The COVID Regime Rests on Mind Control. Patrick Smith & Keith Knight

Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in the libertarian Institute. Joining me. Today is Patrick Smith of disenthrall Patrick. How is it going brother? Oh man, it's good. It's always good to be back on your show. I enjoy every conversation that I've had with you today. I'm looking forward to another one though. I must apologize in advance for my unpolished turd like

appearance. I was told specifically though that if I didn't Rock and Nick Beard, at least once in a while, I couldn't call myself a Libertarian. So I apologize. But Such hi Karen. I think that's why we're not seeing the growth that we absolutely deserve too many. Too. Many hurdles. People have to jump over to to be on our Squad. We're shading. Yeah, really? Where is the best place to find your collection of work? Disenthrall dot me is the

website. You can find all of our platforms and links and content and most everything. We do on all of our channels there. Isn't it? Cool. How nice? Is getting and how user-friendly it is. And how float is getting better every day. Let me tell you how awesome it is. Yeah, I'm doing a stream tomorrow. And for the first time I had the ability to schedule a live stream out in advance, so that people aren't sitting there waiting not knowing when it's

going to start. It's like one of the final pieces of their streaming puzzle that they're putting together. It's getting so good. I'm talking to Stephan kinsella tomorrow on intellectual property and I was able to schedule the stream. So I'm super excited. Let's get into some of the things that well at first glance seem very philosophical and rather esoteric. I think they are the general Bedrock assumptions that allow things like the covid regime the war on terror.

The world wars the regulatory State. I think these basic assumptions make us so much worse off and because they almost go unexamined to a to a large extent. So let's start with James. Since work in Federalist number 51, it's quite a long paragraph. But here is the vitally important sentence, but what is government itself? But the greatest of all Reflections on human nature, if men were Angels, no government

would be necessary. If Angels were to govern men, neither external, nor internal controls on. Government would be necessary. How do you get into that mindset? Give it? It sort of Steel, Man, that concept and then refine it. I mean it's sort of self refuting logic like men are evil. Therefore we need government. But who do we have other than men to run this government? And if men can you know I have this capacity for evil then. How are we going to possibly have this governed government

thing? Govern Us in an evil way especially because the evil are attracted to the power of government. So it's almost like if anything, the only useful thing that government could possibly be would be Honeypot to catch all the Psychopaths and just like anybody that tries to get involved with government. We put their name on a list and then sort of disassociate from them. Well get. Could you imagine being like Madeleine Albright or Henry? Kissinger is a big new Pierzynski.

They came from like all over the globe to come to America and they were able to tyrannize people in such a way that they never would have been able to in the absence of a state apparatus. I mean, is Bad as CEOs, can be in the free market, which they absolutely can have. They still can't take a dime out of my pocket, unless I voluntarily give it to him. So it almost like it takes this evil and it channels it in a much more productive way.

Of course, there's still shortcomings and everything. But if we're against people having power, why do you think that people just refuse? They can write these big books on very big topics, but they just don't differentiate between social. Economic power, and political power, voluntary, power, and violent power.

I mean, I think we talked about this before, maybe not, but I firmly believe that it's their parenting, because we're brought into this world in a power structure in a hierarchy where our parents sort of rule over us for a number of years and most parents rule over their kids. In a very matter of fact, it is what it is. It's right. Because I say, so do what I say because I told you to sort of Paradigm that's the relationship that most people have with their

parents for. Most of the beginning of their life. And so it just makes sense, then that simply because they get a little bit older and become adults that they won't still expect that to be how the world works. And so when they're no longer, sort of under the direct control of their parents, they still

have a built-in innate. Sort of subconscious expectation that there needs to be some parental figure out there, still telling them what to do and controlling them and saying, do as I say, because I said so. So the government naturally fills sort of their parents shoes, which is one of the reasons why I spend so much time talking about parenting and principled parenting and how to create a free Society in your

own home. That way your kids will grow up to not have that subconscious expectation of being ruled. There is one critique of the freedom position that I've started to hear more from monarchists or people who Advocate, national socialism, which is that in order for one to give orders one must learn to follow orders. Another words, don't be thinking that, you know, how to run, so many things, you need to sort of submit to the government and maybe you could later occupy government positions.

Once you have more wisdom, but to Think that I don't have to abide by the law that has been around for so long. It's kind of uppity, kind of arrogant and selfish. How do you respond to that? Generally, the older a person was or is or the longer ago. They lived the less right? They were about things. So this like, default position that we have that ancient wisdom is somehow special or deserves different simply because it's been around a while.

I mean, never tear down a fence until you know, why it was built. But once you know, I was built, if it needs to go, it needs to go like just because it's an old fence, doesn't mean you got to keep it around. Hopefully I used enough analogies there to make the point, but I guess you know, so just because a lot of people have been. Taught over a long period of time to see a just Authority where it doesn't exist.

Does not prove. That that Authority is just and it on a pain upon a re-examination. And, and a reanalysis we can say. Oh, hey look, there was actually nothing there. People, people thought there were witches for 100 years and they did Terrible Things based on that knowledge and then one day knowledge improved and we no longer burn people at the stake for being witches. It's the same kind of thing. We learn as we go, we correct our past mistakes.

We we fill in the holes in our knowledge and certainly Authority. And the fact that it doesn't rightfully come from anywhere as one of those things that I think we're on the Forefront of trying to teach people, right? Well, it also assumes that because I don't like this order Giver called the government doesn't mean I don't ever follow anyone's. Whatever just means I have like some basic criteria because all I do every time when I get that is I always issue them a number of orders.

Sometimes. I'll tell them to give me a fourth of their income. Sometimes. I'll tell them to work on the cover of the book that I'm planning on writing because it needs work. And then I say, well look, but before you start giving orders learn to follow orders, it's like they don't have, they have the no criteria for the state, you just Just have to blindly

follow their orders. But if anyone else has something very reasonable well that they should be able to opt out of if they don't like well that that makes everything else. You said invalid they have this blatant double standard speaking of double standard here is Alexander Hamilton saying more or less the same thing, but from a different angle.

He says why he has government been instituted at all because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and Justice without Ranked people are ignorant. We need a state. How do you respond? I would respond by using almost as exact words. Why on Earth would you think we would need a government instituted? At all? The passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and Justice without constraint.

I don't, I guess that problem. That part wouldn't go because you can't expect the bad guys to contrary to constrain themselves, which is kind of the point. He says that would be my first response. Like, how can you possibly Institute a government?

Because the passions of men aren't going to conform to the dictates of reason and Justice and then he says without constraint, but the constraint would have be wrapped up in a justice system that the passions of men are not going to conform to and we have like 200 years of evidence that they don't do that. Like the Constitution is a joke now because the passions of men don't conform to the dictates of

the Justice, it provides. I'd love to tell Alexander Hamilton. Appreciate King George, the third hate him, but also appreciate him. You got no clue. What's in store. We get Woodrow Wilson FDR. I mean, just so many things that that came. After Hamilton said, we are now forming a Republican government. Real Liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government, what's wrong with being moderate?

Well, he left out the actual opposite of the things he was talking about. The, the options are not despotism and moderate government. The options are despotism and freedom, and he stopped kind of halfway in between there with moderate government. That's the problem with that statement. It assumes that the out, the Overton Windows border is moderate government and despotism, which is obviously not the case. Like you have to justify any governments at all. That's a justify forcibly.

When people, Sorry, God, I was just gonna say that is just, it's such a beautiful false dichotomy. I'm gonna have to start using that. You want to give me a hundred dollars or a thousand dollars. Fine. Let's keep it at 100. Well, okay. I've got you from 0 to 100. What a brilliant. What a brilliant way to achieve my hands. Finally Hamilton. There can be no true or principle than this that every individual of the community at large, has an equal right to the

protection of government. We need government as a tool. To achieve equality. How do you respond? I guess I would just say that. You you shouldn't try and force services on people. Like what if they don't want the protection of the government. Are you saying that? Just because they have an equal right to it? That you have a right to force it down their throat, if they don't want it. Like where does that even come from? Just saying things like man.

I wish I lived back. Then I would have loved to a debate. Some of these guys, I would have been in the antique, Anti-Federalists Camp, obviously, but yeah, this this would have been a fantastic debate. I would have loved to have heard him expand on that specifically. I found the origin of the quote. It's not like he defends it or anything. It's much more of the an obvious Axiom. But I mean government provides education is everyone equally educated they provide protection.

So everyone equally protected, certainly not government provides a regulatory state in order to keep us safe. Well, what happens is they end up benefiting some at the expense of Sirs, so simply declaring, even if I thought equality was something good in and of itself. Why would I want a monopoly that I can opt out of funding? That would be like the worst way to achieve whatever I wanted to get, get my hands on and what incentive to innovate and no

incentive to lower the price. And why would I want an equal right to the protection of an organization, governed by men whose passions keep them from? Conforming to reason and just exactly the guy who risks his life in a duel with Aaron Burr. He got, you know, people are just too too passionate that they don't use enough reason and I had been blown off because of my ego. Yeah, just unbelievable.

Or, you know, it's like George Bush saying people out there are spreading false theories about, you know, what goes on in the world as he's like, saying, well, Saddam had his Intel agencies and Prague meet with Mohamed Atta who did 9/11 and they're shipping yellowcake from Niger to Iraq. It's like that. While they can sometimes have a good point about their opposition. It always applies to them tenfold. He acts too bad that passion. Sometimes takes takes over

people saying recently. Yeah. I heard a saying, recently, the his fit so many situations. It's confession through projection, like what they say. Doing is actually what they're doing. What that what attributes they're putting on. You actually their attributes every time. Any final thoughts on those? Before we move on to questions for free market. Moralists know, I'm ready for questions man. I'm ready for I'm ready for this

Rousey and nonsense. So the author ah, Mia Sara vaison opens with the concept of the veil of ignorance. Now, it's important to mention that humor has made the point. That this is like the most influential political work in the English language in the last hundred years. So that's why it's so important to tackle. Even though Rawls isn't brought up by politicians.

So, you know, but all the time so many of with the exception of probably Russo Rawls is much much to be the influence when it comes to a lot of presumptions around the ideas of economics. And what is just the author says in 1971, John.

Published a theory of Justice, the most significant articulation and defense of political liberalism of the 20th century, Ross proposed that the structure of a just Society was that was one that a group of rational actors would come up with if they were operating behind a veil of ignorance that has provided, they had no prior knowledge.

What their gender age, wealth, talents, ethnicity and education would be in the imagined Society since no. Who would know in advance where in society they would end up rational agents would select a society in which everyone was guaranteed basic rights, including equality of opportunity, thoughts on John, Rawls and the veil of ignorance. Okay, I'll start by saying that his work.

If I was to summarize would really come off like he started with what he wanted, which was some forms of socialism. And then he tried to back into a philosophy to sort of justify it and to evidence that claim. I will point out that he doesn't ever even get far enough. Back down to foundational, philosophy to address, David Humes work and Humes law.

The Humes Guillotine, where you have to Get a knot out of an is you have to get a declarative statement about what should be from a statement about what exists in reality. He doesn't even get that far. He just stops at this part where, where, where, he sort of declares, almost baselessly that we should construct a moral framework and behave. As if we could be born into anybody at anytime in place.

Just sort of just sort of It's that without really building an argument up behind that from first principles or at least to tell us how he gets around Humes Guillotine or Humes Loft right for Duma to go into I guess I could Define that for people that aren't aware its kind of you can't get a not for man is that means you can't look at something in reality and somehow glean from that a statement about what should be. So we can't say the sky is blue. Therefore I should wear blue

sunglasses. Like there's nothing in nature. Sure, that makes a statement about what kind of sunglasses I should wear. All we can say about nature is that the sky is blue. My behavior. And what I do is based on my personal goals and what I want to have happen in my life and what I personally value, which is all subjective. He just kind of skipped over that entire layer of philosophical foundation work and moves directly to what he thinks.

This he collectivize is literally everyone and then declares how Every single member of that Collective would want to exist. But if you watch and this is, this is a, this is a fair quote in this article from his actual work rational agents would select a society. That's actually the, a big key to this equation. If you disagree with what he thinks, every member of that Collective would want your just irrational, That's the argument. If you don't agree with them, you're not in the group of

people, we call rational. So your opinion is dis dis discarded. So I guess that would be, my summary intro about rawlsian ISM and his work. Yeah. I also think the existence of gambling, sort of throws, quite the wrench in Roz's worldview, like, well, if you know, people would just want basic guaranteed safety and all this other stuff. First of all, if you want guarantees, make sure You can opt out of funding Bad actors because there are no guarantees in this world.

Just as Government controlling education. Again, doesn't mean everyone is educated, but maybe people would risk, but would put quite a bit of risk. In what life, they would, they would end up living. I don't think it's so clear that everyone would just want a welfare state where no one fell through. Well, what if I couldn't really achieve my ends, what? If I wanted to sort of roll the dice, well, we have every reason to believe that people would engage in a high degree of risk.

Because when I drive by the Indian Reservation, it's always full with cars. It's illegal to gamble in Arizona. Unless you're like, in this small area. It's okay act. It was the first place during Brett. The rational people would want that show's over. Thanks everyone for watching. Forgot. The rational people were against me. Yep, guaranteed equal. Give opportunity requires substantial access to resources, shelter, Medical Care,

education, roses. Rational actors would also make their society, a redistributive one ensuring a decent standard of life for everyone. So, he just completely ignores the problem of there being a moral double standard. I mean, Patrick and disenthrall get to steal from everyone. So long as a microscopic percentage go towards providing people with shelter. And Medical Care.

And I mean yes in 1974 Robert nozick countered with Anarchy State and Utopia. He argued that a just Society was simply one that resulted from an unfettered free market. Isn't that nice? How the strawman even even from the wisest minds? They can't even give us the credibility. It what Rawls is quote is from From Anarchy State and Utopia is his General opposition to

statism or a socialist society. He says, the socialist society would have to forbid capitalist acts between consenting adults. So he says, yeah, there are absolutely downfalls to this system of free up a free market. In friendships. There can be bad, Friends, free market and marriages, there could be bad marriages, but we still shouldn't out. All acts between consenting adults. If they're in the economic realm, if goods and services and

money are involved. There's no, there's no principle difference. How do you respond to unfettered free market? Well, it's almost a double strong, man because I believe nozick was for a night Watchman State. He, which is a Min Arc am in our Chasm, which is a fettered free market by his own. Definition like there's some feathers in their minimal Fetters, but there's still some feathers. So I guess that's the first thing I'd point out.

Is that the other thing I'll point out is more of a theme of this whole article. I'm sure you're linking in the description. But anybody reading this will see that most of her conclusions that she draws starting. Now is just sort of one of obvious disdain. It's an appeal to Common Sense which which is a mirror of Rawls work. If you don't agree, you just not rational, should you just don't have this common sense that I have. You must have been behind the veil. I was behind the van.

Yeah. Yeah. So so knows. It has a great example of Wilt Chamberlain. He goes. All right, socialist. Let's give you everything you want. Everything is equal. As far as outcome goes Wilt, Chamberlain, the great basketball player is able to produce a good or service that is in high demand and others freely pay him for that. Get our service. Then he is entitled to his riches, any attempt to redistribute his wealth.

So long as is earned through free-market exchange is no success forced labor thoughts on the Wilt Chamberlain analogy and forced redistribution. I don't like how the the word entitled is used throughout Rawls work and as well in this article, I mean, I guess I take issues with the weird stuff. So you have me on your show. I'm gonna give you my dick

right? And so the product The problem that I have with this, is this word entitled, it sort of flips, the burden of proof for justifying actions, like one does not have to justify to you. What he is entitled to own, you would have to justify pointing guns at somebody to take it from him. So, by using this concept of entitled throughout this article, I think it puts it puts the people that shouldn't be on the back foot on the back foot.

That's the first. Yeah, that's my response there, but The I guess to speak more directly to the example of the basketball player. You, you have to show. I mean, you can show and you can evidence this, by the fact that he makes a lot of money that a lot of people in small amounts in the aggregate value, his ability to play this game more than they value that large amount of money. Otherwise, they wouldn't have voluntarily given it to him.

And so, to sort of elbow your way into this free exchange between people that are enjoying, they want to and you their money because they want to see this guy perform. And this guy wants to perform and once that money to just like Jan your ass in the middle of that thing and say no no, sorry. This is too unbalanced. In my opinion. Y'all y'all mf'er is need to quit it and you know, these are guns right like that. That's barbaric and stupid and irrational and not common sense. Checkmate.

So the author says societies today, in the west tend to be more rawlsian than no zakian, but since the 1970s they have become steadily more, No, zakian Such creeping changes as the erosion of the welfare state, the privatization of the public sphere and increased protections for corporations. Go along with a moral world view, According to, which the free market is the embodiment of Justice the rising of zakian.

Inking concedes coincides with a dramatic increase in economic inequality in the United States over the past five decades, the top 1% of Americans saw their income x two hundred and seventy-five percent in the period from 79 2007. While the middle 60% saw only a 40% increase. She then bashes the Republicans, you know, those know Zeki and Republicans. Who always shrink the government

drastically. Okay? Yeah. When she Of course, no Citation, for, since they have become steadily more in those icky and cutting the welfare state by every metric. The state has grown both in by every measure, unless I am in Eastern Europe behind style, crew. Chiefs wall. I think government has drastically increased. How if you had to just say on your feet to expose that lie to someone, what would you say? I would just ask them to evidence exactly what you said

name an area of government. That's actually gotten smaller. Name the number of government organizations that existed in 1970 and name the number of government organizations that exist today on its face. It's going to be a lot more. The numbers are higher than the expenditures are astronomically higher. The number of employees, astronomically higher, the number of regulations higher like every metric, just show me something.

Put the burden of proof where it belongs on the person making the claim. This is full of shit. Prove it. I mean, it's absurd kind of cousin. I apologize. Even Nixon. Of course, even Nixon at the time was engaging in price controls in August of 72. He took the final step to remove the gold standard from backing. The US dollar. What this was, was The Ultimate Green Light to the Federal Reserve to print as much as you

want. Because if you have to gain your power and position, well, you mostly would get it through money, through taxation, but I know that you can just print an unlimited amount or increase the digits in any account. You'd like, according to the modern monetary theorists which show cake. They're right about, it's not

actually printing dollars. But this is the ultimate green light for, for the tyrants of the world, or even if you just think they're all well, kinda meaning well-meaning, kind people. This is like the greatest system of inequality, that you can provide. We need a monopoly on the currency and it's just Patrick. Of disenthrall. How is there anything equal about you getting to print money at will and if I print it or even sometimes use alternative currencies, like the guy with

the liberty dollar? Well, he goes to jail. Well, I mean that is the most unequal system you could have. So to say that, well, there's been inequality between the one percent and the rest of us. Yeah, the I don't get Federal Reserve checks in the mail that the Isn't sent to me first. It's usually the big Banks and the 1%, This is just, this is just unbelievable. So I guess the last part before the questions is inequality exists as a cause of result of the free market inequality is bad.

Therefore, the state should redistribute outcomes. In order for there, not to be such a power. Differential among the citizenry where some can basically hold the others hostage. I think in equality exists as an effect of inequality that exists. So, people are not the same desires are not the same. Demand is not the same value is subjective. IQ is different between everyone starting conditions, parenting,

psychological damage. You just like there's, there's a long list of ways that everyone is different. So, out of that inequality, you Say, oh no, when we let all these in equal, people interact voluntarily and absent coercion that somehow that free interaction is what causes the unequal outcomes known of All Things based on reality, which is unequal. Everybody is different.

Everything is unequal. Capitalism that I said this recently on Twitter and triggered, a couple people capitalism runs on inequality, inequality is the fuel for Capitalism and just to summarize without going into a long tirade when you have two people, one has money and a demand for something and the other one has a product and a demand for money. That's inequality between those

two people. One has more money than they want and not enough product and the other one has more product than they want and not enough money. Capitalism feeds on that inequality makes those people closer together economically and in terms of Demand, by transferring money and transferring product, reducing inequality, it Kids on inequality, without inequality. It's like running a gasoline engine without gas.

You have to have something that has more energy bound up in it that you can, then reduce an increase, the entropy of to extract energy from to propel your lawnmower. It's, it's a that's capitalism sort of in a nutshell. And this idea that it creates this inequality is absolute nonsense. That's a great point. It's not that it creates inequality, it reveals

inequality that already exists. It's like saying, you know, microphones are really immoral because they create inequality between me and Adele. No, it's not the microphone, creating it, choose a much better singer basketballs are immoral cuz it makes LeBron James and I less equal. No, he's very talented. It's a it's a tool. He uses to reveal this inequality that already exists. So Ability for people to allocate dollars in certain

areas voluntarily. It's just a revealing that the inequality and of course the great point that Hans hop-up makes is that let's say we become a much more politicized Society. Well, it's not like everyone is equally talented in being a politician and getting people to vote for certain things. You what you do is you use things like, write a wreck and ideas to mobilize people. Some are better than others. I'm not as As good as Bernie Sanders, I wish I were or Elizabeth Warren or Mitch

McConnell those again. We see in almost every area. It's like point zero one percent getting 99% of the attention. How many congress people are well known as ALC. She's like, one of the most powerful people on on planet Earth. Unlike any organization you have this sort of iron law of oligarchy in the NBA. It's like LeBron James and Dwyane Wade at the time when I

was in the basket. All like 89 percent of the jerseys were like three guys, even though the NBA has a ton of people, but what percentage of singers are, you know, was successful as Eminem or 50 Cent or Dave Matthews. Well, point zero zero, zero one percent. So we see this inequality and everywhere to blame it on. Capitalism is a blatant lie, and, and I'm just trying to flip that around on its head and say look some of this. Inequality that you're saying capitalism reveals is is a

really good thing. There's a lot of utility Elon Musk recently made a very big splash by saying that you want the people that are best at Capital, allocation to have the capital to allocate and you want the people that are terrible at it government to have less of it. And so it doesn't make any sense to remove capital from the people that have proven themselves to be good at it to have less resources to use towards those good competent ends. So it's yeah, exactly.

And Hayek's point in the constitution of Liberty. Gosh, I wish I, I gotta find this quote because it's something to the extent of inequality allows for there to be this charitable investment on behalf of the self of those, self-seeking of those seeking, their own self-interest. So when the, when phones first come out, it's not like the rich people got together and said we need to make Available for the

masses. So we're going to buy the first cell phones and then we're going to distribute them to everyone. They wanted them. So they purchased them with that money. Some companies got income which they use to reinvest in a product or service in hopes of getting more customers and getting more money by making it available to more people. So it's almost like if you were just watching this from a distance, it would almost look like there's a bunch of rich people who donate.

So So a lot of poor people can have stuff because in the early stages, it's so expensive research and development. It's all there. The it costs so much to get something. It's like a billion dollars to make the first pill but then every pill after that is like two cents because it's just finding that formula. It's getting access to that information of how to

efficiently allocate resources. I mean, whatever is used in this printer, the resources have always been there, but it's someone since the Big Bang but someone Structured them in such a way. And once they found out then it became something that the mass is needed. But in the meantime, there's people who are working on this computer printer and thinking about it and they got to get

paid they have bills as well. So this amount of inequality is actually even beneficial they're still at utilitarian benefit to it, which is always under appreciated and to belabor it even more. Let it cannot be overstated. How few people can do those things. How few people can assemble matter into the form of a printer for the first time almost? No one can do that you. So you don't want to go around robbing from everyone to give to the least competent.

Let's say, or maybe that's a little overstating it but you don't want to reduce the resources from the people that are productive because it's the productive people that have the rare. Acid used to make these things. These products, these services, that improve everyone's life. It's like the way to improve. Everyone's life is to let Capital go to where it is. Most productive rather than to strip it from those people and just give free welfare paychecks

to everybody. The author then goes into the questions for free market more or less. Question. Number one. Is there. Any exchange between two people in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party against another or the threat there of necessarily free? If you say yes, then you think that people can never be coerced into actions by circumstances, that do not involve the direct physical compulsion of another, to use the example of someone

stealing bread to stay alive. Engaging in prostitution, when they're desperately poor, or someone selling their organs, Patrick is any exchange between two people in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party against another or the threat there of necessarily free. Yes. I mean, of course, it depends on how we Define freedom and free, but I mean, certainly using my definition. Yes, I Define free is the absence of thread or coercion by people.

So yeah, that's free. Look. None of us are free from the enslavement to reality and the state of nature. But you can't even I hate even saying it that way because you can't properly call reality slavery. Because reality is what is it's not like an actor that goes around owning people and enslaving them but existence being shitty doesn't justify you enslaving everyone around. You like that's the argument that's happening here. Like we are all stuck in this

existence. This existence includes suffering and it requires constant resistive effort to continue existing that is what is I didn't do that. I'm not, it's not my fault. That's just what is so Is the mother in this example, free? It depends on your definition of the word free from enslavement. Rawls argues for free from the enslavement that Rawls argues for or free to act as she pleases to use her resources and time alive. Whatever way she decides, I would say yes to the second one.

She's free to do as she pleases to use her resources and time alive, and whatever way she decides, she's free from the struggles, inherent to existence. No, no one is We all deal with that. That's everyone's burden to bear. If we want to continue surviving. I guess that's my first comment. And, of course, the it, the

power lies in the follow-up. So you could look at someone in this terrible, vulnerable situation and say is this, is this what we're talking about when we say freedom, is this really the good life and you might say no. So you want a system where they have the most options and the most likelihood of upward Mobility a free market, so What they end up doing is, let's take the rather, you know, vile example, but the reality is selling your organs or

compensating people for their generosity of of organ. Allocation. So here we have situation one, which is I can't pronounce her last name servicing surveillance, and I'm pretty sure it's Indian srinivasan. Srinivasan, okay. So in the, in example, 1, we have Jack and Jill, Jill wants money. Jack needs a kidney and because we live under the rawlsian regime, people cannot be exploited and cannot sell their organs. So Jill dies and Jack, doesn't

get the money or vice versa. I forget who I assigned to, which, in the second scenario, you have the A person who wants the money getting the money, you have the person who needs the organ getting the organ, if you have someone making a decision, whether it's working in a sweatshop terrible. I'm sorry, but that's how South Korea went from poverty to wealth is because they had sweatshops just like America.

And there was no large-scale foreign interference with, with that, but had we said, we need to put South Korea on welfare. Well, then that would not have gotten them as wealthy as they are today. So in this sense, it's not only more efficient of allocating kidneys. To people who need kidneys in money to people who want money, you're looking at a decision that a poor persons making bad job prostitution, selling organs, living in a terrible

slum. Let's say, you're looking at their, their choice, their best option. And you're taking that away, that does not make you a good person. That doesn't make you hip or cool, or Progressive or friendly, you are saying. A person who is in a vulnerable situation. I'm in a make it worse by not letting you do. The one thing that you think is best for you. So it's uneconomic and and it's a moral final thoughts on the concept of positive Freedom. Yeah.

The final thing I would say is just to point out in her example that she sort of philosophizing a Midstream. She's talking about this woman whose children are starving. You know, what got her there and why? Is the reasons that Goddard to that terrible position anybody else's problem in terms of force. Now, granted look you and I are both actually involved in voluntary virtue. 501 c, 3 principled, Liberty, nonprofit

organization to help people. So it's not like we don't care about people that are in bad in bad ways. Right, but we're not talking about voluntary help. We're talking about pointing guns at people to extract resources to forcibly help people. That's what we're talking about here and you can't make other people's mistakes, or accidents or whatever, my problem at the point of a gun. Yeah, I'm trying to remember the example that Larkin uses in the most dangerous Superstition.

I think he says, let's sort of get the modern world out of the way to understand this positive right to say a house. If Patrick and I are hanging out and there's no one around, we're just on an island. What would it mean for us to

have a right to a house? Well, if the house only comes into existence, as a causal result of people performing labor, and I'm entitled to it. Well, then I'm Violating your rights because you don't build me a house and I'm by a leading your rights because I'm not building you a house. So, In This Moment by us just hanging out. We're both pure evil because we're both making each other. We're both making each other homeless and then not serving each other all the time. Yeah.

Yeah. And then s. So, it can't be, you know, applied consistently, but on top of it, it literally means that people own the bodies of other people, which is worse than prostitution worse than choosing to sell your organs. It's A lot more akin to stealing

organs, if I own your body. Well then, if I have a positive right to live, that means everyone with to Ward with two kidneys and two lungs is stealing life from people with the one no kidneys, or they have kidney failure or people who have their lungs removed from smoking. So again, God, I wish I could remember that one because it's good just because Larkin says, it's so beautifully. Is it has a knack for saying things?

Beautifully question. Number two is any free non-physically compelled, exchange morally, permissible. If you say yes, then you think that any free exchange can't beliee, be exploitative, and thus, and moral before, reading the rest of this is this not a bait and switch. It is any free exchange morally? Permissible. You think that if I think the emphasis is on any I think it's is any free exchange morally. Permissible.

That's how I read it because can't you still believe in exploitation look like you could still believe in something as dumb as the labor theory of value and say it's immoral for the man to work and the woman to stay home and spend the husband's money. She's exploiting him. You could still think that's exploitative without thinking. It's a violation of someone's rights. I like can't you still think like some guy is you know, But not very loyal to his girlfriend.

If he cheats on her, you could still think he's being exploitative without thinking therefore the state should monopolize. Arranging marriages, is that not a bait-and-switch or an equivocation rather? It is definitely an equivocation and it's also there's this like, I don't know. The word exploit has taken on this negative connotation. It just means to like fully utilize a resource, which is a good thing.

You want resources fully. Utilized what people really mean when they say exploit is like take advantage of like, oh, that was a poor person in a bad place and they had no choice. And so you got their labor at a really low rate. That's what they mean. Like you're taking advantage of somebody's bad situation and and that's a bad thing. You shouldn't take advantage of people. You should pay people more than you have to because Reasons. I'm just realizing that the authors of this book.

Modern ethics in 77 arguments. They just wanted my money. They've never called me to see how I'm doing. Since I bought the book. They just want my freaking money. That's my labor. They're just wanting my labor overexploited you OMG. Oh, no, you should write a letter suppose that and exploit my labor. Further, the writing a letter takes time, enough is set of a bill for the letter for the exploitation and I'd be nice at sending them.

An invoice, suppose that I inherited from my rich parents a large plot of vacant land and that you are my poor landless neighbor. I owe you the following deal. How are you a landless neighbor? If your lens list, you're not a neighbor. You're just somebody walking around. Sorry. Sorry to interrupt, please continue. Are you the following deal? You can work the land doing all the hard labor of tiling sewing, irrigation and harvesting. I'll pay you $1 a day for a year.

After that. I'll sell the crop for fifty thousand dollars you decide. This is your best available option. And so, take the deal. Since you consent to this exchange. Is it morally? Permissible? It's, it's almost like, did you read? What you wrote lady like you decide, this is your best available option. And so you take the deal. So if this lady thinks it's morally, impermissible to make

that deal. Then you are necessarily saying that he has to take some other option that he found to be less good. What are you doing? You obnoxious obnoxious miscreant. She said she asks specific. Sorry good. I was just going to say see it's important that we listen to people behind a veil of ignorance. It's as far as listening to them in the real world and what they choose to do screw em screw em behind that veil of ignorance. Shut up. I don't want to hear it.

I have much more leeway when I'm not talking about anything in reality. She asked specifically about moral permissibility, and people are going to answer. What is moral based on the philosophy of Ethics that they personally adhere to and there's a million of them as we know according to like, anti subjectivism, which is what I is the philosophy. I am attempting to develop as well as like a lot of libertarianism.

Just general, philosophies to declare an action in moral, is to say that Force may be used against the person, taking that action that you've deemed immoral or evil. In this case to interfere in a voluntary exchange between two, people would be to be the one bringing the force to bear in the situation. You would be starting a fight that didn't exist before you walked in. Again. This is just like what we talked about already before the employment.

And this is, this is insanity before the employment offer was made, the landowner had no obligation according to her and rawlsian ISM before the employment offer was made the landowner had no obligation to his neighbor. At all the burden of proof would be on Rawls to substantiate it which he didn't attempt to By ignoring Humes LA, but let's set

that aside for a second. But suddenly the moment after an offer was made an offer that could have been rejected and wasn't the landowner becomes an immoral villain to serving of like some kind of controlling Force. So like before he ought just made an offer that could have been rejected. Is totally fine and free of any moral obligation and merely by offering. Hey, you want a buck, you know, if you come do this stuff for an absurdly low amount of money. Does that sound good to you?

You want to do it just by saying those words. He's a villain now. It's just do they hear themselves? Well, and she must support outlawing universities because universities I didn't get paid a dollar for going and I put, you know, a year and a half of work. Before I got kicked out of all three you can I work for 4 years, 40 dollars, an hour at best. A lot of people pay thousands of dollars for the privilege to work. So that's what we don't even have to use this. Hypothetical.

We have real-world examples internships. That's a lot of times that people do it. Now. Why on God's Earth? Would someone just work for free? She must, look at this and say you idiots. You're just not doing anything. Well, it's called a Time investment or intellectual capital. All investment to increase the amount of skills. You have to make yourself more valuable. Hey, I'm going to go to different Farms because they're going to see that. I really worked hard at this

other place. I'm going to develop more skills so I can be better in in the long run and there's other people that are going to be bidding against her. What is she? I saw the crop for 50,000 dollars. Well, there's going to be other employers who might want to pay me more. If there's a $1 250 thousand dollar ratio. There's going to be other people who are going one up and the two dollars. It's just doesn't differentiate between that which is wrong. And that what should be

outlawed. I mean, guys who, you know, cheat on their girlfriends and wives, totally horrible. Assuming you have a Agreed upon, you know, monogamous relationship, just absolutely terrible. Nothing to be proud of their but to assume that therefore they should be outlawed and we need a relationship regulatory regime to stop such things from happening is is an absolute

non-sequitur. Also, what is done, you know, he might have taken that deal because afterwards he's going to be experienced in tilling, sewing, irrigation and harvesting, which he could probably charge a hell of a lot more than a dollar for the next year. You know, I make more than a dollar a day every year, and I'm not good in any of those. So, this, this is guy's gonna be rolling in it pretty soon. Well, let's go to internships, right? And what's the word, you know,

from like medieval times. I can't believe I'm blanking on it, but like apprenticeship, like an Ship. Like you're not getting paid, but you're learning and you're building skills. The are going to be valuable to you later. Exactly it. That on-the-job experience. I mean, employers love to look for it. Question number 3, are people entitled to all? They are able and not only what they are able to get through free exchange. So it's all or just some of what are they entitled to?

If you say yes, you think that what people are entitled to is large. Glee, a matter of luck. Let's do let's deal with it right there before going any further are people entitled to all? They are able and not only what they are able to get through free exchange. It's a matter of luck.

American, the entitled work, the entitled word re classifies this discussion in the burden of proof moves like, you know, I don't have to justify owning something you have to justify using Force against me to remove it from me. So on its face like it doesn't even deserve a response. This is so backwards. It presumes that we all have to justify everything that we owned to, you know, some collective or just some veil of rational people like It's just that. That's absurd. Then the luck thing.

I want to hold my comments on because she does say some more things that pertain to it. But yeah, so I guess that's it for me. Would you mind reading until the point where you wanted to comment? Um, yeah, I'll read a little bit further. So so she says, if you say yes, you think that what people are entitled to is largely a matter of luck. Why first? Because only a tiny minority of the population is lucky enough to inherit wealth from their

parent. Some shots at Mit Romney since giving money to your kids is just another example of free exchange. The accumulation of wealth and privilege injecting a term. She didn't substantiate with privilege the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few is morally permissible. Second people's capacities to produce goods and services. In demand, on the market is largely a function of the lottery of their birth, their

genetic predispositions. Their parents education, the amount of race and sex-based discrimination, to which their Ejected and their access to health care, and good education.

So this is kind of like the luck logic Loop and I think a lot of it is, is factual it, but it goes to erode the foundation that rawlsian ism is based on that that the the inequalities of the free market are based on free exchange rather than the realities of inequality in the world that we kind of started talking about people are born different, people are born with different parenting, different education, different.

Predispositions. Different IQs, like, all of these things will determine how successful you are in life IQ being, I think the single number one largest predictor of Life success, like just general life success. If you, if you boil it down into a metric, IQ is more strongly correlated to it than any other metric that is, depending on, who you believe 6040, nature-nurture. So 60/40 of that 60 percent, or 40 percent, depending on which side of that argument you land on is totally.

Like luck, like you're just born with the jeans that you're born into and the other part of it is nurture either 60 or 40, depending on which side of it you fall on. But this this this totally discounts the parents responsibility to their kids as well. Like part of the reason why we want to do such a good job in our life to build up a piggy bank and then to later on raise our kids in successful, non-abusive ways is to give them that advantage that other people other parents chose.

Who's through ignorance or inaction or Maleficent's to not give their kids. So it's almost like, again, the whole theme Here, is this moral hazard is the economic word for it. The moral hazard, which is where you take the problems that other people create, and you make the people that didn't create them, the ones that have to pay for it. And that's this whole thing in a nutshell. It's parenting is not luck.

Parenting is work and decision, whether or not you make them or not the way you Parent and the way you raise kids has a massive effect on the rest of their life. Now, from the kids perspective, obviously, which family you get born to I guess you could consider luck because you can't control it, right? But Yeah, I guess, I guess that's what I had to say. There's, there's definitely Randomness there. There's definitely luck-based inequality there. It's just part of reality.

Yes, but again, reality doesn't justify you forcing people to do things the way you want them to do. And it doesn't justify you pointing guns at them to level inequalities that you decide exists. Because you're the rational ones. Yeah, and there's a reason again, no citation. When it comes to she uses Mitt Romney because even the right is not passionate about defending Mitt Romney, even the Republicans. So because it's easy to use, you know, a poster face when dealing with an idea.

The reason she didn't cite a statistic on intergenerational wealth as it's called is because the about eighty percent of millionaires are first-generation a lot of people Only in the 1%. Now will not be in the 1% 10, 20 30 years from now. A lot of people in the bottom 20% will gain skills in the future and will be in the upper 10% of income. So they have to reject all mobility and act like you're sort of just this ultimate

victim of circumstance. Also, when it comes to the luck portion of things, you just happen to be born in a place that happened to Value investing and Warren Buffett happen to get a job and happen to get. Hired by an employer, that happened to like him compared to all the other people. Yeah, that is definitely an aspect of life that the that exists. But it's not like he would have been investing if he was in the year, 100 AD.

What people do is they look around the market prices incentivize where people should allocate their efforts if they want to make more money or just do whatever they want with their lives. Again, they don't apply it to politicians. It's like saying, you know politicians you don't have to follow Laws are there edicts?

I mean, this guy, Mark, Kelly and Arizona just happened to get a job as a senator and a place that he happened to be running a campaign in where he happened to be running against the dumbest person on the planet Martha. McSally government just happened to win a war in the American Revolution, and they happened to give birth to kids that ended up serving in this regime that I happen to live under at this time. But so again, all this happen stance and luck at all.

So applies to her solution of politics. So, I mean, she's really cool at stepping on this rake, but you don't see part 2 where it hits her in the face, and makes her look like a moron. Every Time. Imagine the gall that you'd have to have to just decide you get a say in what somebody else somebody else wants to do with their property, like, And then imagine designing like a faux philosophy, to justify your desire to have some moral upper hand, over the rights of other equal creatures.

Like it's like if you become successful enough, you become a lower-level creature, a lower tier creature that doesn't deserve to have their property respected as much. Hey sure. Prevent and go ahead. I'm sorry. Didn't I was I was just going to say I still failing to say What's wrong with giving your kids and inheritance? Of course, you can see the sort of Hunter Biden kind of lifestyle of these sort of aristocrats that have a lot of wealth.

They give their kids, you know, this fake life where they're constantly seeking meaning. So they're more likely to develop drug habits and everything. But but she's bashing the concept of an inheritance, the idea of making the world a better place for your kids. She doesn't even get into and this therefore stops them from being as productive as They were door living a completely fulfilled life. It's just like this envious. You got it without working. Okay.

Well you got this book deal and I never got one. So, so that's all. So unfair. The goal is to recognize unfairness always exist. So, which system should we Embrace? So we can give most people the most amount of mobility. And by every metric, it's a free market. And again, this entitlement thing comes back up. Just like Shifting, the burden, nature provides us.

No, entitlements whatsoever. If you want to live and work with other people who want to elevate themselves out of that world of the beasts, you can make agreements with the people around you to not attack each other and to respect their property in return for them, respecting your property, and you could, if you wanted to get together with a bunch of Rawls Ian's, who all agree to voluntarily give resources to people in their attempt to undo the This built into reality the

luck part, but what is it valid? And what I find Despicable is to use this baseless pseudo philosophy to justify violently taking things from others. A way to get away with taking the actions that those beasts you're trying to get away from take while attempting to like wear the Robes of moral virtue. Like you want to look like the philosopher king while still acting like a beast. It's disgusting and I did in

preparation. I wrote down some excerpts certain paragraphs from Ein Rands book, Atlas Shrugged. This is part of a little rant that one of her characters went on, if you know with your permission I can read it, but it's on money and I think it applies quite a bit to the discussion here. Is that cool? Yes, please. All right. Give me a moment here. It's a few paragraphs, but it's pretty good. I think have you ever asked what so this is Francisco d'anconia format.

Shrugged and he's at a ball, and he's talking to a bunch of people that are pooh-poohing, people that have earned a lot of money in that are wealthy. And he says, have you ever asked

what is the route of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are Goods produced and Men able to produce them money, is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one, another must deal by trade and give value for Value money is not the tool of the Moochers who Ooohclaim your product by Tears or the of the looters who take it from you, by force money, is made possible only by the men who produce, is this, what you consider evil?

When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the Moochers or the looters who give value to the money. Not an ocean of tears, not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your All it into the bread, you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold.

Are taken, are a token of honor, your claim upon the energy of men who produce your wallet, is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you, there are men who will not default on that moral principle, which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil. I'm not going to read the whole thing. I only have a couple more paragraphs. Have you ever looked for the route of production? Take a look at an electric generator? Generator and this goes to your

printer Point earlier. Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge Left To You, by men who had to Discover It For the First Time, Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions and

you'll learn that. A man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on Earth to trade by means of money, is the code of the men of Will money rests on the Axiom. That every man is the owner of his mind and his effort, money allows. No power to prescribe the value of your effort, except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade, you his effort in return and I'll skip forward a little bit for

brevity's sake. Only the man who does not need, it is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his own fortune, no matter where he started. If an error is equal to his money, it It serves him if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money. Corrupted him did it. Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless. Are his wealth is not yours and you would have done, no better with it. Do not think that it should have

been distributed among you. Loading the world with 50 parasites. Instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue, which was the fortune money is a living power that dies without its route. Money will not serve the That cannot match. It is the reason why is this the reason why you call it evil? Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters. The man who dams money has obtained. It dishonorably the man who respects it. Has earned it earned it. Run for your run from your life

from any man. Who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the lepers Bell of an approaching looter so long as men live together on Earth and need means to deal with one another. They're only substitute if they abandoned money is the Muzzle of a gun the thank you for indulging me that quote. It's one of my favorite parts of that entire book. That's a great one and you can use R and of course, as the ultimate example of not only not inheriting wealth, her father's

pharmaceutical business. I believe was collectivized and stolen by the Bolshevik regime comes to America hardly speaks English Works. What would be called an exploitative job in Hollywood as a writer, learns English, and writes, two of the greatest best selling books of all time in her second language. Voyage.

So this should be like the ultimate feminist icon, but they just can't they just can't, you know, we give any Credence to someone advocating voluntary exchange much as they love the freedom of exchange for gays to get married. Something vitally important that they have the right to associate with extending that to the second that gay person wants to make an economic exchange. Well, then the walls come up. Well, then the Start to fill out this form.

You got to fill out that know that, that's an that line. Not this line. You gotta go over there now. I mean, it's just unbelievable. Great, great passage and just and just a Shameless plug. I recorded that entire section. That was a small excerpt, but I, I recorded the entire speech on my channel, the videos called money is the root of all virtue. And I read the whole thing. And man, it's just really good. Oh, yeah, Randa. Bertrand is great.

Have you read the virtue of selfishness and capitalism? The unknown ideal? Yes. Absolutely. Oh, on my channel. No, I mean, I've read them but I haven't performed them. Yeah. Oh, yeah, but well, the one that I read on my channel just because it was such a red pill at the time, is the very final chapter of the virtue of selfishness called the argument from intimidation, where it's anyone's use of disapproval, as a means of, for stalling, a debate, she calls it an intellectual.

I've buy it. You can't really believe that do you. You don't actually believe in an unfettered free market. You can't be serious. Anything showing disapproval the second. I heard that I go. I feel like I hear that often. I have not stopped, hearing it until she pointed it out to me. So gosh, ran to so good on so many issues and that's a lot of what this article is by this lady. Like she doesn't make any counter arguments here. She just disdainfully Says, they're not common sense.

Yeah, you're not going to be hanging sitting at the table of rational kids behind a veil of ignorance. You are just so uncool with your unfairness. Yeah as she engages in unfettered author, as mm. Yeah, but we never voted on what This Woman's allowed to publish. She just selfishly published whatever she wanted and then export labor them. Let's not let's not understate the discussing this of her position. She's advocating Barbara. Them in search of absurd in. Sorry. No, thanks.

You're not as rational as you think lady. What's the number for our people? Under no obligation to do anything? They don't really want to do it freely. Commit themselves to doing. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, you know, I hate to say it and so the, the example would be I see you're about to fall, you're walking or about to fall off, this little ledge. Should I be enslaved into saying, hey, watch out there's a ledge there. Well, there's a significant difference out. Of course.

She doesn't care to differentiate us. Does someone have a moral obligation to do so? And whether or not they should be caged if they don't do so. Whether there should be a regime going around enforcing, whether or not my actions were met the legal criteria for doing enough to help to help someone out or people under no obligation again, not differentiating. If you say yes, then you think the only more requirements. No. No, I don't think only requirements are the ones we

freely bring on ourselves. Elves say You by making promises or contracts? There's another five, our kinsella debate. Our product is contracts. Suppose. I'm walking to the library and see a man drowning in the river. I decide that the pleasure I would get from saving his life wouldn't exceed the cost of getting wet and the delay. So I Walk On By, since I made no contract with this, man. I am no under no obligation to save him. Thoughts on question.

Number four. It's very similar to number two, when we were talking about moral hazards and the and exporting, the externalities, the consequences of your behavior to other people in, in the form of positive moral obligations that you can potentially attack or cage people over not fulfilling on. And I think some people would say. Oh no, that's like two extreme of an interpretation of this section. No, it's not. She's trying to take your answer to this and justify the state forcing.

People to help people through the form of welfare and Taxation and blah, blah blah by pointing guns at people to make them do things. So I'm not that's not an equivocation. She's making that argument. She's founding her argument on your answer to this question. Not being. Yeah. So when I say it was similar to number two, I've it reminded me

of a story. I was having a debate with a Tommy and we were really having trouble determining what like the what constituted and aggression and what constituted. Something that you could attack somebody. Oh, in self-defense. And I remember I gave him this analogy. He was stuck on a remote island by himself starving to death about to die of exposure. And there was a boat captain that was out on the ocean sailing somewhere, delivering Goods doesn't matter.

And before the boat, and I asked him before, the boat captain knew that you were there stranded on that island. Was he a bad guy? Was he could you attack him? Was he culpable for any crimes? He said no. And I said, okay? Now the boat continues on its path and it just so happens to pass by your Island and he sees you over on the island, calling for help and And he doesn't now. Can you attack him? Because he chose to continue on his way and is and he said, yeah, he's being exploitive.

He's using his means of production in a way that hurts me. And so he went, he literally just by looking at you on the island went from again. This is like we talked about a number two. He just, just by making some little thing like a gesture of Simply gazing at an island with a guy on it, calling for help, went from a normal. Will guy you couldn't attack to a villain. You could to force him to enslave him to your to your needs.

Your needs determine what he has to do and it's taking its that, moral hazard. If other people's actions, whatever put him on that island, whatever, in action, whatever accident, willful negligent, whatever that people take, they create positive moral obligations on other people, even on everyone around them, which is an even more accurate and extreme situation. Like we're not just saying it creates a positive obligation on you.

It's everybody. Everybody around is positively morally, obligated to help you on the island. Then you have the worst possible moral hazard and for people that don't haven't heard that term before because it's more formal term. Especially in economics. Moral hazard is specifically that when the people bearing, the cost of a decision aren't the ones making the decision bad things, happen almost every time.

People. So in her example, talking about some I do drowning in a river and people walking by. If you morally on pain of force force, everybody walking near rivers to rescue people. Otherwise, they'll get in trouble by force or something. Bad will happen to them, forcibly non-consensual e then you're going to have a moral hazard situation. You're going to have the people making the decision to play near rivers.

Let's say or you know run around there or work near rivers or whatever you're going to To have them less worried about their safety than they would be. If they didn't know that everyone around them was going to be forced to try and help them. Also. There's going to be less people near the river because if there's a chance, when you walk in by a river, you're going to be forced at gunpoint to help some asshole. That fell in. You're probably going to walk

not near the river the next day. And so there's going to be less people around to help the guy that falls into the river. So there's all sorts of like negative results that come from Not from people helping people the following Rivers, but from pointing guns at people to force them to it's all sorts of bad things. Come out of the force involved. Yeah, and the owner but the boat example is a good one, but you can sort of look at someone decides to do nothing.

They're just watching TV. Well, that's not being exploitative. In fact, you might be a member of the proletariat and in my war against the bourgeoisie, so you're an ally, but if that person, now, invests comes up with an idea and offers you a job product or service, now, he's an evil. Pointer people who produce nothing good people who produce something voluntarily pure evil who need bricks thrown into their businesses.

And so we could justify more more State spending and call it mothers just uh stealing baby formula. So again, this is why the cam you starve because they hate to the producers and they constantly are worshipping the parasites in the parasites. Could be your local thief or

more. Currently your politicians, who are bailing out companies, who are just as parasitic as as any other Thief good, creating zombie companies, that should have died some time ago and gone Under New Management, which were now dealing with a less efficient economy than we otherwise would. If they had been allowed to fail. That is the biggest example of moral hazard. We're going to bail you out. No, no matter what I think. I remember the earliest version

of moral hazard that I heard. Was it actually Li like Turned people immoral by taking out fire Insurance on a place that they end up being the arson of. So it actually changes the character of a person and a country. When we say you're no longer responsible for your actions. Well, I would be kind of cool if like no matter what I did. I just had got a blank check. I never got to jail.

My bank account always had money in it, but the fallacy of composition is just because I would benefit from doing something. That doesn't mean everyone would benefit by doing the same thing. If I stand up at the concert, I could see better. If everyone stands up, not everyone can see better. If I'm talking loud at the restaurant, people can hear me better. If everyone's talking louder again, the the same thing

applies. So now they it's almost like they totally rely on on these isolated incidents to make their case without without any nuance. And of course, were the ones who are always called. I'm and utopian who just sort of live in a fantasy world. Meanwhile, her world consists of people drowning everywhere and no one wanting to stop by. By the way. These people should be allowed to vote. I'm guessing people who just want other others to die. Everyone is Mitt Romney

inheriting wealth. Everyone else is selling one acre of land for fifty thousand dollars every year. Paying people a dollar an hour and everyone else is selling their organs because there's no way income Mobility except for, Wilt Chamberlain. I guess this is the fantasy world that we get accused of living in another, another moral hazard. Example, is eating in a restaurant and choking and somebody helping the person that was choking by trying to do like heimlich maneuver or something.

And, you know, let's say they crack a rib in the process of doing heimlich. And then the state will allow somebody to sort of Sue or prosecute. That person creates this moral hazard situation where like when somebody's choking people, no longer want to help. Because it's a risk to their own safety and livelihood from the threat of the state like justice quote justice system, you know, making this other person's choking problem, their financial

problem. Their moral hazard is a huge concept to get and you'll find you'll see it everywhere. Now that you've heard it and understand it. Like everything, the government does has some moral hazard involved to some degree, the people paying for the things are not the people making the decisions. It's almost like The state into words, moral hazard, author goes on that. That was the final question.

Most of us. I suspect will find it difficult to say, yes, to all four of these questions, like the idiot who says, I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon. Well, you live in a bubble moron, of course, find it hard. Even knows it. But let me speak to that. Let me, let me, let me just say something real quick. Okay, go ahead. Yeah. I was just going to say like it's totally believable.

That Most all of us would say yes because rawlsian ism is the Premier moral philosophy on college campuses. It is ubiquitous. It is the primary moral philosophy taught in colleges today, and honestly, it's been the prime one in effect in the world for the last 30 years, or more. So, yeah, I'm sure that she's surrounded by people that would definitely agree with her. Sorry. Go ahead.

Yeah, and, you know, I took a poll the other day and you know that like a hundred percent of people are Muslim. I also took it outside of a mosque. I'm not sure if that has anything to do that. That might have thrown off. No, I think most people are Muslim now, that I think about it. Checkmate evidence, even those like this is, this was such a great one. That haunts APA points out.

He goes, you know, sometimes there's a lot of people in our tradition who were very well-meaning, who just haven't been introduced to the right stuff. No Zack writing. Years ago at Harvard never got to stand on the shoulders of Hans Hapa Milton Friedman and Murray rothbard like I am. But what they'll do is they'll use this trick of even Robert nozick admits. Even Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Admit. We need some welfare.

What you can sometimes what sometimes happens is they're used as useful, idiot punching bags for people to justify in Anarchy State and Utopia found it hard to say yes to question 3 question 3 being our people entitled to all they are able to get through free Exchange. In philosophical terms.

We have a reductio ad absurdum the queen of reductio AD, absurdum, 's accuses, Harvard Ph.D. Philosopher, Robert nozick of using it the no zakian view implies that from the perspective of Common Sense morality is absurd. What a desperate person who sells her organs or body does? So freely that it's permissible to pay someone a paltry sum while profiting hugely off their labor that people are entitled to get rich, because of accidents of birth that you're within your rights to walk.

By a drowning man, I feel it's my job to constantly never miss it. But to point out that her argument is that it is absurd. That is the start and end of her argument, which of course is not an argument. It's just her opinion. She's asserting that it's absurd. It's not worth a response. Almost. Sorry. Go ahead. I just I hate it when people like they, they take in these bodies of work that are filled with judgments and assertions. Like it's absurd.

That's bullshit was one that I did recently in a 14 hour livestream that came up repeatedly throughout bullshit. Okay, that's not an argument. That's an assertion. It's absurd. That's that's not an argument. That's an assertion. Like you got to be careful when you're reading this stuff that you don't fall into thinking. She's making an argument here. She's giving you her opinion. But like a rant over, please please continue.

I guess, you know when Saudi Arabia it's absurd that women would be able to have a job writing and Publishing books in you know, large scale prints. So what if it's a if it's absurd maybe now it is no no slavery that that's absurd. I'm get I'm using a reductio ad absurdum there. But you know, you have to know that that's not enough and this is a woman who's examples are Mitt, Romney.

Drowning children Wilt Chamberlain and prostitute selling organs as if like you run into those like five times a day, when you're just talking to your friends. No, those are the Absurd situations in reality that you hardly ever come across. But even when you do, it doesn't justify the state. So it's always this lingering problems exist. Don't they? Yeah, and therefore, the, the Koch brothers have the right to rule out. One, because these problems exist. How does that make it go away.

How does they're being a state that makes us less wealthy stop, the starving woman who needs access to resources, just like, there's a shortage of property protection in places where there's a lot of police who knows that the state would be providing all the things that they promised protect and serve. I guess that, I guess government restaurants are just going to be named tons of food place and even if they don't provide any food, they'll still be a right to food.

Just like there's a right to protection and a right to education even though they don't provide those either. And I'm jumping the gun here a little bit. Can I read the rest? This paragraph because these paragraph is quintessential ad populum in a fight in like 500 Words. Okay, like let me read the rest and then I'll summarize. So it says the no zakian view. Implies. What from the perspective of Common Sense, morality is absurd that A desperate person who

sells her organs or body does. So freely that it's permissible to pay someone a paltry sum while profiting hugely off their labor. People are entitled to get rich because of accidents of birth that you're within your rights to walk by a drowning man. The snow sticks view must be wrong. Justice is not simply the unfettered. Exercise of the free market. Free market, morality isn't anything of the sort. This is AD, populum. Let me Summarize each section of

this paragraph. She says, most of us agree. Most of us agree. The no zakian view is absurd. Thus nosek must be wrong. Justice is not this free market, morality isn't anything of the sort that was her argument folks. Most of us agree. Nozik is wrong. It's absurd because he's absurd. That was the paragraph. Most of us agree. It's absurd. Thus, he's wrong. She even use the word thus, which is like a therefore in a

logical proof like this. This, this, this, therefore, this most of us agree nozick is absurd, Arness excited. He is absurd, therefore, he's wrong. This stuff really annoys me Keith, like, as you probably know. It's just, it just bothers me when people pass this shit off as philosophy. She continues some might object that these are extreme cases and that all they show is that the market to be fully moral needs

some tweaking. As if it's like a neutral tool that would need some tweaking as if these. This so-called tweaking doesn't involve killing people who descent or caging them and taking them from their families, putting their wives in a situation where they might need to sell their organs. To live. That's what you want. That's what she calls, tweaking, which is a course. That's just like a gross

understatement. Like tweaking would be what you could actually do in a free market situation, which is where if you found out some asshole, walked by a drowning guy in a river, you would make sure everybody knew that this guy. What this guy did and he's an asshole and you would probably make him very unpopular and maybe even lose business or lose relationships or you know business relationships over his shitty decision to not help somebody that's at week.

Pointing guns at the guy. That's so much tweak. Not so much to tweak and it empowers an entire industry to go around looking for people who haven't saved drowners and, and creates a drowning industrial complex. That's, that's tweaking. That's, that's, that's her to waking. Squeaking, Allah drugs, not tweaking, but behind, I couldn't I was gonna say it, but I I thought that'd be weak but to conclude Dude, that there was more to Freedom. It was weeks.

I deserve that that there is such a thing as non violent exploitation that people shouldn't be rewarded and punished for accidents of birth that we have moral obligations. That extend beyond what we contractually occur. This is to concede the entire. No, zakian edifice is structurally unsound. No, it's structurally sound of backwards again as opposed to government very Mound violence doesn't count when this group, does it very sound.

Yes, unbelievable. She's throwing so many stones for being in such a glassy house. Yeah, and the concession is that she's using extreme cases. And so if you conceded that, you know, she's only right in these instances because the cases are extreme. I mean II. Yeah, I would be a valid undermining of her counter arguments, but I don't see anybody here doing that. At so far. Everybody on this stream is, at least specifically has just said yes, like that. Yes, LoJack meme.

Like, like, are people under no obligation to do anything. They don't really want to do or freely commit themselves to doing. Yes, like the Chad confident. Yes. Yeah. I will I will not go on. This is my favorite line in the entire thing. Page 195 the proponent of free-market morality. Lost his foundations. The reason that is so important is because if you look at when I see the dominant philosophies today, they make these strong, moral claims people have a right to health care.

Of course you and I recognize that as slavery and a disincentive to provide Healthcare which makes people worse off and is immoral. However that has gotten people very riled up. This inequality of income is unjust, they'll say racism is Unjust colonialism. Unjust. This is imperialism. This is terrible. This is sexism, which is inherently bad. They don't say, I have, I think

sexism needs some tweaking. So, therefore we should maybe have a committee to talk about how we can have more efficient. So they say it's inherently bad, and there's no, if ands or buts, they're taking a strong moral position and that's how AOC and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And Barack Obama, even when he was running in, In 08 you constantly see this this sort of routine and that should give us the idea of the strong Arguments for the free markets.

Are this Unapologetic capital, a capitalist acts between consenting adults. Everything else is slavery. Maybe not use the word slavery, but because like I will call conscription slavery in reality in technicality. Yes. Jury duty is forced labor, but we should probably have a different word for that. That then then slavery. So I think, I think that's a great point. That once your foundations are

taken away. Then you're not left to stand on much, your left to the tool of utilitarian calculations, which are always one study away from being debunked up. There was research on this and it turns out at work. Well you're channeling rothbard like directly. He wrote an article called the case for radical idealism, and I was so inspired by that back when I was this. Back when I was in the middle of running for not governor and libertarian party. It informed my entire a

political strategy. This article says exactly what you're saying. There's if we look at the most successful political movements, it has been like you say the left which takes the most extreme demands for what they want. All the time. They demand nothing less of their than their in goals and then along the way, they accept every little compromise. As that exclusively moves towards those goals. So they demand the ends and then accept the baby steps along the

way. And then you have all these Libertarians in the Pate that are like, you know, we gotta, we gotta soften our message and and talk about, you know, like incremental improvements to law, to get us closer. Duck don't don't demand to abolish the IRS and end Taxation and, and, you know, end the ATF, no, no, say let's reduce. His by 5% and rothbard refuted that very, well, you can, you can find that reading it on my channel as well.

The case for radical idealism by Murray rothbard really good and you could even see it in the eyes of all of the, or in the response to all the people who quit the lp, after Dave Smith and the mesas caucus started making a big splash. Andy Craig, being the loudest among them representing. A lot of people along with Joseph bishop and German, who was the chair after. So our work. So he had said, you know what this thing is just lost its. So it's overrun by these bigots of the lp MC.

My best advice is to run and hide and find you know, maybe I forget what he plugged exactly but it was some sort of alternative, you know, let's get politically involved kind of thing to go door-to-door. Whatever the point is, is notice how they went from. We're going to take on the military. Real complex, big Pharma. We're going to take on Wall Street.

The Republicans. The Democrats were going to take on this regulatory regime and we're going to defeat it, but they can't defeat Dave Smith. Who was one-third Legion of skanks. They can't defeat LPM see who has been around for like, I think Michael has invented what to for maybe six years ago, out of the Ron Paul movement. So that is how dedicated these people are. They can they can click, I can lift 1,000 pounds. Can you lift five pounds? No, never.

Absolutely not. Not that is impossible. And you know what? I quit I'm not going to live five. Well now I know that you never took seriously lifting a thousand pounds because they'll let the thought of lifting 5 pounds made you quit the lp. MC is certainly proving rothbard right in this regard, there. They're advocating. The extreme end conclusions of the libertarian principles. And if you just look at nothing else than the change that they've created inside the

libertarian party. They've been more why they've been more successful than anything else in a very short amount of time. Like you said, It only 56 years. They've completely sort of overhauled, the libertarian party, to some extent just by doing what we're talking about here. And it's gotten Dave Smith on Kennedy Nation on Fox News, which then got Scott Horton on it. Got Dave Smith on, Tim pulls

show twice. It got him on The Joe Rogan Experience. He's been on there multiple times, but him coming out against vaccine, passports was the one where he made the biggest the biggest splash. Is there anything else in this article? It doesn't look like I find anything else. Of course, you lies and calls it a safety net, which of course applies to everything. Except, you know, voluntary Mutual Aid, societies reiterates, the rising inequality. Anything else on this article

that stood out to you. I'll just read the last paragraph. That's cool because it kind of it summarizes. Not only her point, but my objection to our entire article, she says, rejecting the no zakian world view requires us to reflect on what Justice really demands rather than accepting the conventional wisdom. That the market can take care of.

Reality for us. If you remain a steadfast nozaki and you have the option of biting the bullet and embracing the counterintuitive implications of your view. This would be at least more consistent than what we have today and ideology that parades as moral common sense. Her constant appeals to Common Sense are precisely. Nothing approaching an argument. That's the conclusion in summary. I want to provide for or my opinion on this article nothing. Again. It's just you're appealing to this.

What you think common sense is in your circle of friends, that I'm sure is totally different from mine. I never have time for that fact. In fact, I guarantee it's common sensical. No. No. Yeah. Nonsense is is It could more more accurate, more accurately be called the so very often. We can criticize the terrible things around us. But seldom do we get the chance to allocate our energy toward making the world a better place?

Voluntary virtue is one of the great mechanisms, we can use to get a direct feedback mechanism and live. This beautiful philosophy. We love to talk about what is

voluntary virtue. Military virtue is a well soon to be were the applications have been filed a 501 c 3, nonprofit organization that intends to find the principled voluntary as libertarian people that are in need and all this Insanity that we're living through right now and find ways to Do what we say needs to happen in the world without without begging government, to do it for us to show people to put action behind

our principles. But action behind our words, rather, when, when people challenge us and they're like, well, how would we help the poor without government? Well, we're going to show you how voluntary virtue. We're going to do it. We're going to help the people in need. We're going to do it without guns and coercion. That's that's what it's about. Voluntary, watch, you can be found on minds.com. We also have as the Facebook page been taken down, yet.

I'm walking a Michelle's waiting, but we haven't checked today. Where can people find more information about voluntary virtue, voluntary, virtue dot org. Is the website will have. Every time we run a campaign. We've primarily been doing campaigns lately because we're still small and we're building up kind of a war chest, as a wrong word for a charity. What would you call it? Purchased for a charity, happy chest. I treasure chest. Treasures. Yeah. Okay. There you go.

We're still building up donations to sort of start helping people and So lately, we've been doing various campaigns like feed the need or we feed homeless, people in Dallas or you know, we we did some stuff to help blind ulbricht and Ross ulbricht and her situation. So we are constantly looking where I would say, this is a call to a call to action a call for help from the general public. If, you know, of good people that are in need reach out and let us know.

No, voluntary virtue dot-org. Is there a way that people can participate? If they themselves? Don't have a lot of money to donate. Absolutely. We have kind of, like, our boots on the ground group of people. We call them the Tactical charity Society. It's a group of people that actually want to, rather than just look some people don't have time to go help but they do have resources. That's that's what voluntary virtues about. We will take your resources and put them to good work in

principle ways. People that have more time than money, which of which there are many and you want to actually do something with your body. Instead of with your money. You can join the Tactical charity society, which is the group that it's like the sidecar when voluntary virtue goes in to help somebody in. Need the Tactical charity Society are is a group of people that will show up and make actual real in-person help to the people in need.

And it could be anything from throwing a party for for a family. That's going through a rough time building a wheelchair ramp like the the ideas are endless, but The point is to build an in-person Community, a strong in person community of people that can help each other through this Insanity that we're dealing with. And that's one of the great things. It's not only you getting the chance to help people. You also are getting the chance to be part of a potential

community. So when you know, you're faced with, well, what if I lose my job? Well, you'll know a lot of, you know, if I don't comply with this or that mandate, well, the more people, you know, The more options you'll have the more friendly, you know, people the more friendly you are, the more people will want to be around you and you'll have sort of this actual safety net.

Not the fake Biz, Markie and safety net, to make us more reliant on the Kaiser. You'll actually be getting like this harmonious, both giving and receiving through, with this voluntary virtue and tactical charity Society. To everyone watching the don't tread on anyone. Thank you as well as. On the libertarian Institute, Patrick Smith of disenthrall. Thank you for your time, brother. Thanks Keith. I always enjoy it.