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.