later occupy government positions.
Once you have more wisdom, but to Think that I don't have to
abide by the law that has been around for so long.
It's kind of uppity, kind of arrogant and selfish.
How do you respond to that? Generally, the older a person
was or is or the longer ago. They lived the less right?
They were about things. So this like, default position
that we have that ancient wisdom is somehow special or deserves
different simply because it's been around a while.
I mean, never tear down a fence until you know, why it was
built. But once you know, I was built,
if it needs to go, it needs to go like just because it's an old
fence, doesn't mean you got to keep it around.
Hopefully I used enough analogies there to make the
point, but I guess you know, so just because a lot of people
have been. Taught over a long period of
time to see a just Authority where it doesn't exist.
Does not prove. That that Authority is just and
it on a pain upon a re-examination.
And, and a reanalysis we can say.
Oh, hey look, there was actually nothing there.
People, people thought there were witches for 100 years and
they did Terrible Things based on that knowledge and then one
day knowledge improved and we no longer burn people at the stake
for being witches. It's the same kind of thing.
We learn as we go, we correct our past mistakes.
We we fill in the holes in our knowledge and certainly
Authority. And the fact that it doesn't
rightfully come from anywhere as one of those things that I think
we're on the Forefront of trying to teach people, right?
Well, it also assumes that because I don't like this order
Giver called the government doesn't mean I don't ever follow
anyone's. Whatever just means I have like
some basic criteria because all I do every time when I get that
is I always issue them a number of orders.
Sometimes. I'll tell them to give me a
fourth of their income. Sometimes.
I'll tell them to work on the cover of the book that I'm
planning on writing because it needs work.
And then I say, well look, but before you start giving orders
learn to follow orders, it's like they don't have, they have
the no criteria for the state, you just Just have to blindly
follow their orders. But if anyone else has something
very reasonable well that they should be able to opt out of if
they don't like well that that makes everything else.
You said invalid they have this blatant double standard speaking
of double standard here is Alexander Hamilton saying more
or less the same thing, but from a different angle.
He says why he has government been instituted at all because
the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of
reason and Justice without Ranked people are ignorant.
We need a state. How do you respond?
I would respond by using almost as exact words.
Why on Earth would you think we would need a government
instituted? At all?
The passions of men will not conform to the dictates of
reason and Justice without constraint.
I don't, I guess that problem. That part wouldn't go because
you can't expect the bad guys to contrary to constrain
themselves, which is kind of the point.
He says that would be my first response.
Like, how can you possibly Institute a government?
Because the passions of men aren't going to conform to the
dictates of reason and Justice and then he says without
constraint, but the constraint would have be wrapped up in a
justice system that the passions of men are not going to conform
to and we have like 200 years of evidence that they don't do
that. Like the Constitution is a joke
now because the passions of men don't conform to the dictates of
the Justice, it provides. I'd love to tell Alexander
Hamilton. Appreciate King George, the
third hate him, but also appreciate him.
You got no clue. What's in store.
We get Woodrow Wilson FDR. I mean, just so many things that
that came. After Hamilton said, we are now
forming a Republican government. Real Liberty is neither found in
despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate
government, what's wrong with being moderate?
Well, he left out the actual opposite of the things he was
talking about. The, the options are not
despotism and moderate government.
The options are despotism and freedom, and he stopped kind of
halfway in between there with moderate government.
That's the problem with that statement.
It assumes that the out, the Overton Windows border is
moderate government and despotism, which is obviously
not the case. Like you have to justify any
governments at all. That's a justify forcibly.
When people, Sorry, God, I was just gonna say that is just,
it's such a beautiful false dichotomy.
I'm gonna have to start using that.
You want to give me a hundred dollars or a thousand dollars.
Fine. Let's keep it at 100.
Well, okay. I've got you from 0 to 100.
What a brilliant. What a brilliant way to achieve
my hands. Finally Hamilton.
There can be no true or principle than this that every
individual of the community at large, has an equal right to the
protection of government. We need government as a tool.
To achieve equality. How do you respond?
I guess I would just say that. You you shouldn't try and force
services on people. Like what if they don't want the
protection of the government. Are you saying that?
Just because they have an equal right to it?
That you have a right to force it down their throat, if they
don't want it. Like where does that even come
from? Just saying things like man.
I wish I lived back. Then I would have loved to a
debate. Some of these guys, I would have
been in the antique, Anti-Federalists Camp,
obviously, but yeah, this this would have been a fantastic
debate. I would have loved to have heard
him expand on that specifically. I found the origin of the quote.
It's not like he defends it or anything.
It's much more of the an obvious Axiom.
But I mean government provides education is everyone equally
educated they provide protection.
So everyone equally protected, certainly not government
provides a regulatory state in order to keep us safe.
Well, what happens is they end up benefiting some at the
expense of Sirs, so simply declaring, even if I thought
equality was something good in and of itself.
Why would I want a monopoly that I can opt out of funding?
That would be like the worst way to achieve whatever I wanted to
get, get my hands on and what incentive to innovate and no
incentive to lower the price. And why would I want an equal
right to the protection of an organization, governed by men
whose passions keep them from? Conforming to reason and just
exactly the guy who risks his life in a duel with Aaron Burr.
He got, you know, people are just too too passionate that
they don't use enough reason and I had been blown off because of
my ego. Yeah, just unbelievable.
Or, you know, it's like George Bush saying people out there are
spreading false theories about, you know, what goes on in the
world as he's like, saying, well, Saddam had his Intel
agencies and Prague meet with Mohamed Atta who did 9/11 and
they're shipping yellowcake from Niger to Iraq.
It's like that. While they can sometimes have a
good point about their opposition.
It always applies to them tenfold.
He acts too bad that passion. Sometimes takes takes over
people saying recently. Yeah.
I heard a saying, recently, the his fit so many situations.
It's confession through projection, like what they say.
Doing is actually what they're doing.
What that what attributes they're putting on.
You actually their attributes every time.
Any final thoughts on those? Before we move on to questions
for free market. Moralists know, I'm ready for
questions man. I'm ready for I'm ready for this
Rousey and nonsense. So the author ah, Mia Sara
vaison opens with the concept of the veil of ignorance.
Now, it's important to mention that humor has made the point.
That this is like the most influential political work in
the English language in the last hundred years.
So that's why it's so important to tackle.
Even though Rawls isn't brought up by politicians.
So, you know, but all the time so many of with the exception of
probably Russo Rawls is much much to be the influence when it
comes to a lot of presumptions around the ideas of economics.
And what is just the author says in 1971, John.
Published a theory of Justice, the most significant
articulation and defense of political liberalism of the 20th
century, Ross proposed that the structure of a just Society was
that was one that a group of rational actors would come up
with if they were operating behind a veil of ignorance that
has provided, they had no prior knowledge.
What their gender age, wealth, talents, ethnicity and education
would be in the imagined Society since no.
Who would know in advance where in society they would end up
rational agents would select a society in which everyone was
guaranteed basic rights, including equality of
opportunity, thoughts on John, Rawls and the veil of ignorance.
Okay, I'll start by saying that his work.
If I was to summarize would really come off like he started
with what he wanted, which was some forms of socialism.
And then he tried to back into a philosophy to sort of justify it
and to evidence that claim. I will point out that he doesn't
ever even get far enough. Back down to foundational,
philosophy to address, David Humes work and Humes law.
The Humes Guillotine, where you have to Get a knot out of an is
you have to get a declarative statement about what should be
from a statement about what exists in reality.
He doesn't even get that far. He just stops at this part
where, where, where, he sort of declares, almost baselessly that
we should construct a moral framework and behave.
As if we could be born into anybody at anytime in place.
Just sort of just sort of It's that without really building an
argument up behind that from first principles or at least to
tell us how he gets around Humes Guillotine or Humes Loft right
for Duma to go into I guess I could Define that for people
that aren't aware its kind of you can't get a not for man is
that means you can't look at something in reality and somehow
glean from that a statement about what should be.
So we can't say the sky is blue. Therefore I should wear blue
sunglasses. Like there's nothing in nature.
Sure, that makes a statement about what kind of sunglasses I
should wear. All we can say about nature is
that the sky is blue. My behavior.
And what I do is based on my personal goals and what I want
to have happen in my life and what I personally value, which
is all subjective. He just kind of skipped over
that entire layer of philosophical foundation work
and moves directly to what he thinks.
This he collectivize is literally everyone and then
declares how Every single member of that Collective would want to
exist. But if you watch and this is,
this is a, this is a fair quote in this article from his actual
work rational agents would select a society.
That's actually the, a big key to this equation.
If you disagree with what he thinks, every member of that
Collective would want your just irrational, That's the argument.
If you don't agree with them, you're not in the group of
people, we call rational. So your opinion is dis dis
discarded. So I guess that would be, my
summary intro about rawlsian ISM and his work.
Yeah. I also think the existence of
gambling, sort of throws, quite the wrench in Roz's worldview,
like, well, if you know, people would just want basic guaranteed
safety and all this other stuff. First of all, if you want
guarantees, make sure You can opt out of funding Bad actors
because there are no guarantees in this world.
Just as Government controlling education.
Again, doesn't mean everyone is educated, but maybe people would
risk, but would put quite a bit of risk.
In what life, they would, they would end up living.
I don't think it's so clear that everyone would just want a
welfare state where no one fell through.
Well, what if I couldn't really achieve my ends, what?
If I wanted to sort of roll the dice, well, we have every reason
to believe that people would engage in a high degree of risk.
Because when I drive by the Indian Reservation, it's always
full with cars. It's illegal to gamble in
Arizona. Unless you're like, in this
small area. It's okay act.
It was the first place during Brett.
The rational people would want that show's over.
Thanks everyone for watching. Forgot.
The rational people were against me.
Yep, guaranteed equal. Give opportunity requires
substantial access to resources, shelter, Medical Care,
education, roses. Rational actors would also make
their society, a redistributive one ensuring a decent standard
of life for everyone. So, he just completely ignores
the problem of there being a moral double standard.
I mean, Patrick and disenthrall get to steal from everyone.
So long as a microscopic percentage go towards providing
people with shelter. And Medical Care.
And I mean yes in 1974 Robert nozick countered with Anarchy
State and Utopia. He argued that a just Society
was simply one that resulted from an unfettered free market.
Isn't that nice? How the strawman even even from
the wisest minds? They can't even give us the
credibility. It what Rawls is quote is from
From Anarchy State and Utopia is his General opposition to
statism or a socialist society. He says, the socialist society
would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults.
So he says, yeah, there are absolutely downfalls to this
system of free up a free market. In friendships.
There can be bad, Friends, free market and marriages, there
could be bad marriages, but we still shouldn't out.
All acts between consenting adults.
If they're in the economic realm, if goods and services and
money are involved. There's no, there's no principle
difference. How do you respond to unfettered
free market? Well, it's almost a double
strong, man because I believe nozick was for a night Watchman
State. He, which is a Min Arc am in our
Chasm, which is a fettered free market by his own.
Definition like there's some feathers in their minimal
Fetters, but there's still some feathers.
So I guess that's the first thing I'd point out.
Is that the other thing I'll point out is more of a theme of
this whole article. I'm sure you're linking in the
description. But anybody reading this will
see that most of her conclusions that she draws starting.
Now is just sort of one of obvious disdain.
It's an appeal to Common Sense which which is a mirror of Rawls
work. If you don't agree, you just not
rational, should you just don't have this common sense that I
have. You must have been behind the
veil. I was behind the van.
Yeah. Yeah.
So so knows. It has a great example of Wilt
Chamberlain. He goes.
All right, socialist. Let's give you everything you
want. Everything is equal.
As far as outcome goes Wilt, Chamberlain, the great
basketball player is able to produce a good or service that
is in high demand and others freely pay him for that.
Get our service. Then he is entitled to his
riches, any attempt to redistribute his wealth.
So long as is earned through free-market exchange is no
success forced labor thoughts on the Wilt Chamberlain analogy and
forced redistribution. I don't like how the the word
entitled is used throughout Rawls work and as well in this
article, I mean, I guess I take issues with the weird stuff.
So you have me on your show. I'm gonna give you my dick
right? And so the product The problem
that I have with this, is this word entitled, it sort of flips,
the burden of proof for justifying actions, like one
does not have to justify to you. What he is entitled to own, you
would have to justify pointing guns at somebody to take it from
him. So, by using this concept of
entitled throughout this article, I think it puts it puts
the people that shouldn't be on the back foot on the back foot.
That's the first. Yeah, that's my response there,
but The I guess to speak more directly to the example of the
basketball player. You, you have to show.
I mean, you can show and you can evidence this, by the fact that
he makes a lot of money that a lot of people in small amounts
in the aggregate value, his ability to play this game more
than they value that large amount of money.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have voluntarily given it to him.
And so, to sort of elbow your way into this free exchange
between people that are enjoying, they want to and you
their money because they want to see this guy perform.
And this guy wants to perform and once that money to just like
Jan your ass in the middle of that thing and say no no, sorry.
This is too unbalanced. In my opinion.
Y'all y'all mf'er is need to quit it and you know, these are
guns right like that. That's barbaric and stupid and
irrational and not common sense. Checkmate.
So the author says societies today, in the west tend to be
more rawlsian than no zakian, but since the 1970s they have
become steadily more, No, zakian Such creeping changes as the
erosion of the welfare state, the privatization of the public
sphere and increased protections for corporations.
Go along with a moral world view, According to, which the
free market is the embodiment of Justice the rising of zakian.
Inking concedes coincides with a dramatic increase in economic
inequality in the United States over the past five decades, the
top 1% of Americans saw their income x two hundred and
seventy-five percent in the period from 79 2007.
While the middle 60% saw only a 40% increase.
She then bashes the Republicans, you know, those know Zeki and
Republicans. Who always shrink the government
drastically. Okay?
Yeah. When she Of course, no Citation,
for, since they have become steadily more in those icky and
cutting the welfare state by every metric.
The state has grown both in by every measure, unless I am in
Eastern Europe behind style, crew.
Chiefs wall. I think government has
drastically increased. How if you had to just say on
your feet to expose that lie to someone, what would you say?
I would just ask them to evidence exactly what you said
name an area of government. That's actually gotten smaller.
Name the number of government organizations that existed in
1970 and name the number of government organizations that
exist today on its face. It's going to be a lot more.
The numbers are higher than the expenditures are astronomically
higher. The number of employees,
astronomically higher, the number of regulations higher
like every metric, just show me something.
Put the burden of proof where it belongs on the person making the
claim. This is full of shit.
Prove it. I mean, it's absurd kind of
cousin. I apologize.
Even Nixon. Of course, even Nixon at the
time was engaging in price controls in August of 72.
He took the final step to remove the gold standard from backing.
The US dollar. What this was, was The Ultimate
Green Light to the Federal Reserve to print as much as you
want. Because if you have to gain your
power and position, well, you mostly would get it through
money, through taxation, but I know that you can just print an
unlimited amount or increase the digits in any account.
You'd like, according to the modern monetary theorists which
show cake. They're right about, it's not
actually printing dollars. But this is the ultimate green
light for, for the tyrants of the world, or even if you just
think they're all well, kinda meaning well-meaning, kind
people. This is like the greatest system
of inequality, that you can provide.
We need a monopoly on the currency and it's just Patrick.
Of disenthrall. How is there anything equal
about you getting to print money at will and if I print it or
even sometimes use alternative currencies, like the guy with
the liberty dollar? Well, he goes to jail.
Well, I mean that is the most unequal system you could have.
So to say that, well, there's been inequality between the one
percent and the rest of us. Yeah, the I don't get Federal
Reserve checks in the mail that the Isn't sent to me first.
It's usually the big Banks and the 1%, This is just, this is
just unbelievable. So I guess the last part before
the questions is inequality exists as a cause of result of
the free market inequality is bad.
Therefore, the state should redistribute outcomes.
In order for there, not to be such a power.
Differential among the citizenry where some can basically hold
the others hostage. I think in equality exists as an
effect of inequality that exists.
So, people are not the same desires are not the same.
Demand is not the same value is subjective.
IQ is different between everyone starting conditions, parenting,
psychological damage. You just like there's, there's a
long list of ways that everyone is different.
So, out of that inequality, you Say, oh no, when we let all
these in equal, people interact voluntarily and absent coercion
that somehow that free interaction is what causes the
unequal outcomes known of All Things based on reality, which
is unequal. Everybody is different.
Everything is unequal. Capitalism that I said this
recently on Twitter and triggered, a couple people
capitalism runs on inequality, inequality is the fuel for
Capitalism and just to summarize without going into a long tirade
when you have two people, one has money and a demand for
something and the other one has a product and a demand for
money. That's inequality between those
two people. One has more money than they
want and not enough product and the other one has more product
than they want and not enough money.
Capitalism feeds on that inequality makes those people
closer together economically and in terms of Demand, by
transferring money and transferring product, reducing
inequality, it Kids on inequality, without inequality.
It's like running a gasoline engine without gas.
You have to have something that has more energy bound up in it
that you can, then reduce an increase, the entropy of to
extract energy from to propel your lawnmower.
It's, it's a that's capitalism sort of in a nutshell.
And this idea that it creates this inequality is absolute
nonsense. That's a great point.
It's not that it creates inequality, it reveals
inequality that already exists. It's like saying, you know,
microphones are really immoral because they create inequality
between me and Adele. No, it's not the microphone,
creating it, choose a much better singer basketballs are
immoral cuz it makes LeBron James and I less equal.
No, he's very talented. It's a it's a tool.
He uses to reveal this inequality that already exists.
So Ability for people to allocate dollars in certain
areas voluntarily. It's just a revealing that the
inequality and of course the great point that Hans hop-up
makes is that let's say we become a much more politicized
Society. Well, it's not like everyone is
equally talented in being a politician and getting people to
vote for certain things. You what you do is you use
things like, write a wreck and ideas to mobilize people.
Some are better than others. I'm not as As good as Bernie
Sanders, I wish I were or Elizabeth Warren or Mitch
McConnell those again. We see in almost every area.
It's like point zero one percent getting 99% of the attention.
How many congress people are well known as ALC.
She's like, one of the most powerful people on on planet
Earth. Unlike any organization you have
this sort of iron law of oligarchy in the NBA.
It's like LeBron James and Dwyane Wade at the time when I
was in the basket. All like 89 percent of the
jerseys were like three guys, even though the NBA has a ton of
people, but what percentage of singers are, you know, was
successful as Eminem or 50 Cent or Dave Matthews.
Well, point zero zero, zero one percent.
So we see this inequality and everywhere to blame it on.
Capitalism is a blatant lie, and, and I'm just trying to flip
that around on its head and say look some of this.
Inequality that you're saying capitalism reveals is is a
really good thing. There's a lot of utility Elon
Musk recently made a very big splash by saying that you want
the people that are best at Capital, allocation to have the
capital to allocate and you want the people that are terrible at
it government to have less of it.
And so it doesn't make any sense to remove capital from the
people that have proven themselves to be good at it to
have less resources to use towards those good competent
ends. So it's yeah, exactly.
And Hayek's point in the constitution of Liberty.
Gosh, I wish I, I gotta find this quote because it's
something to the extent of inequality allows for there to
be this charitable investment on behalf of the self of those,
self-seeking of those seeking, their own self-interest.
So when the, when phones first come out, it's not like the rich
people got together and said we need to make Available for the
masses. So we're going to buy the first
cell phones and then we're going to distribute them to everyone.
They wanted them. So they purchased them with that
money. Some companies got income which
they use to reinvest in a product or service in hopes of
getting more customers and getting more money by making it
available to more people. So it's almost like if you were
just watching this from a distance, it would almost look
like there's a bunch of rich people who donate.
So So a lot of poor people can have stuff because in the early
stages, it's so expensive research and development.
It's all there. The it costs so much to get
something. It's like a billion dollars to
make the first pill but then every pill after that is like
two cents because it's just finding that formula.
It's getting access to that information of how to
efficiently allocate resources. I mean, whatever is used in this
printer, the resources have always been there, but it's
someone since the Big Bang but someone Structured them in such
a way. And once they found out then it
became something that the mass is needed.
But in the meantime, there's people who are working on this
computer printer and thinking about it and they got to get
paid they have bills as well. So this amount of inequality is
actually even beneficial they're still at utilitarian benefit to
it, which is always under appreciated and to belabor it
even more. Let it cannot be overstated.
How few people can do those things.
How few people can assemble matter into the form of a
printer for the first time almost?
No one can do that you. So you don't want to go around
robbing from everyone to give to the least competent.
Let's say, or maybe that's a little overstating it but you
don't want to reduce the resources from the people that
are productive because it's the productive people that have the
rare. Acid used to make these things.
These products, these services, that improve everyone's life.
It's like the way to improve. Everyone's life is to let
Capital go to where it is. Most productive rather than to
strip it from those people and just give free welfare paychecks
to everybody. The author then goes into the
questions for free market more or less.
Question. Number one.
Is there. Any exchange between two people
in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party
against another or the threat there of necessarily free?
If you say yes, then you think that people can never be coerced
into actions by circumstances, that do not involve the direct
physical compulsion of another, to use the example of someone
stealing bread to stay alive. Engaging in prostitution, when
they're desperately poor, or someone selling their organs,
Patrick is any exchange between two people in the absence of
direct physical compulsion by one party against another or the
threat there of necessarily free.
Yes. I mean, of course, it depends on
how we Define freedom and free, but I mean, certainly using my
definition. Yes, I Define free is the
absence of thread or coercion by people.
So yeah, that's free. Look.
None of us are free from the enslavement to reality and the
state of nature. But you can't even I hate even
saying it that way because you can't properly call reality
slavery. Because reality is what is it's
not like an actor that goes around owning people and
enslaving them but existence being shitty doesn't justify you
enslaving everyone around. You like that's the argument
that's happening here. Like we are all stuck in this
existence. This existence includes
suffering and it requires constant resistive effort to
continue existing that is what is I didn't do that.
I'm not, it's not my fault. That's just what is so Is the
mother in this example, free? It depends on your definition of
the word free from enslavement. Rawls argues for free from the
enslavement that Rawls argues for or free to act as she
pleases to use her resources and time alive.
Whatever way she decides, I would say yes to the second one.
She's free to do as she pleases to use her resources and time
alive, and whatever way she decides, she's free from the
struggles, inherent to existence.
No, no one is We all deal with that.
That's everyone's burden to bear.
If we want to continue surviving.
I guess that's my first comment. And, of course, the it, the
power lies in the follow-up. So you could look at someone in
this terrible, vulnerable situation and say is this, is
this what we're talking about when we say freedom, is this
really the good life and you might say no.
So you want a system where they have the most options and the
most likelihood of upward Mobility a free market, so What
they end up doing is, let's take the rather, you know, vile
example, but the reality is selling your organs or
compensating people for their generosity of of organ.
Allocation. So here we have situation one,
which is I can't pronounce her last name servicing
surveillance, and I'm pretty sure it's Indian srinivasan.
Srinivasan, okay. So in the, in example, 1, we
have Jack and Jill, Jill wants money.
Jack needs a kidney and because we live under the rawlsian
regime, people cannot be exploited and cannot sell their
organs. So Jill dies and Jack, doesn't
get the money or vice versa. I forget who I assigned to,
which, in the second scenario, you have the A person who wants
the money getting the money, you have the person who needs the
organ getting the organ, if you have someone making a decision,
whether it's working in a sweatshop terrible.
I'm sorry, but that's how South Korea went from poverty to
wealth is because they had sweatshops just like America.
And there was no large-scale foreign interference with, with
that, but had we said, we need to put South Korea on welfare.
Well, then that would not have gotten them as wealthy as they
are today. So in this sense, it's not only
more efficient of allocating kidneys.
To people who need kidneys in money to people who want money,
you're looking at a decision that a poor persons making bad
job prostitution, selling organs, living in a terrible
slum. Let's say, you're looking at
their, their choice, their best option.
And you're taking that away, that does not make you a good
person. That doesn't make you hip or
cool, or Progressive or friendly, you are saying.
A person who is in a vulnerable situation.
I'm in a make it worse by not letting you do.
The one thing that you think is best for you.
So it's uneconomic and and it's a moral final thoughts on the
concept of positive Freedom. Yeah.
The final thing I would say is just to point out in her example
that she sort of philosophizing a Midstream.
She's talking about this woman whose children are starving.
You know, what got her there and why?
Is the reasons that Goddard to that terrible position anybody
else's problem in terms of force.
Now, granted look you and I are both actually involved in
voluntary virtue. 501 c, 3 principled, Liberty, nonprofit
organization to help people. So it's not like we don't care
about people that are in bad in bad ways.
Right, but we're not talking about voluntary help.
We're talking about pointing guns at people to extract
resources to forcibly help people.
That's what we're talking about here and you can't make other
people's mistakes, or accidents or whatever, my problem at the
point of a gun. Yeah, I'm trying to remember the
example that Larkin uses in the most dangerous Superstition.
I think he says, let's sort of get the modern world out of the
way to understand this positive right to say a house.
If Patrick and I are hanging out and there's no one around, we're
just on an island. What would it mean for us to
have a right to a house? Well, if the house only comes
into existence, as a causal result of people performing
labor, and I'm entitled to it. Well, then I'm Violating your
rights because you don't build me a house and I'm by a leading
your rights because I'm not building you a house.
So, In This Moment by us just hanging out.
We're both pure evil because we're both making each other.
We're both making each other homeless and then not serving
each other all the time. Yeah.
And then s.
So, it can't be, you know, applied consistently, but on top
of it, it literally means that people own the bodies of other
people, which is worse than prostitution worse than choosing
to sell your organs. It's A lot more akin to stealing
organs, if I own your body. Well then, if I have a positive
right to live, that means everyone with to Ward with two
kidneys and two lungs is stealing life from people with
the one no kidneys, or they have kidney failure or people who
have their lungs removed from smoking.
So again, God, I wish I could remember that one because it's
good just because Larkin says, it's so beautifully.
Is it has a knack for saying things?
Beautifully question. Number two is any free
non-physically compelled, exchange morally, permissible.
If you say yes, then you think that any free exchange can't
beliee, be exploitative, and thus, and moral before, reading
the rest of this is this not a bait and switch.
It is any free exchange morally? Permissible.
You think that if I think the emphasis is on any I think it's
is any free exchange morally. Permissible.
That's how I read it because can't you still believe in
exploitation look like you could still believe in something as
dumb as the labor theory of value and say it's immoral for
the man to work and the woman to stay home and spend the
husband's money. She's exploiting him.
You could still think that's exploitative without thinking.
It's a violation of someone's rights.
I like can't you still think like some guy is you know, But
not very loyal to his girlfriend.
If he cheats on her, you could still think he's being
exploitative without thinking therefore the state should
monopolize. Arranging marriages, is that not
a bait-and-switch or an equivocation rather?
It is definitely an equivocation and it's also there's this like,
I don't know. The word exploit has taken on
this negative connotation. It just means to like fully
utilize a resource, which is a good thing.
You want resources fully. Utilized what people really mean
when they say exploit is like take advantage of like, oh, that
was a poor person in a bad place and they had no choice.
And so you got their labor at a really low rate.
That's what they mean. Like you're taking advantage of
somebody's bad situation and and that's a bad thing.
You shouldn't take advantage of people.
You should pay people more than you have to because Reasons.
I'm just realizing that the authors of this book.
Modern ethics in 77 arguments. They just wanted my money.
They've never called me to see how I'm doing.
Since I bought the book. They just want my freaking
money. That's my labor.
They're just wanting my labor overexploited you OMG.
Oh, no, you should write a letter suppose that and exploit
my labor. Further, the writing a letter
takes time, enough is set of a bill for the letter for the
exploitation and I'd be nice at sending them.
An invoice, suppose that I inherited from my rich parents a
large plot of vacant land and that you are my poor landless
neighbor. I owe you the following deal.
How are you a landless neighbor? If your lens list, you're not a
neighbor. You're just somebody walking
around. Sorry.
Sorry to interrupt, please continue.
Are you the following deal? You can work the land doing all
the hard labor of tiling sewing, irrigation and harvesting.
I'll pay you $1 a day for a year.
After that. I'll sell the crop for fifty
thousand dollars you decide. This is your best available
option. And so, take the deal.
Since you consent to this exchange.
Is it morally? Permissible?
It's, it's almost like, did you read?
What you wrote lady like you decide, this is your best
available option. And so you take the deal.
So if this lady thinks it's morally, impermissible to make
that deal. Then you are necessarily saying
that he has to take some other option that he found to be less
good. What are you doing?
You obnoxious obnoxious miscreant.
She said she asks specific. Sorry good.
I was just going to say see it's important that we listen to
people behind a veil of ignorance.
It's as far as listening to them in the real world and what they
choose to do screw em screw em behind that veil of ignorance.
Shut up. I don't want to hear it.
I have much more leeway when I'm not talking about anything in
reality. She asked specifically about
moral permissibility, and people are going to answer.
What is moral based on the philosophy of Ethics that they
personally adhere to and there's a million of them as we know
according to like, anti subjectivism, which is what I is
the philosophy. I am attempting to develop as
well as like a lot of libertarianism.
Just general, philosophies to declare an action in moral, is
to say that Force may be used against the person, taking that
action that you've deemed immoral or evil.
In this case to interfere in a voluntary exchange between two,
people would be to be the one bringing the force to bear in
the situation. You would be starting a fight
that didn't exist before you walked in.
Again. This is just like what we talked
about already before the employment.
And this is, this is insanity before the employment offer was
made, the landowner had no obligation according to her and
rawlsian ISM before the employment offer was made the
landowner had no obligation to his neighbor.
At all the burden of proof would be on Rawls to substantiate it
which he didn't attempt to By ignoring Humes LA, but let's set
that aside for a second. But suddenly the moment after an
offer was made an offer that could have been rejected and
wasn't the landowner becomes an immoral villain to serving of
like some kind of controlling Force.
So like before he ought just made an offer that could have
been rejected. Is totally fine and free of any
moral obligation and merely by offering.
Hey, you want a buck, you know, if you come do this stuff for an
absurdly low amount of money. Does that sound good to you?
You want to do it just by saying those words.
He's a villain now. It's just do they hear
themselves? Well, and she must support
outlawing universities because universities I didn't get paid a
dollar for going and I put, you know, a year and a half of work.
Before I got kicked out of all three you can I work for 4
years, 40 dollars, an hour at best.
A lot of people pay thousands of dollars for the privilege to
work. So that's what we don't even
have to use this. Hypothetical.
We have real-world examples internships.
That's a lot of times that people do it.
Now. Why on God's Earth?
Would someone just work for free?
She must, look at this and say you idiots.
You're just not doing anything. Well, it's called a Time
investment or intellectual capital.
All investment to increase the amount of skills.
You have to make yourself more valuable.
Hey, I'm going to go to different Farms because they're
going to see that. I really worked hard at this
other place. I'm going to develop more skills
so I can be better in in the long run and there's other
people that are going to be bidding against her.
What is she? I saw the crop for 50,000
dollars. Well, there's going to be other
employers who might want to pay me more.
If there's a $1 250 thousand dollar ratio.
There's going to be other people who are going one up and the two
dollars. It's just doesn't differentiate
between that which is wrong. And that what should be
outlawed. I mean, guys who, you know,
cheat on their girlfriends and wives, totally horrible.
Assuming you have a Agreed upon, you know, monogamous
relationship, just absolutely terrible.
Nothing to be proud of their but to assume that therefore they
should be outlawed and we need a relationship regulatory regime
to stop such things from happening is is an absolute
non-sequitur. Also, what is done, you know, he
might have taken that deal because afterwards he's going to
be experienced in tilling, sewing, irrigation and
harvesting, which he could probably charge a hell of a lot
more than a dollar for the next year.
You know, I make more than a dollar a day every year, and I'm
not good in any of those. So, this, this is guy's gonna be
rolling in it pretty soon. Well, let's go to internships,
right? And what's the word, you know,
from like medieval times. I can't believe I'm blanking on
it, but like apprenticeship, like an Ship.
Like you're not getting paid, but you're learning and you're
building skills. The are going to be valuable to
you later. Exactly it.
That on-the-job experience. I mean, employers love to look
for it. Question number 3, are people
entitled to all? They are able and not only what
they are able to get through free exchange.
So it's all or just some of what are they entitled to?
If you say yes, you think that what people are entitled to is
large. Glee, a matter of luck.
Let's do let's deal with it right there before going any
further are people entitled to all?
They are able and not only what they are able to get through
free exchange. It's a matter of luck.
American, the entitled work, the entitled word re classifies this
discussion in the burden of proof moves like, you know, I
don't have to justify owning something you have to justify
using Force against me to remove it from me.
So on its face like it doesn't even deserve a response.
This is so backwards. It presumes that we all have to
justify everything that we owned to, you know, some collective or
just some veil of rational people like It's just that.
That's absurd. Then the luck thing.
I want to hold my comments on because she does say some more
things that pertain to it. But yeah, so I guess that's it
for me. Would you mind reading until the
point where you wanted to comment?
Um, yeah, I'll read a little bit further.
So so she says, if you say yes, you think that what people are
entitled to is largely a matter of luck.
Why first? Because only a tiny minority of
the population is lucky enough to inherit wealth from their
parent. Some shots at Mit Romney since
giving money to your kids is just another example of free
exchange. The accumulation of wealth and
privilege injecting a term. She didn't substantiate with
privilege the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few
is morally permissible. Second people's capacities to
produce goods and services. In demand, on the market is
largely a function of the lottery of their birth, their
genetic predispositions. Their parents education, the
amount of race and sex-based discrimination, to which their
Ejected and their access to health care, and good education.
So this is kind of like the luck logic Loop and I think a lot of
it is, is factual it, but it goes to erode the foundation
that rawlsian ism is based on that that the the inequalities
of the free market are based on free exchange rather than the
realities of inequality in the world that we kind of started
talking about people are born different, people are born with
different parenting, different education, different.
Predispositions. Different IQs, like, all of
these things will determine how successful you are in life IQ
being, I think the single number one largest predictor of Life
success, like just general life success.
If you, if you boil it down into a metric, IQ is more strongly
correlated to it than any other metric that is, depending on,
who you believe 6040, nature-nurture.
So 60/40 of that 60 percent, or 40 percent, depending on which
side of that argument you land on is totally.
Like luck, like you're just born with the jeans that you're born
into and the other part of it is nurture either 60 or 40,
depending on which side of it you fall on.
But this this this totally discounts the parents
responsibility to their kids as well.
Like part of the reason why we want to do such a good job in
our life to build up a piggy bank and then to later on raise
our kids in successful, non-abusive ways is to give them
that advantage that other people other parents chose.
Who's through ignorance or inaction or Maleficent's to not
give their kids. So it's almost like, again, the
whole theme Here, is this moral hazard is the economic word for
it. The moral hazard, which is where
you take the problems that other people create, and you make the
people that didn't create them, the ones that have to pay for
it. And that's this whole thing in a
nutshell. It's parenting is not luck.
Parenting is work and decision, whether or not you make them or
not the way you Parent and the way you raise kids has a massive
effect on the rest of their life.
Now, from the kids perspective, obviously, which family you get
born to I guess you could consider luck because you can't
control it, right? But Yeah, I guess, I guess
that's what I had to say. There's, there's definitely
Randomness there. There's definitely luck-based
inequality there. It's just part of reality.
Yes, but again, reality doesn't justify you forcing people to do
things the way you want them to do.
And it doesn't justify you pointing guns at them to level
inequalities that you decide exists.
Because you're the rational ones.
Yeah, and there's a reason again, no citation.
When it comes to she uses Mitt Romney because even the right is
not passionate about defending Mitt Romney, even the
Republicans. So because it's easy to use, you
know, a poster face when dealing with an idea.
The reason she didn't cite a statistic on intergenerational
wealth as it's called is because the about eighty percent of
millionaires are first-generation a lot of people
Only in the 1%. Now will not be in the 1% 10, 20
30 years from now. A lot of people in the bottom
20% will gain skills in the future and will be in the upper
10% of income. So they have to reject all
mobility and act like you're sort of just this ultimate
victim of circumstance. Also, when it comes to the luck
portion of things, you just happen to be born in a place
that happened to Value investing and Warren Buffett happen to get
a job and happen to get. Hired by an employer, that
happened to like him compared to all the other people.
Yeah, that is definitely an aspect of life that the that
exists. But it's not like he would have
been investing if he was in the year, 100 AD.
What people do is they look around the market prices
incentivize where people should allocate their efforts if they
want to make more money or just do whatever they want with their
lives. Again, they don't apply it to
politicians. It's like saying, you know
politicians you don't have to follow Laws are there edicts?
I mean, this guy, Mark, Kelly and Arizona just happened to get
a job as a senator and a place that he happened to be running a
campaign in where he happened to be running against the dumbest
person on the planet Martha. McSally government just happened
to win a war in the American Revolution, and they happened to
give birth to kids that ended up serving in this regime that I
happen to live under at this time.
But so again, all this happen stance and luck at all.
So applies to her solution of politics.
So, I mean, she's really cool at stepping on this rake, but you
don't see part 2 where it hits her in the face, and makes her
look like a moron. Every Time.
Imagine the gall that you'd have to have to just decide you get a
say in what somebody else somebody else wants to do with
their property, like, And then imagine designing like a faux
philosophy, to justify your desire to have some moral upper
hand, over the rights of other equal creatures.
Like it's like if you become successful enough, you become a
lower-level creature, a lower tier creature that doesn't
deserve to have their property respected as much.
Hey sure. Prevent and go ahead.
I'm sorry. Didn't I was I was just going to
say I still failing to say What's wrong with giving your
kids and inheritance? Of course, you can see the sort
of Hunter Biden kind of lifestyle of these sort of
aristocrats that have a lot of wealth.
They give their kids, you know, this fake life where they're
constantly seeking meaning. So they're more likely to
develop drug habits and everything.
But but she's bashing the concept of an inheritance, the
idea of making the world a better place for your kids.
She doesn't even get into and this therefore stops them from
being as productive as They were door living a completely
fulfilled life. It's just like this envious.
You got it without working. Okay.
Well you got this book deal and I never got one.
So, so that's all. So unfair.
The goal is to recognize unfairness always exist.
So, which system should we Embrace?
So we can give most people the most amount of mobility.
And by every metric, it's a free market.
And again, this entitlement thing comes back up.
Just like Shifting, the burden, nature provides us.
No, entitlements whatsoever. If you want to live and work
with other people who want to elevate themselves out of that
world of the beasts, you can make agreements with the people
around you to not attack each other and to respect their
property in return for them, respecting your property, and
you could, if you wanted to get together with a bunch of Rawls
Ian's, who all agree to voluntarily give resources to
people in their attempt to undo the This built into reality the
luck part, but what is it valid? And what I find Despicable is to
use this baseless pseudo philosophy to justify violently
taking things from others. A way to get away with taking
the actions that those beasts you're trying to get away from
take while attempting to like wear the Robes of moral virtue.
Like you want to look like the philosopher king while still
acting like a beast. It's disgusting and I did in
preparation. I wrote down some excerpts
certain paragraphs from Ein Rands book, Atlas Shrugged.
This is part of a little rant that one of her characters went
on, if you know with your permission I can read it, but
it's on money and I think it applies quite a bit to the
discussion here. Is that cool?
Yes, please. All right.
Give me a moment here. It's a few paragraphs, but it's
pretty good. I think have you ever asked what
so this is Francisco d'anconia format.
Shrugged and he's at a ball, and he's talking to a bunch of
people that are pooh-poohing, people that have earned a lot of
money in that are wealthy. And he says, have you ever asked
what is the route of money? Money is a tool of exchange,
which can't exist unless there are Goods produced and Men able
to produce them money, is the material shape of the principle
that men who wish to deal with one, another must deal by trade
and give value for Value money is not the tool of the Moochers
who Ooohclaim your product by Tears or the of the looters who
take it from you, by force money, is made possible only by
the men who produce, is this, what you consider evil?
When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only
on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of
the effort of others. It is not the Moochers or the
looters who give value to the money.
Not an ocean of tears, not all the guns in the world can
transform those pieces of paper in your All it into the bread,
you will need to survive tomorrow.
Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold.
Are taken, are a token of honor, your claim upon the energy of
men who produce your wallet, is your statement of hope that
somewhere in the world around you, there are men who will not
default on that moral principle, which is the root of money.
Is this what you consider evil. I'm not going to read the whole
thing. I only have a couple more
paragraphs. Have you ever looked for the
route of production? Take a look at an electric
generator? Generator and this goes to your
printer Point earlier. Take a look at an electric
generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the
muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge Left To
You, by men who had to Discover It For the First Time, Try to
obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions and
you'll learn that. A man's mind is the root of all
the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed
on Earth to trade by means of money, is the code of the men of
Will money rests on the Axiom. That every man is the owner of
his mind and his effort, money allows.
No power to prescribe the value of your effort, except the
voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade, you his
effort in return and I'll skip forward a little bit for
brevity's sake. Only the man who does not need,
it is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his own
fortune, no matter where he started.
If an error is equal to his money, it It serves him if not,
it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that
money. Corrupted him did it.
Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless.
Are his wealth is not yours and you would have done, no better
with it. Do not think that it should have
been distributed among you. Loading the world with 50
parasites. Instead of one would not bring
back the dead virtue, which was the fortune money is a living
power that dies without its route.
Money will not serve the That cannot match.
It is the reason why is this the reason why you call it evil?
Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters.
The man who dams money has obtained.
It dishonorably the man who respects it.
Has earned it earned it. Run for your run from your life
from any man. Who tells you that money is
evil. That sentence is the lepers Bell
of an approaching looter so long as men live together on Earth
and need means to deal with one another.
They're only substitute if they abandoned money is the Muzzle of
a gun the thank you for indulging me that quote.
It's one of my favorite parts of that entire book.
That's a great one and you can use R and of course, as the
ultimate example of not only not inheriting wealth, her father's
pharmaceutical business. I believe was collectivized and
stolen by the Bolshevik regime comes to America hardly speaks
English Works. What would be called an
exploitative job in Hollywood as a writer, learns English, and
writes, two of the greatest best selling books of all time in her
second language. Voyage.
So this should be like the ultimate feminist icon, but they
just can't they just can't, you know, we give any Credence to
someone advocating voluntary exchange much as they love the
freedom of exchange for gays to get married.
Something vitally important that they have the right to associate
with extending that to the second that gay person wants to
make an economic exchange. Well, then the walls come up.
Well, then the Start to fill out this form.
You got to fill out that know that, that's an that line.
Not this line. You gotta go over there now.
I mean, it's just unbelievable. Great, great passage and just
and just a Shameless plug. I recorded that entire section.
That was a small excerpt, but I, I recorded the entire speech on
my channel, the videos called money is the root of all virtue.
And I read the whole thing. And man, it's just really good.
Oh, yeah, Randa. Bertrand is great.
Have you read the virtue of selfishness and capitalism?
The unknown ideal? Yes.
Absolutely. Oh, on my channel.
No, I mean, I've read them but I haven't performed them.
Yeah. Oh, yeah, but well, the one that
I read on my channel just because it was such a red pill
at the time, is the very final chapter of the virtue of
selfishness called the argument from intimidation, where it's
anyone's use of disapproval, as a means of, for stalling, a
debate, she calls it an intellectual.
I've buy it. You can't really believe that do
you. You don't actually believe in an
unfettered free market. You can't be serious.
Anything showing disapproval the second.
I heard that I go. I feel like I hear that often.
I have not stopped, hearing it until she pointed it out to me.
So gosh, ran to so good on so many issues and that's a lot of
what this article is by this lady.
Like she doesn't make any counter arguments here.
She just disdainfully Says, they're not common sense.
Yeah, you're not going to be hanging sitting at the table of
rational kids behind a veil of ignorance.
You are just so uncool with your unfairness.
Yeah as she engages in unfettered author, as mm.
Yeah, but we never voted on what This Woman's allowed to publish.
She just selfishly published whatever she wanted and then
export labor them. Let's not let's not understate
the discussing this of her position.
She's advocating Barbara. Them in search of absurd in.
Sorry. No, thanks.
You're not as rational as you think lady.
What's the number for our people?
Under no obligation to do anything?
They don't really want to do it freely.
Commit themselves to doing. Yes.
Yeah. Yeah, you know, I hate to say it
and so the, the example would be I see you're about to fall,
you're walking or about to fall off, this little ledge.
Should I be enslaved into saying, hey, watch out there's a
ledge there. Well, there's a significant
difference out. Of course.
She doesn't care to differentiate us.
Does someone have a moral obligation to do so?
And whether or not they should be caged if they don't do so.
Whether there should be a regime going around enforcing, whether
or not my actions were met the legal criteria for doing enough
to help to help someone out or people under no obligation
again, not differentiating. If you say yes, then you think
the only more requirements. No.
No, I don't think only requirements are the ones we
freely bring on ourselves. Elves say You by making promises
or contracts? There's another five, our
kinsella debate. Our product is contracts.
Suppose. I'm walking to the library and
see a man drowning in the river. I decide that the pleasure I
would get from saving his life wouldn't exceed the cost of
getting wet and the delay. So I Walk On By, since I made no
contract with this, man. I am no under no obligation to
save him. Thoughts on question.
Number four. It's very similar to number two,
when we were talking about moral hazards and the and exporting,
the externalities, the consequences of your behavior to
other people in, in the form of positive moral obligations that
you can potentially attack or cage people over not fulfilling
on. And I think some people would
say. Oh no, that's like two extreme
of an interpretation of this section.
No, it's not. She's trying to take your answer
to this and justify the state forcing.
People to help people through the form of welfare and Taxation
and blah, blah blah by pointing guns at people to make them do
things. So I'm not that's not an
equivocation. She's making that argument.
She's founding her argument on your answer to this question.
Not being. Yeah.
So when I say it was similar to number two, I've it reminded me
of a story. I was having a debate with a
Tommy and we were really having trouble determining what like
the what constituted and aggression and what constituted.
Something that you could attack somebody.
Oh, in self-defense. And I remember I gave him this
analogy. He was stuck on a remote island
by himself starving to death about to die of exposure.
And there was a boat captain that was out on the ocean
sailing somewhere, delivering Goods doesn't matter.
And before the boat, and I asked him before, the boat captain
knew that you were there stranded on that island.
Was he a bad guy? Was he could you attack him?
Was he culpable for any crimes? He said no.
And I said, okay? Now the boat continues on its
path and it just so happens to pass by your Island and he sees
you over on the island, calling for help and And he doesn't now.
Can you attack him? Because he chose to continue on
his way and is and he said, yeah, he's being exploitive.
He's using his means of production in a way that hurts
me. And so he went, he literally
just by looking at you on the island went from again.
This is like we talked about a number two.
He just, just by making some little thing like a gesture of
Simply gazing at an island with a guy on it, calling for help,
went from a normal. Will guy you couldn't attack to
a villain. You could to force him to
enslave him to your to your needs.
Your needs determine what he has to do and it's taking its that,
moral hazard. If other people's actions,
whatever put him on that island, whatever, in action, whatever
accident, willful negligent, whatever that people take, they
create positive moral obligations on other people,
even on everyone around them, which is an even more accurate
and extreme situation. Like we're not just saying it
creates a positive obligation on you.
It's everybody. Everybody around is positively
morally, obligated to help you on the island.
Then you have the worst possible moral hazard and for people that
don't haven't heard that term before because it's more formal
term. Especially in economics.
Moral hazard is specifically that when the people bearing,
the cost of a decision aren't the ones making the decision bad
things, happen almost every time.
People. So in her example, talking about
some I do drowning in a river and people walking by.
If you morally on pain of force force, everybody walking near
rivers to rescue people. Otherwise, they'll get in
trouble by force or something. Bad will happen to them,
forcibly non-consensual e then you're going to have a moral
hazard situation. You're going to have the people
making the decision to play near rivers.
Let's say or you know run around there or work near rivers or
whatever you're going to To have them less worried about their
safety than they would be. If they didn't know that
everyone around them was going to be forced to try and help
them. Also.
There's going to be less people near the river because if
there's a chance, when you walk in by a river, you're going to
be forced at gunpoint to help some asshole.
That fell in. You're probably going to walk
not near the river the next day. And so there's going to be less
people around to help the guy that falls into the river.
So there's all sorts of like negative results that come from
Not from people helping people the following Rivers, but from
pointing guns at people to force them to it's all sorts of bad
things. Come out of the force involved.
Yeah, and the owner but the boat example is a good one, but you
can sort of look at someone decides to do nothing.
They're just watching TV. Well, that's not being
exploitative. In fact, you might be a member
of the proletariat and in my war against the bourgeoisie, so
you're an ally, but if that person, now, invests comes up
with an idea and offers you a job product or service, now,
he's an evil. Pointer people who produce
nothing good people who produce something voluntarily pure evil
who need bricks thrown into their businesses.
And so we could justify more more State spending and call it
mothers just uh stealing baby formula.
So again, this is why the cam you starve because they hate to
the producers and they constantly are worshipping the
parasites in the parasites. Could be your local thief or
more. Currently your politicians, who
are bailing out companies, who are just as parasitic as as any
other Thief good, creating zombie companies, that should
have died some time ago and gone Under New Management, which were
now dealing with a less efficient economy than we
otherwise would. If they had been allowed to
fail. That is the biggest example of
moral hazard. We're going to bail you out.
No, no matter what I think. I remember the earliest version
of moral hazard that I heard. Was it actually Li like Turned
people immoral by taking out fire Insurance on a place that
they end up being the arson of. So it actually changes the
character of a person and a country.
When we say you're no longer responsible for your actions.
Well, I would be kind of cool if like no matter what I did.
I just had got a blank check. I never got to jail.
My bank account always had money in it, but the fallacy of
composition is just because I would benefit from doing
something. That doesn't mean everyone would
benefit by doing the same thing. If I stand up at the concert, I
could see better. If everyone stands up, not
everyone can see better. If I'm talking loud at the
restaurant, people can hear me better.
If everyone's talking louder again, the the same thing
applies. So now they it's almost like
they totally rely on on these isolated incidents to make their
case without without any nuance. And of course, were the ones who
are always called. I'm and utopian who just sort of
live in a fantasy world. Meanwhile, her world consists of
people drowning everywhere and no one wanting to stop by.
By the way. These people should be allowed
to vote. I'm guessing people who just
want other others to die. Everyone is Mitt Romney
inheriting wealth. Everyone else is selling one
acre of land for fifty thousand dollars every year.
Paying people a dollar an hour and everyone else is selling
their organs because there's no way income Mobility except for,
Wilt Chamberlain. I guess this is the fantasy
world that we get accused of living in another, another moral
hazard. Example, is eating in a
restaurant and choking and somebody helping the person that
was choking by trying to do like heimlich maneuver or something.
And, you know, let's say they crack a rib in the process of
doing heimlich. And then the state will allow
somebody to sort of Sue or prosecute.
That person creates this moral hazard situation where like when
somebody's choking people, no longer want to help.
Because it's a risk to their own safety and livelihood from the
threat of the state like justice quote justice system, you know,
making this other person's choking problem, their financial
problem. Their moral hazard is a huge
concept to get and you'll find you'll see it everywhere.
Now that you've heard it and understand it.
Like everything, the government does has some moral hazard
involved to some degree, the people paying for the things are
not the people making the decisions.
It's almost like The state into words, moral hazard, author goes
on that. That was the final question.
Most of us. I suspect will find it difficult
to say, yes, to all four of these questions, like the idiot
who says, I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon.
Well, you live in a bubble moron, of course, find it hard.
Even knows it. But let me speak to that.
Let me, let me, let me just say something real quick.
Okay, go ahead. Yeah.
I was just going to say like it's totally believable.
That Most all of us would say yes because rawlsian ism is the
Premier moral philosophy on college campuses.
It is ubiquitous. It is the primary moral
philosophy taught in colleges today, and honestly, it's been
the prime one in effect in the world for the last 30 years, or
more. So, yeah, I'm sure that she's
surrounded by people that would definitely agree with her.
Sorry. Go ahead.
Yeah, and, you know, I took a poll the other day and you know
that like a hundred percent of people are Muslim.
I also took it outside of a mosque.
I'm not sure if that has anything to do that.
That might have thrown off. No, I think most people are
Muslim now, that I think about it.
Checkmate evidence, even those like this is, this was such a
great one. That haunts APA points out.
He goes, you know, sometimes there's a lot of people in our
tradition who were very well-meaning, who just haven't
been introduced to the right stuff.
No Zack writing. Years ago at Harvard never got
to stand on the shoulders of Hans Hapa Milton Friedman and
Murray rothbard like I am. But what they'll do is they'll
use this trick of even Robert nozick admits.
Even Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
Admit. We need some welfare.
What you can sometimes what sometimes happens is they're
used as useful, idiot punching bags for people to justify in
Anarchy State and Utopia found it hard to say yes to question 3
question 3 being our people entitled to all they are able to
get through free Exchange. In philosophical terms.
We have a reductio ad absurdum the queen of reductio AD,
absurdum, 's accuses, Harvard Ph.D.
Philosopher, Robert nozick of using it the no zakian view
implies that from the perspective of Common Sense
morality is absurd. What a desperate person who
sells her organs or body does? So freely that it's permissible
to pay someone a paltry sum while profiting hugely off their
labor that people are entitled to get rich, because of
accidents of birth that you're within your rights to walk.
By a drowning man, I feel it's my job to constantly never miss
it. But to point out that her
argument is that it is absurd. That is the start and end of her
argument, which of course is not an argument.
It's just her opinion. She's asserting that it's
absurd. It's not worth a response.
Almost. Sorry.
Go ahead. I just I hate it when people
like they, they take in these bodies of work that are filled
with judgments and assertions. Like it's absurd.
That's bullshit was one that I did recently in a 14 hour
livestream that came up repeatedly throughout bullshit.
Okay, that's not an argument. That's an assertion.
It's absurd. That's that's not an argument.
That's an assertion. Like you got to be careful when
you're reading this stuff that you don't fall into thinking.
She's making an argument here. She's giving you her opinion.
But like a rant over, please please continue.
I guess, you know when Saudi Arabia it's absurd that women
would be able to have a job writing and Publishing books in
you know, large scale prints. So what if it's a if it's absurd
maybe now it is no no slavery that that's absurd.
I'm get I'm using a reductio ad absurdum there.
But you know, you have to know that that's not enough and this
is a woman who's examples are Mitt, Romney.
Drowning children Wilt Chamberlain and prostitute
selling organs as if like you run into those like five times a
day, when you're just talking to your friends.
No, those are the Absurd situations in reality that you
hardly ever come across. But even when you do, it doesn't
justify the state. So it's always this lingering
problems exist. Don't they?
Yeah, and therefore, the, the Koch brothers have the right to
rule out. One, because these problems
exist. How does that make it go away.
How does they're being a state that makes us less wealthy stop,
the starving woman who needs access to resources, just like,
there's a shortage of property protection in places where
there's a lot of police who knows that the state would be
providing all the things that they promised protect and serve.
I guess that, I guess government restaurants are just going to be
named tons of food place and even if they don't provide any
food, they'll still be a right to food.
Just like there's a right to protection and a right to
education even though they don't provide those either.
And I'm jumping the gun here a little bit.
Can I read the rest? This paragraph because these
paragraph is quintessential ad populum in a fight in like 500
Words. Okay, like let me read the rest
and then I'll summarize. So it says the no zakian view.
Implies. What from the perspective of
Common Sense, morality is absurd that A desperate person who
sells her organs or body does. So freely that it's permissible
to pay someone a paltry sum while profiting hugely off their
labor. People are entitled to get rich
because of accidents of birth that you're within your rights
to walk by a drowning man. The snow sticks view must be
wrong. Justice is not simply the
unfettered. Exercise of the free market.
Free market, morality isn't anything of the sort.
This is AD, populum. Let me Summarize each section of
this paragraph. She says, most of us agree.
Most of us agree. The no zakian view is absurd.
Thus nosek must be wrong. Justice is not this free market,
morality isn't anything of the sort that was her argument
folks. Most of us agree.
Nozik is wrong. It's absurd because he's absurd.
That was the paragraph. Most of us agree.
It's absurd. Thus, he's wrong.
She even use the word thus, which is like a therefore in a
logical proof like this. This, this, this, therefore,
this most of us agree nozick is absurd, Arness excited.
He is absurd, therefore, he's wrong.
This stuff really annoys me Keith, like, as you probably
know. It's just, it just bothers me
when people pass this shit off as philosophy.
She continues some might object that these are extreme cases and
that all they show is that the market to be fully moral needs
some tweaking. As if it's like a neutral tool
that would need some tweaking as if these.
This so-called tweaking doesn't involve killing people who
descent or caging them and taking them from their families,
putting their wives in a situation where they might need
to sell their organs. To live.
That's what you want. That's what she calls, tweaking,
which is a course. That's just like a gross
understatement. Like tweaking would be what you
could actually do in a free market situation, which is where
if you found out some asshole, walked by a drowning guy in a
river, you would make sure everybody knew that this guy.
What this guy did and he's an asshole and you would probably
make him very unpopular and maybe even lose business or lose
relationships or you know business relationships over his
shitty decision to not help somebody that's at week.
Pointing guns at the guy. That's so much tweak.
Not so much to tweak and it empowers an entire industry to
go around looking for people who haven't saved drowners and, and
creates a drowning industrial complex.
That's, that's tweaking. That's, that's, that's her to
waking. Squeaking, Allah drugs, not
tweaking, but behind, I couldn't I was gonna say it, but I I
thought that'd be weak but to conclude Dude, that there was
more to Freedom. It was weeks.
I deserve that that there is such a thing as non violent
exploitation that people shouldn't be rewarded and
punished for accidents of birth that we have moral obligations.
That extend beyond what we contractually occur.
This is to concede the entire. No, zakian edifice is
structurally unsound. No, it's structurally sound of
backwards again as opposed to government very Mound violence
doesn't count when this group, does it very sound.
Yes, unbelievable. She's throwing so many stones
for being in such a glassy house.
Yeah, and the concession is that she's using extreme cases.
And so if you conceded that, you know, she's only right in these
instances because the cases are extreme.
I mean II. Yeah, I would be a valid
undermining of her counter arguments, but I don't see
anybody here doing that. At so far.
Everybody on this stream is, at least specifically has just said
yes, like that. Yes, LoJack meme.
Like, like, are people under no obligation to do anything.
They don't really want to do or freely commit themselves to
doing. Yes, like the Chad confident.
Yes. Yeah.
I will I will not go on. This is my favorite line in the
entire thing. Page 195 the proponent of
free-market morality. Lost his foundations.
The reason that is so important is because if you look at when I
see the dominant philosophies today, they make these strong,
moral claims people have a right to health care.
Of course you and I recognize that as slavery and a
disincentive to provide Healthcare which makes people
worse off and is immoral. However that has gotten people
very riled up. This inequality of income is
unjust, they'll say racism is Unjust colonialism.
Unjust. This is imperialism.
This is terrible. This is sexism, which is
inherently bad. They don't say, I have, I think
sexism needs some tweaking. So, therefore we should maybe
have a committee to talk about how we can have more efficient.
So they say it's inherently bad, and there's no, if ands or buts,
they're taking a strong moral position and that's how AOC and
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
And Barack Obama, even when he was running in, In 08 you
constantly see this this sort of routine and that should give us
the idea of the strong Arguments for the free markets.
Are this Unapologetic capital, a capitalist acts between
consenting adults. Everything else is slavery.
Maybe not use the word slavery, but because like I will call
conscription slavery in reality in technicality.
Yes. Jury duty is forced labor, but
we should probably have a different word for that.
That then then slavery. So I think, I think that's a
great point. That once your foundations are
taken away. Then you're not left to stand on
much, your left to the tool of utilitarian calculations, which
are always one study away from being debunked up.
There was research on this and it turns out at work.
Well you're channeling rothbard like directly.
He wrote an article called the case for radical idealism, and I
was so inspired by that back when I was this.
Back when I was in the middle of running for not governor and
libertarian party. It informed my entire a
political strategy. This article says exactly what
you're saying. There's if we look at the most
successful political movements, it has been like you say the
left which takes the most extreme demands for what they
want. All the time.
They demand nothing less of their than their in goals and
then along the way, they accept every little compromise.
As that exclusively moves towards those goals.
So they demand the ends and then accept the baby steps along the
way. And then you have all these
Libertarians in the Pate that are like, you know, we gotta, we
gotta soften our message and and talk about, you know, like
incremental improvements to law, to get us closer.
Duck don't don't demand to abolish the IRS and end Taxation
and, and, you know, end the ATF, no, no, say let's reduce.
His by 5% and rothbard refuted that very, well, you can, you
can find that reading it on my channel as well.
The case for radical idealism by Murray rothbard really good and
you could even see it in the eyes of all of the, or in the
response to all the people who quit the lp, after Dave Smith
and the mesas caucus started making a big splash.
Andy Craig, being the loudest among them representing.
A lot of people along with Joseph bishop and German, who
was the chair after. So our work.
So he had said, you know what this thing is just lost its.
So it's overrun by these bigots of the lp MC.
My best advice is to run and hide and find you know, maybe I
forget what he plugged exactly but it was some sort of
alternative, you know, let's get politically involved kind of
thing to go door-to-door. Whatever the point is, is notice
how they went from. We're going to take on the
military. Real complex, big Pharma.
We're going to take on Wall Street.
The Republicans. The Democrats were going to take
on this regulatory regime and we're going to defeat it, but
they can't defeat Dave Smith. Who was one-third Legion of
skanks. They can't defeat LPM see who
has been around for like, I think Michael has invented what
to for maybe six years ago, out of the Ron Paul movement.
So that is how dedicated these people are.
They can they can click, I can lift 1,000 pounds.
Can you lift five pounds? No, never.
Absolutely not. Not that is impossible.
And you know what? I quit I'm not going to live
five. Well now I know that you never
took seriously lifting a thousand pounds because they'll
let the thought of lifting 5 pounds made you quit the lp.
MC is certainly proving rothbard right in this regard, there.
They're advocating. The extreme end conclusions of
the libertarian principles. And if you just look at nothing
else than the change that they've created inside the
libertarian party. They've been more why they've
been more successful than anything else in a very short
amount of time. Like you said, It only 56 years.
They've completely sort of overhauled, the libertarian
party, to some extent just by doing what we're talking about
here. And it's gotten Dave Smith on
Kennedy Nation on Fox News, which then got Scott Horton on
it. Got Dave Smith on, Tim pulls
show twice. It got him on The Joe Rogan
Experience. He's been on there multiple
times, but him coming out against vaccine, passports was
the one where he made the biggest the biggest splash.
Is there anything else in this article?
It doesn't look like I find anything else.
Of course, you lies and calls it a safety net, which of course
applies to everything. Except, you know, voluntary
Mutual Aid, societies reiterates, the rising
inequality. Anything else on this article
that stood out to you. I'll just read the last
paragraph. That's cool because it kind of
it summarizes. Not only her point, but my
objection to our entire article, she says, rejecting the no
zakian world view requires us to reflect on what Justice really
demands rather than accepting the conventional wisdom.
That the market can take care of.
Reality for us. If you remain a steadfast nozaki
and you have the option of biting the bullet and embracing
the counterintuitive implications of your view.
This would be at least more consistent than what we have
today and ideology that parades as moral common sense.
Her constant appeals to Common Sense are precisely.
Nothing approaching an argument. That's the conclusion in
summary. I want to provide for or my
opinion on this article nothing. Again.
It's just you're appealing to this.
What you think common sense is in your circle of friends, that
I'm sure is totally different from mine.
I never have time for that fact. In fact, I guarantee it's common
sensical. No.
Yeah.
Nonsense is is It could more more accurate, more accurately
be called the so very often. We can criticize the terrible
things around us. But seldom do we get the chance
to allocate our energy toward making the world a better place?
Voluntary virtue is one of the great mechanisms, we can use to
get a direct feedback mechanism and live.
This beautiful philosophy. We love to talk about what is
voluntary virtue. Military virtue is a well soon
to be were the applications have been filed a 501 c 3, nonprofit
organization that intends to find the principled voluntary as
libertarian people that are in need and all this Insanity that
we're living through right now and find ways to Do what we say
needs to happen in the world without without begging
government, to do it for us to show people to put action behind
our principles. But action behind our words,
rather, when, when people challenge us and they're like,
well, how would we help the poor without government?
Well, we're going to show you how voluntary virtue.
We're going to do it. We're going to help the people
in need. We're going to do it without
guns and coercion. That's that's what it's about.
Voluntary, watch, you can be found on minds.com.
We also have as the Facebook page been taken down, yet.
I'm walking a Michelle's waiting, but we haven't checked
today. Where can people find more
information about voluntary virtue, voluntary, virtue dot
org. Is the website will have.
Every time we run a campaign. We've primarily been doing
campaigns lately because we're still small and we're building
up kind of a war chest, as a wrong word for a charity.
What would you call it? Purchased for a charity, happy
chest. I treasure chest.
Treasures. Yeah.
Okay. There you go.
We're still building up donations to sort of start
helping people and So lately, we've been doing various
campaigns like feed the need or we feed homeless, people in
Dallas or you know, we we did some stuff to help blind
ulbricht and Ross ulbricht and her situation.
So we are constantly looking where I would say, this is a
call to a call to action a call for help from the general
public. If, you know, of good people
that are in need reach out and let us know.
No, voluntary virtue dot-org. Is there a way that people can
participate? If they themselves?
Don't have a lot of money to donate.
Absolutely. We have kind of, like, our boots
on the ground group of people. We call them the Tactical
charity Society. It's a group of people that
actually want to, rather than just look some people don't have
time to go help but they do have resources.
That's that's what voluntary virtues about.
We will take your resources and put them to good work in
principle ways. People that have more time than
money, which of which there are many and you want to actually do
something with your body. Instead of with your money.
You can join the Tactical charity society, which is the
group that it's like the sidecar when voluntary virtue goes in to
help somebody in. Need the Tactical charity
Society are is a group of people that will show up and make
actual real in-person help to the people in need.
And it could be anything from throwing a party for for a
family. That's going through a rough
time building a wheelchair ramp like the the ideas are endless,
but The point is to build an in-person Community, a strong in
person community of people that can help each other through this
Insanity that we're dealing with.
And that's one of the great things.
It's not only you getting the chance to help people.
You also are getting the chance to be part of a potential
community. So when you know, you're faced
with, well, what if I lose my job?
Well, you'll know a lot of, you know, if I don't comply with
this or that mandate, well, the more people, you know, The more
options you'll have the more friendly, you know, people the
more friendly you are, the more people will want to be around
you and you'll have sort of this actual safety net.
Not the fake Biz, Markie and safety net, to make us more
reliant on the Kaiser. You'll actually be getting like
this harmonious, both giving and receiving through, with this
voluntary virtue and tactical charity Society.
To everyone watching the don't tread on anyone.
Thank you as well as. On the libertarian Institute,
Patrick Smith of disenthrall. Thank you for your time,
brother. Thanks Keith.
I always enjoy it.