Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in the libertarian Institute. Today, joining me is Patrick MacFarlane of the Liberty weekly podcast Patrick. Where is the best place to find your collection of intellectual contributions to the Liberty Movement? So the best place to find me is that Liberty, weekly dotnet? Otherwise, you can find me at libertarian institute.org forward slash Patrick. I invited Patrick on firstly to give us a guest speaker ship in constitutional law.
There's a great paper written in 1995 by John has Nest published in the Wisconsin law review or 95 will whenever it was written. And I think it gives us some great intellectual insight about loss while I wanted an attorney to come on and walk us through the very first concept that has Ness. Has a skull through Patrick. If you could share your screen, please for the viewing audience and just walk us through this first intellectual exercise that has anise puts us through.
This is a professor of law at Georgetown University. Now, he works with the Jason Brenton. So I am going to mute myself and Patrick you are free to go. Yes, so fundamentally the myth of Of the rule of law, presents a concept that you really should learn in your first year of law school. And it's not very widely taught but it's something that should be demonstrated to you. Something that you should realize throughout some of your first courses. And so, the way that John has in
his presents. This is that he has the reader. Answer some questions in a very short quiz. So he says, stop before reading this article. Please take the following quiz. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states in part. Quote Congress shall make no law abridging, the freedom of speech or of the press. Now on the basis of your personal understanding. This is very important on the basis of your personal, understanding of the meaning of
this sentence. Not of your knowledge of Anil law. Please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false. So the first question in time of War of federal statute, maybe pass prohibiting citizens from revealing military secrets to the enemy. Now keep in mind as I'm reading these. Keep in mind what the First Amendment States Congress, shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
So again in time of War, does this mean, a federal statute, maybe past prohibiting citizens from revealing military secrets to the enemy. Question to the president can issue an executive order prohibiting public criticism of his administration true or false? Question. 3, Congress may pass a law prohibiting museums from exhibiting, photographs and paintings, depicting homosexual, activity, true or false. Question for a federal statute can be passed. Prohibiting a citizen from
falsely shouting. Fire in a crowded theater. True or false. Congress may pass a law, prohibiting dancing to rock, and roll music, true or false. Question 6 the Internal Revenue Service, May issue a regulation prohibiting the publication of a book explaining how to cheat on your taxes and get away with it. True or false. Question 7, Congress may pass a statute, prohibiting flag burning true or false and he says, thank you.
You may now read on, however, he doesn't address this but every single one of those questions deals with a Supreme Court case that actually came before the bench.
And so, these fact patterns are not fact, patterns that he's actually making up. So the great, the great lesson that he's trying to illustrate here, something that I mentioned before that you learn in one of your first two years of law school and in his paper, he gives an example about maybe your first year constitutional law class and you're discussing one of your first cases and the professor asks you a hypothetical question. And the example that John has
misgives. There are two students and each student gives a different answer, but each student is able to back up their answer with a with, you know, well-reasoned precedent from case, law. And is able to interpret the facts in a way that supports their conclusion in their position. And the big lesson is is that you know, who is right, who is right of those two students that both give different answers to the same question posed by the
professor. The answer is that they're both rights, even if their viewpoints are diametrically opposed. And the thing that John has since is trying to illustrate, is that there is no objective, correct answer in the law, and I actually have a standing joke with my in-laws because they will someone will pose a question a legal question to me, because I'm the lawyer in the family and my answer is always.
It depends. And when you say, it depends it's because while there is no correct answer, really depends on what the facts are and who is arguing the facts and what precedent that they're relying on. So, down at the bottom, John has this sums. This answer up succinctly. He says Double think as as proposed in Orwell's 1984 is to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them. He says this double thing.
However, in no way prevents people from simultaneously regarding the law, as a body of definite politically neutral rules, that are amenable to an impartial application, which all citizens have a moral obligation to obey Because people in their mind, the average person has this idea that laws are just that if laws are unjust, they shouldn't be a law. Now this this takes for granted. The fact that the law is something that is above every one.
That is subjective that it has an application that is consistent in all aspects, that whatever the word of the law is that is what the result will be in that the statute governs what the outcome is. And that simply is not true and it's very easy to demonstrate that in. A lot of people will know this just from their basic experience if you've ever actually We interacted with the law or been a part of the court case or any kind of procedure like that.
So that is the the general rule that John has nests illustrates in the myth of the rule of law. All right, with that understanding of the myth of the rule of law. Let's get into the Socialist constitution of the democratic People's Republic of Korea. This is the North Korean Constitution. Now. It might seem like, well, this is low-hanging fruit. Criticizing the government of North Korea.
The point is that it's so easy to think of people in what we regard as totalitarian societies as total idiots. Who Leave in some leader for no reason. They're just so delusional. I could never fall fall for any of that. All they are is either hateful or ignorant. Well, there actually is a science to getting 20 plus million people to blindly obey
your arbitrary edicts. So it's important to learn how this comes about and I figured one of the best ways to do that is focus on the first 22 articles of their constitution. The whole constitutions like 195 is just no time, 27 Pages small
print. So Patrick McFarland the attorney and I are going to go through all of these starting with chapter 1 of the Constitution, the political realm Article 1 says, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an independent socialist State representing the interests of all the Korean people Patrick. What are your thoughts on Article 1?
Well, when you first start out in, you try to create a constitution, most founding documents, try to say, where the power, where the government derives its power. It's this idea of sovereignty is the concept of the ultimate political power, where it resides in a country, and the Preamble of the, the North Korean Constitution talks, a lot about the, the great leaders, and that's where the power comes
from. And so, in the first article, they're Going about what kind of government that they're creating and what is the purpose of the government. And right out there? I think it this kind of reflects this idea of like a socialist state where it's collectivist, essentially is what it is. Is, it's representing all of the Korean people. Now, funny enough, the United States Constitution also refers to the power coming from the people. We the people. So it's a little bit of a pair. There.
I mean, you use it for two different ends. The end result is different, but we're at least ostensibly. It's supposed to be different, but it says, right there. It's developing an independent socialist State, and it's supposed to be representing, all the interests of the interests of all the Korean. People. Does it do that? What do you think? That would be pretty difficult? It's hard enough to know what's in the interest of myself in the short run and the long run.
And let alone me and a neighbor or me and my community or million 20 million strangers. I think that's a pretty unlikely read article, 24 us. So, Article 2 says, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a revolutionary state which has inherited the brilliant Traditions formed during the Glorious revolutionary. Struggle against the imperialist aggressors and in the struggle to achieve the liberation of the Homeland and the freedom and
well-being of the people. And just right off the bat. This is something I noticed in the rest of the document is this idea of Revolution. And something that is akin to socialist, or communist countries countries that aspire to that state is that it's about recreating traditions in a revolutionary struggle against an oppressor, but recreating Traditions mean, meaning Reinventing the what it is to be human. Reinventing the man. Like the new socialist, man. Yeah, anytime struggle is
mentioned. You're you're sort of signaling to people. We have this common enemy in in relation to one another. This is what binds us is the struggle against the bourgeoisie, the imperialist aggressors, who they mainly say in the works of Kim il-sung. They'll say the Japanese imperialists.
They'll also frequently mentioned the American imperialists and That the idea of liberation, of course, assuming that Liberation means you no longer have the right to freely contract with what with people either way, notice how the word struggle and Liberation are used to pull at your heartstrings without ever giving you an explicit explanation of
what of what these things mean. They later go on to explain what services you'd be entitled to when it comes to the concept of Imperialism. Well, of course, it's no different Washington. D.c. Enforcing. Its views on Arizona, then Britain imposing, its views on Nigeria or Ghana or the Ivory Coast. It really is unbelievable. How they can, how states are able to criticize other governments for exactly what they're doing.
Most recently, China came out and said the US killing civilians under the Of democracy will no longer be tolerated. And it's at first, it's like, well, what are you going to say? Of course, s, the Communist Party of of chairman now, dude, did they kill anyone? In the struggle against I check? Or was that just a peaceful transition of power? Of course not. So, just as its imperialist for China to control Taiwan Washington, d.c. Controlling Arizona. It's just as imperialist for Kim
jeong-hoon or Kim il-sung. Sung to violently dominate, the average Korean citizen as rothbard greatly points out that you can always have this principle of secession until you get down to the individual. Why shouldn't we have a world government? America? Should secede. Well, then certainly Arizona should be able to see to secede and then, well, Phoenix should be able to secede and then you get down to the individual level. My final comment on.
And this is the longest. I'll go on on any of them. Is this concept of tradition? Something that I think we might Overlook here is dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson on tradition. It is however a sophomoric error to claim. That tradition is merely a Sentimental attachment though. This is precisely what mainstream social science holds tradition, rather concerns itself with the moral and social stability in that.
The rationality of the ages. Is crystallized and reduced to the level of the masses for their. Internalization. In short, the internalization of moral ideas through tradition is the only way a moral life can be led by anyone. Both for the sake of communal solidarity, as well as the simple fact that in ordinary human being cannot be expected to commit a rational, and logical, ethical analysis for each. And every moral decision. Certainly one note.
The academic is little different, therein lies, the importance of tradition. For the mass of something. I think Libertarians including myself absolutely need to appreciate a lot more going on to article 3. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is guided in its building and activities only by the great. Bye great. Kim. Il Sung Yoon is, MM, and Kim Jong-il is mm. This is a concept called. Jewish ju c, h-- e, the state ideology of North Korea known as Saint ioan Marxism.
Patrick any comments on article 3 before rug going into article for? Yeah. I mean in a way it's kind of a comment on John has in his article. Is you see the the red letter of the law here on on the articles, but those things, you know, they're contradictory and if you if you take it textually in just read it by its regular. Definition. And All of their legal issues should be pretty clear-cut,
right? I mean, like, like the Constitution to give them of the United States about, you know, Free Speech, the First Amendment, it should be pretty clear. The Second Amendment the right to bear arms. And at least, you know, some of those things in the US Constitution, they're not outwardly, they don't outwardly contradict each other per se.
I'm sure you could find some contradictions in the US Constitution, but here, I mean you try and secure some things, but at the same time, the dprk is guided in its building and activities only by the grade Kim, il-sung ISM. Kim Jong-il is mmm. And so that's contradicts pretty much everything else because they can just at their own whim, completely rewrite the Constitution. It would seem article 3 allows that so just by its own diction, but any one quick thing before going in Article 4.
Notice that by The Third Article of what are their, like, 195 in this all together? They're already mentioning people by name. Like, if you're mentioning a constitution, I would think that you'd want to be a sort of impersonal as possible. This, I mean, I I don't think as Washington or Jefferson or George Mason mentioned in any of the American articles, one of the important things is for people to have Heroes. They admire so you can constantly reference these Heroes and pull out the
heartstrings of the masses. You know, it was Winston. Churchill, who once said blank, whatever comes after that. You almost have to believe. I mean the man who defeated national socialism. I believe it was Lincoln's view that we should whatever comes after that again. You got to blindly believe MLK. Rosa Parks. These are people who if you already admire using one of their sentences and construing it in any way that you possibly
can. We'll pull that people's heart strings in such a way that if you just made an argument it would never do. I mean, it's probably more effective to say, you know, Churchill would have wanted X rather than you know, let me cite rothbart's, man, economy and state. Let me read the following 20 Pages. If you just say Churchill said that's going to grab people's attention and grab at their Heartstrings. More than any logical argument.
So, of course, in article 3, it makes sense for them to mention both the, the father, and his first son in in the Constitution. Sorry to interrupt you, please. Anything else on three and then go into four, please. No, no. The kind of dovetail off of each
other. Because article for directly, contradicts article 3, in my view, the sovereignty and we discussed this already, the sovereignty, the ultimate political The ultimate expression of where a political power resides in a given country is here. It says of the dprk resides in the workers. Peasants soldiers, intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise state power, through their
representative organs. The Supreme people's assembly and local people's assemblies at all levels. So if the ultimate sovereignty in the country, lies with the working people, then it can't lie with Jim Kim il-sung or, or anyone else. And I mean, in the western tradition, it really. We have this concept of like the Magna Carta being one of the first expressions of the sovereignty not being absolutely with the Monarch.
And you have like, at least in the western tradition, you have gradually, it goes from the King to the King when he sits with the court and then to the Parliament, and then in the United, State's popular sovereignty with the people ultimately. So this seems like kind of a reflection of it but in its ultimate expression you would think that the sovereignty would lie with the people which sounds like the US Constitution, but we know again John has Nest. That's not exactly what that means.
What the what the interpretation of it because there is no objective interpretation. So the line is workers peasants soldiers, intellectuals and all other working people first. All I know intellectuals, they are the furthest thing from work and you could think of whatever, I'll let that slide. But when you say all other working people so children don't matter or old people who are retired, don't matter.
The disabled, don't matter who are unable to work, isn't this supposed to be the ideology of humanitarianism and caring for the downtrodden. See under libertarianism anything that those groups children, the disabled the elderly, Literally, if they've contracted with someone, they have a right to access resources or people for Mutual Aid Societies, or if people care for their families, there's nothing wrong with caring for these people.
But if I have say a disabled grandmother, and I go to work at the mine, and I come back, and I give disabled Grandma some of my money to buy her food, isn't she then exploiting my labor? So, working people is not only a false, divide it. Not even a productive. One. The goal of course is obviously most people consider themselves working. So how do you, you know, gain legitimacy among the public say, I represent the working masses
home? I consider myself working in America. The the scam is, we need to lift the middle class wages and whatever. Why the metal? Why not the poor and why poor Americans? Why not poor Haitians, are you a xenophobe? Xenophobia is evil? What why? Our national boundaries any different than racial boundaries, of course, it's all fake when it comes to representative organs.
I guess voting for someone is a way to represent them a much better way of representation is allowing people to opt out of funding or associating. The nonsense, you're trying to
push them into. So if you care about representing people, obviously anarcho-capitalism is the way to go Article 5 All State organs in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Real are formed and function on the principle of democratic centralism, which is defined as a project in which political decisions reached by voting processes are binding upon all members of the political party Patrick comments on article. Number five.
Only to bring in article number 6 because again, I think it directly contradicts Article 5 in article for the organs of state power, at all levels from the county, people's assembly to the Supreme people's assembly, are elected on the principle of universal equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. So unless I'm misinterpreting this that doesn't that doesn't describe a system of representative democracy, does it? It sounds to me. Like one man. One vote?
So in that instance, is that everyone liked every single piece of legislation is passed by Universal vote. Because, I mean they obviously have an assembly so our people voting for the representatives who then vote on laws. I know that the system is that ignorant, immoral, lazy people, get as much of an influence as intelligent immoral, ambitious people. That's, that's a real great system. Thanks, but thanks so much for the Revolutionary, struggle. We article 7, I'm sorry what?
Three wolves in one sheep. Voting on what's for dinner? Basically, I know Glenn, Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein voting on what to do with the girl who's walking past them. Yeah, that Seems legitimate. Thanks so much really fighting for the workers out there, not giving though not giving the workers opportunity to opt out centralism. Does that sound very worker-friendly? The average worker will wanting to have to succumb to a ton of
other opinions. He doesn't consent to article seven deputies to the organs of state power. At all levels have close ties with their constituents constituents, and are accountable to them for their work. Work. The electors may recall at any time, the deputies they have elected if the latter lose the trust of the farmer. So close ties with their constituents is important because this is the scam that FDR pulled in order to make the executive branch. So powerful from 1933 to 1940.
Was it like, 44? When, but when he passed away, but the way you do that is by Extending people at your employee in two areas where you're not as directly influential. So, how do I Spy on the CIA offer assistance to all Central Intelligence employees with this new branch of people that I have erected, so they're just going in and they're checking in and they're regulating them and making sure everything's on the up-and-up.
That is the way of in people to be controlled in a way that otherwise would be virtually impossible. How's this one guy? Kim Jang, Hoon. Today in a building going to impose his will on people that thousand miles away. Or I don't know how big Korea is hundreds of miles away who don't have like a smartphone to check the updates. As to what Kim Jang hoon is up to well by having close ties with their constituents.
The It's report to the local. Deputy the local Deputy reports to the county county reports to the dictator, Kim il-sung. That's how you're able to get an eye in the sky and to have eyes everywhere. In a regime is under the guise of saying, I just want to make sure you guys are close. When really, it's the deputies, being spies on the constituents, Patrick any comment on article 7 before going into article 8. Well, let's go into number eight. Should I? I'll read it, please.
The social system of the dprk is a people-centered system under which the working people are the masters of everything and everything. In society serves them, the state shall defend the interests of the workers peasants soldiers. Intellectuals and all other working people who have been freed from exploitation, and oppression, and become the masters of the state and society and respect and protect human rights. So, what does that mean in practice? Keith freaks out from exploitation.
I guess this means that the Marxist form of exploitation is when one owner benefits from the employee of another, this literally means all wives who stay at home and spend money that their husbands earned that they're exploding them and marriage should be outlawed. Internships should be illegal because you don't get money. You universities should be illegal because you don't get paid for the work. You do schools should be illegal because they're making you work
for zero dollars and zero cents. This of course is were to volunteer, work needs to be outlawed because you're you're not getting paid. So you're being exploited, someone's using your labor and you're being compensated zero dollars. So like I guess like giving blood is like the most exploitative thing humanly possible. It's a Body resource, you're
giving away 40 dollars. That's like the ultimate Evil in the Marxist regime, which of course under libertarianism is something to be applauded a voluntary, life-changing exchange, anything else on eight before I go into nine. And of course, the unspoken thing. And I the thing that were heavily implying is that when someone comes in and prevents me from going to school or prevents me from giving blood, Mud, well, that's not exploitation.
That's just, you know, someone looking out for your best interest, right? Is it exactly someone who offers me? Nothing is a proletariat and a comrade, someone offering me products services and a job and a house evil. Exploit Ator God. I wish there was more evil exploitation in the world. Article 9, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea shall strive to achieve the complete victory of socialism in the northern half of Korea by strengthening.
The people's power and vigorously performing the Three revolutions, ideological technological and cultural and reunify the country. On the principle of Independence peaceful reunification and great National Unity. Please comment on nine. There's just so much there. Three revolutions. That's, that's, that's cool. Quite the big order. Yeah. Well again, this is it's what we touched on before. Is that the, the Socialist struggle is recreating things as
they are in a state of nature. Whereas we as libertarian anarcho-capitalist. I think that we have a tendency to prefer people as they are that we don't To recreate people because of that, the Anarchy of production, for instance, or maybe this, this is not quite as in Vogue, but I guess you could, you could make an argument that traditionalism is trying to preserve the status quo in in the way that I guess you could argue that it is the natural state.
So I I support, you know, things being in their natural state, free of undue influence, of course, free of a In to recreate things in a new image. I prefer the natural order is something that I would prefer as a Libertarian, but furthermore reunifying the country on the principle of peaceful reunification in great National Unity. Yes. Article 10 ready for us. Please. The dprk is hold on a sec.
Underpinned by the political ideal ideological, Unity of all the people based on the worker-peasant alliance led by the working class, the state shall revolutionize, all the members of society and assimilate them to the working class, by intensifying the ideological Revolution, and she'll turn the whole of society into a collective United in a comradely way or else. So, you guys have such nerve calling us utopians who just live in this ideological realm
which even by these people. Of course, the Libertarians are called when simply we just want the state to be held to the same standards as any other person or organization with may say, there's going to be ideological Unity between the workers of the world. Remember Kim il-sung ism is specifically seunggeun ISM for Marxism workers of World Unite billions of people are going to be on the same page about something. That is so ridiculous.
It has someone in the same class ever like had a fight about anything have ever gotten to a fistfight have two people in the same class. Ever murdered each other. Has anyone in the same economic class ever raped? Another person in the same economic class or been rude to them. I mean, I don't know. It has anyone in the same economic class. Gasps gotten into a marriage and then divorced, someone who came from the same class as them. Like, they're, they have
irreconcilable differences. They're willing to go through a divorce. This concept of of the class struggle and class Consciousness. Just allows them to say, this is the science. This is the class Consciousness. Anyone, who deviates from this is an enemy which of course we see today in 100 million.
Ways, when, when you and I were younger, it was anyone who doesn't agree with this, you're either with us, or with the terrorists, you're either with us, or you're with covid, you're either with the workers or your, with the booze, Watson who should be put against the wall. So it's partially pulling at your heartstrings and another like a vague threat comments on that. No, I don't think so.
But article 11 goes on and says the dprk shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers Party of Korea. So I mean, You got, you get one choice, essentially you see Patrick, the free markets really bad because there might be monopolies and there might be oligopolies. Also, unrelated the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers Party of Korea. Every every single thing.
They cry about the voluntary sector applies to them tenfold article 12. A state shall adhere to the class line and strengthen the dictatorship of the people's democracy. So as to firmly defended the people's power and socialist system, against all subversive acts to hostile elements at home and abroad thoughts on article 12. The yeah. It's interesting to see, you know, they say the dictatorship of the people's democracy, of course in the vision of King Kim. Seunghee is, mmm.
Is that according to article for article 31 of one of the earlier ones? Yeah, I mean I'm thankful that I wonder what the translation is from the word dictatorship into Korean just because it's a little shocking. Usually the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat as it's sort of been ditched in the later years after the Soviet Union, but this, this looks like it's up to date. Yes. Any concept of people feel That
their ideas are so long. As there are at the front, they should be dictated will even if they are your ideas. You're putting so much power in the hands of a small group who have no incentive to please you, if they do a good job. Well maybe. But if they do a bad job, well, then they end up getting more money and they don't face any
punishment. So, I think anyone should be afraid of a Dictatorship like the greatest thing that the right has had in America, has been Donald Trump who pushed red flag laws, who said that he'd like to take the guns first and do due process recently bragged about the booster shot said he would have taken out fauci, but it would have been a headache from the left. Trump drastically increased spending, but he could even build a wall on the border of a
country that already. Exists at least dictators in the past like expanded their Empires Trump, couldn't build a wall. I mean, don't tell me that you think there's going to be this dictator, who's going to call you on the phone, on a daily basis. Hey, what should I do? Even if your dictator gets in power, they have no incentive to please. You Patrick final thoughts and Article, 13, please. So, the other thing about it is how we say war is the health of the state and Randolph.
Born. That's a quotation from Randolph Bourne. But I think it's exactly true because you look at this and look at a totality a totalitarian system and they Define things as being a permanent revolution and they Define their very existence in justify that existence as defending the people's power and socialist system, against all subversive acts of hostile elements at home and abroad. So again, none of this really To say that the United States system is much better or
preferable. Well, it is preferable the way it played out but these elements all exist and in the United States system, I guess it's just much easier in this system because they say, I mean there are outwardly at War, they're defining document defines them as being at War. So, one question that I have for an attorney, this was Antonin. Scalia's General point about what makes America great and his point is that what makes America great is the checks and
balances. He references. Alexander Hamilton, that needing permission of both the Senate and the house and the executive will be extremely difficult to pass legislation. However, considering that our current shortcoming is too much legislation. This Is a small issue. Overall? So Scalia even went as far as to say the Soviet Union. Almost has a better Constitution than us in a lot of places.
But the reason that we have a better country as we recognize the legitimacy of a division of powers and and a check and balance on the executive, as an attorney. How do you analyze a statement like that? Well, in maybe I should walk back a little bit of what I said, because, obviously, I would much rather live under the United States system. Then the people's Democratic Republic of Korea. The dprk.
It is important to have separation of powers, but it's no less utopian than I guess it's much more utopian than wanting a Libertarian, you know, anarcho-capitalist world because in actuality, I think in effect what you get and part of it. Is has nessa's inside. But what you what you really get is a system that allows and accelerates the despotism. And I think the only thing that really holds it back is our belief that the system's still achieves.
The separation of powers and decentralization. When in fact doesn't and I think we've slowly been getting getting rid of it. And I think the illusion is starting to Fall by the wayside that we live under. Again, like the rule of law, but I think the reality of the situation is kind of being laid bare. And just one one final thought on articles both you can see the same Republicans today who were previously saying, well, you know, it's vitally important that the government have the
right to get the terrorists. So yeah, the NSA is totally legitimate, the FBI and whatever today. You have Steven Crowder Glenn Beck Dinesh D'Souza. Big names in the In the right wing saying look at what they did to the commander and chief they faked Russian allegations against him that he was, you know, some Putin puppet and after two years and millions and millions of dollars Mahler produced nothing. If they could do that to a president. What do you think they could do
to? Like some random guy making 20 40 60 Grand a year. They can totally take everything they can from and who are these subversive people? Well, anyone with ties to the proud boys, and if you're a racist or a white supremacist, Joe Biden recently said the biggest threat we have in terrorism is white supremacy. And of course, anytime anyone commits any action, even if it's a non-white person, it's because they live in a society
controlled by white supremacy. So look at any time, you're going to be in support of something. Imagine you on the opposite end because you will be the second bed. It's politically convenient, Article 13, the state shall maintain the Revolutionary work method of going, among the masses to find, solutions, to Problems by implementing the mass line. And of giving full play to the spiritual strength, and creativity of the masses, by giving precedence to political work. Work with people.
Patrick thoughts on Article 13. Well, the sounds really great. Doesn't it going among the masses to find solutions to Problems by implementing the mass line and of giving full play. So I, yeah, I mean, it's Central planning. I mean, maintaining the Revolutionary work method, again, that's maintaining the the ever-present war. That's the continuous war and turning it upon the People by having Central planning. Let's go amongst them to find solutions to their problems.
You know, I think it's really great e of this woman Adele to get so much to get so much attention. Shouldn't we have a method of going among the masses to find a good singing voices? And how about that, that evil Francis Ford Coppola producing that movie, The Godfather, shouldn't we go among the masses to find movies that the average person would make it look. Genius, comes in many different
forms. Sometimes it's in movie, making, or say, King or coming up with you know, Camille comedic jokes. What percentage of the people are as funny as Chris Rock or Jerry Seinfeld. A brine were getting something like point zero, zero, zero zero one percent. So in the same way, finding a solution of how to increase, communication say, having cell phones, having computers. No one can do what Steve Jobs can or when I say no one, I mean
a microscopic amount. Of people and microscopic amount of people can do what Elon Musk. Did Coming to America as an immigrant and becoming as wealthy as he adds or Ein R, and being a refugee from the United Soviet. Socialist, Republic Coming to America to publish two of the greatest best-selling books of all time. So, no, you're not cool. You're not trendy. You're not equal. If you say going among the masses. Hey everyone on the plane.
Let's vote on how the pile. Should fly now, it's alright, if one person decides nothing there, Patrick final thoughts on 13 and please will you to 14 for us 14, the state shall determine and Lee conduct. The three Revolution red flag movement, and other mass movements. So, as to accelerate the building of socialism to the max red flag movement, I got triggered. I did too. I guess when I hear mass movements, the concept of constantly controlling people is
extremely difficult. So if you can write yourself the blank check of oh, we're just following the Constitution. We're just creating a mass movement. Well, clearly that's your way of working within the populace to have an outcome that you'd like. How do you Get a mass movement against any militia members will don't. Didn't you hear about the excuse me? Evil militia that tried to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer for no reason. This innocent woman. Well, that was actually the state.
It was 12 FBI informants. Well, that is them justifying through article 14, any mass movements. You have to get people to buy into your stuff before you sell it to them. So, how do you get the FBI informants on board? Just refer to the Constitution, you're doing your constitutional Duty and then you threaten them
with something else. So you're both getting the performers to perform the action of doing this fake kidnapping, that that you're doing, and you're justifying yet by referencing the Constitution. So people that would say no that sounds a moral. Well, they've grown up to believe the Constitution is legitimate. So that is how you're able to, that is the value rather.
In conducting mass movements Article 15, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Show Champion, the Democratic National rights of Koreans overseas, and their rights recognized by international law, as well as their interests. Thoughts on Article 15. I just find it really interesting. I guess it goes along with the dprk and their struggle against like Colonial oppressors is the fact that they care about being recognized by. By international law that I suppose.
Maybe that's part of every nation. That's trying to 25. Like every part of every regime that needs International recognition. I don't know. I don't know if the Constitution put any kind of international recognition clause or anything like that in the Constitution. I know that now the Taliban government one of the first things they did was bid for international recognition, but I just think it's funny.
Why we would care about International recognition aside from like the consequentialist point of view because if we don't get International recognition, then I guess other states won't want to do business with us, but do you do business with States, or do you do business with individuals? Do me a favor, read 16 and 17. So 16, the dprk S. Shall let's see the sorry, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the dprk. So guarantee the legal rights
and interests of foreigners in its territory. 17 says Independence, peace and friendship are the basic ideals of the foreign policy. And the principles of the external activities of the dprk. The state shall establish diplomatic, as well as political. Can cultural relations with all friendly countries on the
principles of complete. Equality Independence, mutual respect non-interference in each other's Affairs and mutual benefit the state shall promote Unity with people all over the world, to defend their independence, and resolutely support, and encourage the struggles of all people who oppose all forms of aggression, and interference, and fight for their country's independence of national and class emancipation. Wow, that's a mouthful. Victory statements.
So at the same time that they promote non-interference. They're also talking about Unity across the world for people who defend their independence and defend, and encourage the struggles of all people who oppose all forms of aggression interference. I mean, again, John has this the myth of the rule of law is Libertarians. Talk about non-interventionism all the time. At the same time that we're criticizing. The dprk and we definitely feel sorry for the people who live
under their regime. I would not support their efforts to overthrow the dprk or to fight against it, but at the same time, no here in this paragraph, the dprk is talking about, you know, it's the same thing. The United States has talking about preserving individual liberty, and freedom. With aggressing and interfering with other countries. So these are contradictory statements in this paragraph, of course, equality. So Kim Jung, hoon is pretty much equal to the other 20 million.
North Korean citizens. He can't do anything that they can't do. Sometimes they pass laws, and he has to abide by them. And sometimes he passed laws that other people have to abide by, its totally equal. That there's not one equality. There's no Inequality their independence, of course, if a million Koreans want to be independent from supporting the state did they recognize that? Well, if Independence is a value, surely, they would recognize that as legitimate mutual respect.
Is it respectful to not give someone the dignity that they have the freedom to disassociate with you? If they don't want to march in your communist army parade? Is that Legitimate, if they want to trade with South Koreans, or Americans or people in China or Japan. Without the state's consent is that we respected non-interference. Of course, the the joke just writes itself, does the state interfere with the people, of course, can the people interfere with the state?
No, that's evil terrorism and subverting the worker's Paradise. All nonsense article, 18 few more to go here. The law of the dprk. The wishes and interests of the working people, and is a basic instrument for State Administration, respect for Law and strict adherence, to, and execution of it is the duty of all institutions, Enterprises organizations and citizens. The state shall perfect the system of socialist law and promote the Socialist law-abiding.
Life, Patrick thoughts on 18 before going into chapter 2, the economy. Well, What is the Socialist law-abiding life? I mean, John has this put that forward. We already kind of went over that in part the beginning of this episode. So it's impossible to follow. Please read chapter. The second section is chapter 2. The economy start us off with Article 19. The dprk relies on socialist relations of production and down the foundation of an independent
National economy. Yep, socialist relations of production. I guess would be the people owning the means of production, and if I own them, I'd have the right to contract my labor for them, which means employers and the booze y z are a legitimate institution so far as their arrived at through, voluntary exchange and original appropriation. Again, we've already answered this this earlier. Any thoughts on 19?
Nope, 20 in the dprk, the means of production are owned by the state and social and social Cooperative organizations. So I thought that was interesting, Keith. I don't, I don't know what they're referring to by social Cooperative organizations. Is that like a worker Co-op? Privately-owned worker Co-op? I highly doubt it. If you read The Works of Kim il-sung, it would be any organization that acts in the interest of the workers. So they totally take out who the actual owners are.
And they, they attempt to prescribe intention to the people, which, of course, gives you a blank. A blank check because if you're worried about the intentions, well, isn't everyone? Ultimately self-interested. Isn't that evil Henry Ford? Just wanting to make money isn't evil. Andrew Carnegie. Just wanted to make money off steel and the terrible Jeff Bezos trying to make money off books.
Well, yeah, but in doing so they make so many millions of strangers lives, better and doing so that it might as well say, this is done in the interest of the customer or done in the interest of employees of all the Walmart employees, aren't they benefiting aren't they getting an? Come and a steady job that they can build their future resume on. So isn't that benefiting them?
So, the concept of that, that it's owned by and by it's owned by a certain group, and the ownership is Guided by the intention to increase the well-being of a certain demographic, allows you to basically have anything fill in for, for that interest. It's in the interest of the worker. Well, whatever. The word Chris interests are can basically be unlimited and you can prescribe to them more or less more or less anything Article. 1 is a again, complimentary 220.
The property of the state belongs to all the people this one's longer, but I want to break this down just because this matters as far as intellectual property goes, when it comes to IP. Let's say we take the the book man, economy and state. That the me, see, A sensor to tube allows you to download the PDF for free. If one person or 1 billion people download that book, the physical Integrity of that book has not been diminished.
Assuming we're talking about say my copy man economy and state with power and Market. However, let's say we have an automobile. If I want to drive it from Las Vegas to San Diego and Patrick wants to drive it from Las Vegas to Lincoln Nebraska, we cannot both have these things. This is a conflict of interest, not just a difference. Whereas, in the first case. It's a difference of Interest.
I want some people to have a copy of others want, others either way, the physical Integrity of my book has not been changed by people sharing the PDF, with one person, or a billion, people with this car, with tangible property to belong, to all the people. Is to more or less say the majority rule and the majority by every metric or ignorant.
So this isn't anything to brag about this is worse than some people owning it and then providing it to others in mass or at a large scale through a profit incentive Patrick. Any thoughts on things belonging to everyone later on in the Constitution they talk about Private property, and they actually Define what private property is, and they allow private property. However, I think de facto. I talked about this earlier, natural order to facto.
You can Outlaw private property as much as you want, but humans, have evolved to have a concept of private property or else, everything falls apart, and people die, and starve, and mass mass numbers. And I'm talking Mass numbers larger than What they're currently starving and dying under a North Korea. Article, 21 continues. There is no limit to the property, which the state can own again. I can't stress this enough.
They constantly say the bhujbal Ozzy has too much power in the hands of too few while they want the government. The mass murdering psychos to own, literally, everything and literally everyone 21 continues all natural resources.
Railways are Transit service, post and Telecommunications establishment as well as major factories and Enterprises ports, and banks of the country are owned solely by the state Monopoly. Again, the state jail protecting develop, on a preferential basis State Property, which plays the leading role in the economic development of the country. Are there any other ones that you Delighted that was the last. The last one that I read through.
I think the last thing we should touch on is private property right there article 24. Private property, is property owned and consumed by individual citizens. Private property, is derived from socialist distribution, according to work done. And from supplementary be benefits, granted by the state and Society, the products of individual sideline activities, including those from Kitchen Gardens as well as income from other legal economic activities. Also have shall also be private property.
The state shall protect private property and guaranteed by law the right to inherit it. So what do we what do we think about that? Keith? It doesn't give us anything specific for us to base and an ideology on either people have the right to contract their private property out or they don't or the state has an extra say in, in everything else. I guess I'd have to read that. A number of times is owned and consumed by individual citizens.
So all I have to do to write Lyon, something is to Stickley increase my consumption or distribution. One of the things that Marxist will say is anything that you can't defend yourself. You can't have, you know, Bezos in forcing millions of contracts. That essentially is a state. So anything that you can't defend yourself is not really yours. Well, this, of course, again as my previous answer leaves out Children, the disabled, the Elderly, even the week.
And of course, will were called evil social darwinist who don't care about the downtrodden, derived from socialist distribution, according to work done. So again, I guess if you can't perform any work, you don't isn't that what they're always accusing us of it? Capitalism is work or starve. Well, this is explicitly. You get property according to work, you do.
Supplementary benefits granted by the state and Society of products of individuals, sideline activities, including from those kitchen Gardens, as well as income. Why did they specify kitchen Gardens of of everything as well as income from other legal economic activity? Why would they have to specify legal? Because either things are legal and the workers decide to do. Do them or they're illegal either way. It's the workers wanting to engage in the black market.
Isn't this, a workers State? Isn't that a represent representation of what? I, the worker would like to engage in? Who are you the state to tell me what's legal and illegal, find the worker. I call the shots. She'll also be private property, the state shall protect private property and guaranteed, of course, so they limit it to trivial nonsense and say, That is protected. That's pretty much.
That's pretty much all I have on that except for the kitchen Gardens. And I think that point is very important because they have to allow people to grow their own food for their own consumption again, or else. People will die in large numbers. So there has to be some protection for, you know, individual consumption of food or else, you know, the supply chain issues in the Learning leads to mass starvation.
Thank you to everyone for sticking with us for but for more than or close to 90 minutes here for watching. Keith Knight. Don't fret on anyone in the libertarian Institute. Patrick, brother. Thank you for your time as always. Yeah. Thank you.