Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone avoiding. The root is a major logical fallacy this occurs when the argue our critiques and arbitrary or accidental or trivial aspect of an argument in place of addressing the primary concern. So imagine if someone says you should be forced by law to fund the Catholic church. So kids can attend the church and become more moral from their
Teachings and more wise. And you say, I don't believe the Catholic church has the right to forcibly take my income. And you respond with what do you have against education? Why are you anti learning? Well, the person wasn't against learning or education. They were saying that a group of people doesn't have the right to force their children to attend or force them to fund something that they are against. This is very important and it comes in many different forms.
It was really Exposed to me in a book timocracy. The God That Failed by a university of Las Vegas.
Nevada, Professor Hans hop-up. He says, there were those who recognized correctly that the problem lay with Monopoly, not with Elites or nobility, but they were far outnumbered by those who erroneously blamed it on the elitist character of the rulers instead and who accordingly strove to maintain the Monopoly of Law and law enforcement and merely Replaced the king and the visible Royal pomp by the people and the presume modesty and decency of the common man.
Hence, the historic success of democracy. So, what is he getting at here? He's saying that the problem with governments throughout history is not that. Well, there's one guy and he has a crown, and he's only there because his dad was there first. And there's a lot of us who don't get a say, he's The problem that all of those things are arbitrary, they're avoiding the root problem.
And the problem is is that one entity person or group of persons had a monopoly right on how people should live their lives on a geographical area on property. They did not acquire through voluntary exchange or original appropriation. So they had no right to make rules. It's the difference between hear the rules in my apartment complex versus here, are the rules in England and its colonies. Well, those people haven't contracted with you. You don't own that property, justly.
So this was a major failing in in political philosophy. People criticize the fact that there was a king who had jewelry and they had servants and that had to go. Now, maybe that stuff is bad but that does not get at the root of the issue. The root of the issue is the king initiated violence against peaceful people under the guise of All and legislation, and funding certain Endeavors without the consent of those people.
Now, here is how we see throughout history, a discussion of monarchy using Google Books, & G viewer. Now, maybe, I'm not onto something here, but maybe I am, please let me know in the comments below. The monarchy is not really talking about anymore because there's not a whole lot of monarchies. So they used to be heavily criticized in the 1800's and Then after the first world war, a lot of monarchies had gone down. So now we don't really discuss.
Monarchy now consider the term. Patriarchy here is a perfect case of avoiding the route. There was a government who claims the right to initiate violence against peaceful people, under the guise of regulating them or taxing them just to fund things for the greater good, or they start wars based on lies that kill millions of people. They cage people for victimless drug. Times and victim was prostitution engagements or they
gamble. So they raid the place, they take half your income through civil asset, forfeiture along with the income tax. And what is discussed in The American, or English culture is patriarchy. There are too many men involved in this. There shouldn't be a king. There should be the people that is literally the same thing as critiquing the crown on a
person. Instead of the entity itself, you're saying if only women engaged in such violence, it's not violence when Hillary Clinton does it, it's not violence when the Queen of England, does it? It's not violence. When Golda Meir, does it yada yada yada. Now, the king is hardly discussed anymore. It's hardly even brought up. So people have a new enemy. Now.
What is the problem? The problem is not that we have some King. The problem is that some of these lawmakers might be Motivated by racism. This is what we need to discuss the thoughts. In the mind of people engaging in mass murder Mass theft and mass kidnapping, is what we need to address. No, the problem is that that role exists in the first place. The problem. Is that a one entity a group of people claim the right to rule other human beings and don't
allow them to live freely. The problem with slavery is that it involves a whip? And it involves cotton-picking and it involves poor conditions and you work long hours. Nope. Those are all avoiding. The route. Those are all technicalities around the fundamental principle with wrong with slavery. It initiates violence against peaceful people.
It's one person or group of people claiming ownership, a saying they have a higher claim to your body and property and time than you do. That's the fundamental problem. So focusing on well, the people doing this are disproportionately male. They are disproportionately white. So we need to focus, all our efforts on getting women and non-whites to do these same things under a different justification. The problem is the issue at hand initiating violence.
Now, what about the elites who the problem is is that there are Elites. Well, there's a lot of elite sectors. There are Elite dentists Elite. Doctors, Elite Architects Elite, you know, fashion designers, there certainly is an intellectual Elite. I mean, what percentage of people sell 99% of the books? I don't know, like, JK Rowling, Stephen King and Paul Krugman.
I mean, that they sell what percentage of people sell the books that are read by most people who, who purchase English books, very microscopic percentage. There's an Leet of those who engage in food production, those who engage in product distribution, those who engage in argumentation. The problem is not Elite. The problem is that some people initiate violence against others sexism. Oh, sexism.
Is this terrible thing, even though historically was much worse than it is today, now is the time to talk about it. This is what we have to focus on. Are you a sexist? Oh sexism. This is something that needs to be brought up today, even though you know, men were drafted. Play today, they still have to sign up for the draft. Men have a lower life expectancy. Men are more likely to be victims of homicide, more likely to commit, suicide more likely
to be homeless. But you know, sexism and Gloria Steinem. Oh, are you a racist? Not just engaging in racism. Let's get into the mind of the person and focus our energies on what they're thinking. Know that also is not the problems. These are all distracted terms. To avoid the root problem of our society. Some people claim the right to initiate violence. Watch out for white supremacy.
Now, this is when the Klan is like the weakest it's ever been and now it's being talked about more than ever before in literature. That's that's because it's a smokescreen to avoid the route. So they can usher in a different rule out ruling class with a different mask on. So you'll be like, oh this is so different. This is not like a monarchy. This is a democracy. This is not like the Democracy that was racist and sexist.
This is a progressive democracy and they have the right to rule us. And of course, the one percent even though in a year 1818 50 you had more smaller group of people influencing Society than you do. Now if you want to influence society and you're just the average person. It's probably no better time than today or maybe 10 years. Ago, with all the censorship, but now we're talking about the, the 1% Really Waging War on the 1% is getting at the heart of the issue.
Hans Hapa continues saying owing to these restrictions regarding entrance into government. The exclusive status of the individual ruler and his family as king and Nobles private government ownership, monarchism stimulates, the development of a clear class consciousness. On the part of the governed public and promotes opposition and resistance to any expansion of the government's power to tax. Another words, when there was a king, you know, who the king was. And you knew who he ruled over
today, with democracy. It's not necessarily that much better. Everyone says, I am the government, really, how many laws have you made? Can you force the government to do things against their will? No, you're called a terrorist. Can government force you to do. Pretty much anything. Yeah, they just call it legislation after they voted on it. It's so ridiculous. We are the government. They cage you for not obeying their commands. And if they disobey your commands, well, that's just part
of their position. How are you the thing that also rules you? A clear-cut distinction between the few rulers and the many ruled exists and there was little or no risk or chance of a person moving from one class to another confronted. With an almost insurmountable barrier to Upward Mobility solidarity among the ruled, their Mutual identification as actual or potential victims of government. Violations. Of property rights is strengthened.
So if you are on the alt-right and say people need a sense of Community, and purpose and togetherness. I think you should be a Libertarian who recognizes the state as a separate violent unjustified entity. And if you're a leftist who sees the ruling class, or the elite look, most likely you're in the 1% of all people on Earth. It doesn't get people in Haiti the right to initiate violence against you. And the ruling classes risk of
losing its legitimacy. As a result of increased taxation is accordingly heightened. So, what is the problem? The problem is the illegitimate. See of the state rests on the fact that it exercises control over resources that it's agents. Never acquired through original appropriation or voluntary exchange and it does. So, without the consent of the rightful owners of said, resources not men are involved. Not only one person is involved, not there. Too many white people.
Not that demographic is too old and out of touch. The problem is some people Advocate initiating violence against peaceful people. Another words, what makes the state of unique institution? Is it initiates violence against people? The market, contrary to the state relies primarily on voluntary exchange between consenting adults, coercion or the initiation of force or violence is the difference between Rape and making love theft and charity, slavery and freedom, statism and
voluntourism. This is something referred to as the non-aggression principle. Yes. It's that simple. Meaning that offering your hand out in a voluntary exchange is morally Superior to initiating violence against that person notice. It doesn't say everything will be perfect. So long as you know, Trump's not an office. It's saying this is morally Superior. Are there going to be problems? Yes. There's also problems under statism. Is there going to be? Be corruption.
Yes, there's also corruption under statism. Will people be poor possibly? But people have been poor understate ISM going back till let's see. Trump Obama, the fucking pharaohs of Egypt. So blaming poverty on free markets, and voluntary exchange makes you a fucking idiot. This is an idea promoted in economics in one Lesson by Henry hazlitt, where he says, there's basically two ways we can achieve our ends.
There is the economic means, the economic means is when individuals or groups of people engage in voluntary exchange mutually beneficial. And then there are the political means, which is when you force someone to do something. That's what makes government a unique institution. Imagine Walmart voted that everyone has to give it 10 percent of their income and follow by Walmart's rules so long as every four years you get to vote for the CEO.
This is a legitimate piece of Law, and it's so ridiculous. That's why government is bad. This is something also promoted in a book called the law written in the 1850s by Frederic bastiat. Excuse me, Frederic bastiat, author of the law in the 1850s says, there's basically two ways to achieve your ends in life. There is the way of Liberty, freedom and respecting others, or there is the method of
plunder. Now, it's a little sad to see since the days of Auburn Herbert the founder of voluntourism the word, voluntary ism is quite diminishing. However, the term anarcho-capitalism a state without a ruling class. And the ability to do with your property as you please more. People are talking about that than ever before. Notice the spike in 1960. That's when the founder of anarcho-communism.
Murray rothbard was sitting in his apartment with Walter block saying, you know, there might be 15 of us in the whole world. Now, we have full conferences and YouTube channels dedicated to the ideas. Libertarianism. A true understanding of that word is discussed even more. And even the term voluntourism under a different spelling is talked about more than ever before.
Hopefully people can stop engaging in the avoiding the root fallacy, understand that the problem, Is initiating violence against peaceful people. Not any arbitrary or trivial technicality about what the current ruling class says, does or is currently up to thank you for watching Keith Knight. Don't tread on anyone.