The Ultimate Red Pill (Complete Video)

Producing laws is not an easier problem than producing cars or food. So if the government's incompetence do a good job of producing cars and food, why do you expect it to do a good job producing legal system within which you are then going to produce this. The cars just didn't know certain things.

Like there's certain things. You like one point that you make when you like, do you think I belong in a cage because I disagree and that's just a big Line in the Sand and an argument where you're like and that's changed my view of a lot of laws. Because you've said that where I was Just like whoa, because my buddy Dave Smith is like the threat is violence and imprisonment, and death for the any law. And I'm like, man, that's an

intense thought. And when you actually say to someone in their eyes, you say, should I be put in a cage? Because I smoke marijuana. And, and, and, and I still have that Duality that cognitive dissonance. Because the answer is obviously, no, but I can't picture a world without a government, and I'm just trying to be as honest as possible. Yeah, I guess it's like, I know you're right. That's the because I can't get

past that thing but I can't. I also might have just a little bit of Stockholm syndrome where I'm like what doesn't know. I understand their the government is like the reserve parachute. You know, it's like because okay free market overhead rush. It. It's flying off into the Sun and it's big attack by Eagles. And I'm, I have my Reserve parachute cord government because otherwise, you know, I'm just a perfectly consistent, moral stain on the sidewalk. So I understand that.

Let me let me sort of give you a tiny analogy because the whole point is you're not supposed to be able to conceive of a life or a society without a state, you can't. That's the whole point of Freedom. If you could conceive of it, you'd be the one in charge of it and organizing it. It's sort of like saying I can't conceive like, you know, go back like 19. You go back to like 1985 and say, what a kid. What's Communications technology going to be like in 35 years.

Well, if you could conceive of that, you'd end up owning the entire Market because you'd get the reasons like the whole point of Freedom, as you can figure out what the heck is going on. And that's the great lie of government and Central planning that they have some clue. So I'll give you a sort of an example. Now, all societies prior to the modern West for the most part and there was a great Crusade of the Empire was to eliminate slavery.

So, all societies everywhere, throughout all time had dabbled in slavery, off, and on, and a lot of societies that had slavery continuously throughout their history, particularly the Middle East. So let's say you and I having a debate. I don't like 1820 or something like that. So we got you know, we had Ruffles and uncomfortable wigs and shit like that. So we're having a debate and you say okay. Well if we get rid of slavery Who's going to pick the cotton,

right? Who's going to, who's going to pick the food? Like, so you'll have to pay people who are now working for free and if you, but if you pay people, you have to jack up the price of your fruit and of your cotton, so to the point where four people won't be able to afford it and their staff to death. It seems reasonable and I say, hey man, I smoked some white powder last night and I had a vision.

Let me tell you how and what my vision was my vision was that after we get rid of slaves after we end slavery. There are going to be these giant metallic robots. That's right back and forth across the fields, and they're going to be powered by crushed prehistoric. Tree juice. You think there will be flat roads of like, they don't change in summer and winter flat, perfectly, even roads and giant wheeled machines also powered by the same squished. Prehistoric tree juice, will go

rocketing across at speeds. We can't even can fathom. While at the same time. There will be these giant flying machines that are halfway to space, right? These giant exploding tubes of metal. Also oddly enough powered by the same crushed prehistoric creatures. And they will fly all over the place and everything will be cheaper, over time and Bruce Jenner's, a chick night. I get like, what you think. So let's talk about anarcho-capitalism. All right, because I haven't done much on it.

I think I've had one anarcho-capitalist, my friend, that guy t on YouTube who you should check out. If you don't know, I'm great guy in Atlanta. What is anarcho-capitalism? So Enduro capitalism is the idea that the so-called minimal functions of the state are actually. More than you really need. And it's it is not only imaginable but it could, but it really could work to privatize, the last lingering functions, the government, like police courts and the law itself.

Again, this is I need, it sounds really crazy. So, the way that I usually like to explain it is well, right now, people may say, well, government clearly estimate of Monopoly over police Monopoly, over Clover courts, and Monopoly Over Law is a Government monopoly over these things right now, right now, there's actually more private security guards and police. So I was like, is that really?

That's true. So there, you know, there are there are more people hired by business and communities to go and do policing than there are police in the like, you know, in the official sense and then you'll see no snow for courts. There is a huge area of private adjudication. There's arbitration. There's any time you have a problem with your credit card. Do you sue the company?

This involve? No, you call the credit card company and they have their own internal adjudication system for handling things like this Facebook. If you have problems on Facebook, do you go? In Facebook, know you Gus, you go and you feel, and you can play with them and they do something about it, and then you're not sure, they really do something about it, in the case of Facebook, but maybe well said, willing to let minimum, they give you a bunch of options, solve your own

problems. You can block someone, you can unfriend them. You can make sure they never contact you again. So, you know, they give you a bunch of remedies that you have, which they have worked out exactly what it is. They want to do about it. Yeah, and then Co similarly, for you for like, you know, law itself. There are many private organizations that have their own rules that they apply. So, you know, again, Mentioning the embryo private arbitration.

One of the main reasons people use private arbitration is that they don't use regular laws. They use their own laws which are designed to work better than the government's laws. So you can get your issue resolved in a few days instead of weeks or years. So, you know, like usually with Pro with private arbitration, they have the arbitrator actually be someone who knows what he's doing.

So they have someone who is in fact, an expert on this area business CEOs, rather than giving it to a generalist and 12 people. Who were who were too, To get out of jury duty. Yeah, so just just sort of beginning realizing. Wow. This is there's a lot of private, my private Alternatives that already exists right now. Yeah, 22. Government providing these services. That at first glance, a lot of people just have the reaction of it with Justice Society would just burn in Flames.

If there were private police or private core private courts or private law look around. It's not burning now and there's already a very large role for the private sector. Yeah. So and then what I think of when I think about enter go capitalism, I always just say, right, well, Let's start what we got. You realize that that is not going to lead anything bad and there's very good reasons why people are using these private Alternatives right now, which is they're better.

They're worth the money. You get, you actually get, you get better quality for a four of, you know, not only for a lower price. But remember, these are private companies competing with free government services and they're still carving out a bigger Market Niche for themselves. Because so many people are so dissatisfied with the services. They get provided free by the government and then just think of it. I'm still afraid. Yeah, socialism, it's a great idea.

If only it worked, it's not true. It's an unbelievably morally shitty idea. The reason is this the basic premise of socialism is I'm here. I'm breathing it. Give me crap. Right? I have the, you have an obligation to care for me. I'm right to health care. I can force that doctor to go to medical school. It's been two hundred thousand dollars spent her entire life, learning medicine and then I can walk into her house and forced her to provide me medicine, right? Capitalism by Nature.

If the opposite capitalism is the idea that I will starve. Unless I give you a good or service that you want, right? If I would give you something that you want. I'm not going to eat tonight. It's forced altruism effective way that we have to have afraid. You have to come to some sort of consensus. I have to give you something cool and you have to give me something cool, right? It's great. And socialism is rape, and capitalism is consensual sacrifice.

Why is it finishes? Very simple and objective with anyone who will enforce any idea or previous by physical Force. You one who initiates the use of force against another human being in that instant is acting like a dictator. And if you have Sable shoes that as a political systems, and there's a dictatorship, but I'm the arch enemy of physical Force. I'm for freedom of the mind and for being in people to your ideas by persuasion. When I first, could you bring your moral perceptions and

principles to a meeting? In 1917 1920, 22 to assassinate the Tsar one assassinate him. He fell, you know, of, by a lobbyist. You don't know that you didn't know that at the time, your armchair quarterbacking. Now, I'm asking you in the Dietrich Bonhoeffer sense. Could you plot to overthrow a person that you thought was obviously in your mind, denying civil rights to other people out against him. Certainly.

I always said you, should you have the more All right, to retaliate was Force, if someone important Sports on you, so you're for self-defense. Oh, yes, okay, but it's a profound difference. But when the underground people in Germany started meeting and saying let's knock off Hitler. That's morally acceptable. Totally. Just checking. This is so frustrating. No kissing. They did. There's one are that they throw in there, right? So anarchism means without rulers.

There's no centralized coercive Authority. And, and the reason one of the reasons why anarchism is so appealing is not only is it intellectually consistent, but also, when you have a centralized pyramid of power in society, you have no rules. They change all the time. That pollute me, just just look at what happened with with spying on the Trump Administration and the lying about it. And these allegations, The FBI is changing records and can't fight like there's no rules.

Look at the clintons. I mean, there's no. So when you get this, you don't get rules. You just get chaos and and bribery and panic, and manipulation and lies. And so that's, that's that's no rules. So anarchism simply says without rulers, no rulers, but everybody takes that last are out says, oh, that means no rules. And it's like, no, no. This we want rules right now. We have no rules in a free Society. The rules are negotiated that consistent there. The minimum necessary there, you

know. Constantly being whittled away as new technology, arises and so on. And so this idea that Eric is the means without rules and okay, some is the only way we ever get consistent objective and rational rules in society and never going to get it through the state. It's too subject to the power principle. Um, volunteerism, I see here.

I am assuming I'm talking mostly to voluntariness volunteerism is. Well, it can be with or without the why it just means advocating a society in which all human interaction is voluntary, instead of violent and that rules out government, because government is already always inherently violent. So volunteerism is just more precise. And more specific version of what I believe more precise and specific than anarchism.

Anarchism means no rulers. Technically you can be an anarchist who runs around chopping people up with an axe. As long as you don't Advocate a ruling class. You can't be a voluntary as two runs around talking about chopping up people than x because that's not about voluntary action, which is one reason that the term voluntarist is, is better, but it's also something nobody's ever heard of

Yeah, list of words. I had one of them at one point like a list of the terminology that that determined the basically the the the Lexicon of political mythology and what the terms really mean. Oh, there is that in the most dangerous Superstition, my book the most dangerous Superstition. It goes through a bunch of the terms that statism relies on and then what they literally mean and how just the connotation of those words, law crime, Authority law enforcer

government. All the things that convey something other than a literal description of what it really is prison and there's a bunch of them. I don't have in front of me Port, the state nothing gets done. There's nothing different. If you don't pay your taxes, you will get thrown in jail, you will get in trouble and what happens if you resist, you get thrown in jail. What happens? If you resist the people who come to throw you in jail, probably shoot you. That's what I'm right here.

I mean, look I have I have a problem with the way government raises almost. All right. Anu. I mean, I just, I reject the whole system of like taxation at the threat of violence, I think it's like primitive and barbaric, and when human beings, look back on that, it's going to be the way we look back at like slavery or arranged marriage or whatever it is. That the idea that the way we fund our organization, you know, like let's say there are these services that are necessary.

So the way we fund that as we go, you have to pay a portion of your income or will fucking throw you in jail. Yeah. We'll put you in a cage, lock you in a cage, like an Animal, this is like that's the biggest thing when I'm arguing that with people about libertarianism verse other, you know, ways that we should organize society. As my biggest thing that I just, I harp on is just like, okay, who should we throw in a cage? Who is it, morally acceptable to

throw into a cage forcefully? Like, send men with guns to get them and throw them into a cage. Like, I'll Grant you a murderer. Rapist. Someone who assault somebody. Okay? Yeah, maybe we go into like theft here. Yeah, things like that because that is a violation. Ation of, you know, you own yourself and then you own your possession stuff. That's a violation. But are you, are you really? Okay if someone's like, oh, I don't want to fund that program.

I won't like I won't send my money in to fund the war because I don't believe in the war. So now we can throw that guy in a cage. Yeah. Well, I don't want to, I don't want to fund up. Look, even if you have a really Noble charity, why should you be able to threaten violence against someone to get them to fund it? Well, that's where I like Gary Johnson. He's Gary Johnson steps in and says, we don't need the IRS. It's like, let's listen.

We don't, Did that's not how we have to make money, which put taxes on consumption. I, I like Gary Johnson. I wish he would be a little more Ron Paul, but he what way, I just feel like Gary Johnson has this way of selling the libertarianism as this kind of like, well, you know, it's more practical if we do it the libertarian way, huh?

Whereas I like, you know, when he's asked about the wars, he'll say, he'll say things like It was, I think if you look on average, these military interventions have hurt more than they've helped. That is exactly how he sounds like a very good impression. Yeah, I've watched a lot of well, so my only, by the way, that's not necessarily incorrect. It's just like, who, who would

talk about mass murder that way. It's like, it's like talking about slavery and you're like, well, I just think overall, this is an inefficient way to get cotton this dude like and your, your head. Abolitionists really, you're supposed to represent the Abolitionist Movement, right? With that. That attitude. So he's like a moderate radical. Yeah. He's just a pragmatist, man. He's just like this. This makes more sense, which is just fine.

Yeah, but I don't really want to sell libertarianism is like, I think we're fiscally conservative and socially liberal that he's like a, he's a bridge because he was a lifelong Republican. Like, he's a good bridge to getting people to consider an alternative party and maybe one of the only one One's, it's currently available. See I believe in a little bit more like a case for radicalism. I think that so Ron Paul when he was in the 2007-2008 debates.

She got a whole lot of people interested in libertarianism and he didn't do it by being like a bridge to like before I tell you, you know, slavery is horribly immoral. Let me first, convince you, it's inefficient and ineffective and that he went right to like this is wrong. This is wrong. We're killing people in countries around the world like this is We horrible and he got a movement going when he was in those debates. Gary Johnson was in one of the major debates in 2012.

You remember anything from his performance? You know, nobody ever does is no nobody ever does, because he'll go in there and, say things like New Mexico. I was able to balance the budget without having seven percent. My God, you're the greatest, the greatest political philosophy, ever devised by Man Behind You, libertarian. You have the answer to all this shit. You're the abolitionists in slavery times. Yes, and my God, so you really feel libertarianism is the

answer to everything. Well, no. No, but it's not in the same way that abolition isn't the answer to everything during slavery. It's the first moral Step 2. Then we can live in. What about libertarianism is so attractive to you. I mean, I just the, I think it's philosophically sound and it's, it's basically just to me it's a humble understanding of what existence is.

That we don't really know what this is man's kind of Born Into the world naked, and we're here with nature and we're all trying to figure it out and that morally speaking, we should all own our own lives and therefore own your own body and that and basically it all centers around property rights and the non-aggression principle, which is the idea that you should never initiate violence against a non-violent person. And then you just draw conclusions from that.

Well, those are all really standard, tell me something like already. Going to end on like misery or hunger. Issue is going to end in an end cap Society with those problems problems with salt. I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe, maybe not the very objective. I can't, I can't promise that because I'm not stupid as he can't. He can't predict the future. I say that it would be the best solution and sell those issues. But I don't know. You don't know if Communists

will do that, either. You're just basing, that only guess that the objective of objective of Communism is to end those things. Yeah, it's the objective that the whole system to end all those things. Yeah, they could be run directly for think they could be wrong. You ejected ism is to stop initiating for some people. That's it. We don't make any promises about poverty. You guys do. What guarantee do I have that an anarcho-capitalist Society with won't just tell me what you gave me.

Is that what you need? Is to make up your mind because there's no guarantees and communism either. We want me to say some occupational licensing. Restraint. Yeah, again, I think like, like, with trade, we argue in two different levels. One is the moral argument. I have a right to hire whomever. I want and whatever wage. Wait, we agree on, it's my money. It's his life. If I agree to hire somebody for a dollar an hour and he agrees to that. That's our right.

No government's got the right to interfere with us. And then there's the utilitarian argument. We everybody benefits when they enter into a trade when they voluntarily trade? Each other including wage transactions because otherwise they wouldn't enter into the trade. And and somebody might argue. Well, wait a minute. What if he agrees to to work at a dollar an hour great. He's from his perspective. He's better off than he was before.

And somebody from the left might say, well, that's ridiculous. That's not a subsistence wage, but it may be entirely. Rational. For example, we have college interns that that were not for a dollar an hour, but for free. And why are they doing that? That well, because they are gaining experience work. Ethic trade. I mean, learning the benefits of arriving at work on time and we're doing what we're doing here.

But let me say I agree that the ended at the end of the day, it's not just it's not The Economic Consequences that matter for me is the ethics of the matter. And I have a right to buy and sell peacefully to whomever I choose and to spend my money as I read and and so do you and I have no right to interfere. That you have no right to interfere with me. And if our government comes the consent of the people who are governed and that means we are responsible for what government does.

It's being done in our name and the question is if government has a monopoly on Force. Which I believe that's the definition of government. They have a monopoly on Force. Everything government does is done at some level with the threat of a gun behind it. Now, when I speak to groups that aren't free market groups, have to spend a lot of time explaining the government is violence. I'll skip over that whole section. So the question comes down to and this is what changed me.

The only things I can ask the government to do are the things that I myself would do. If I had a gun and I knew Justice. And the questions become very, very simple to me that because the question would you use a gun to stop a murder? Well, you know, that's assuming I can tell that it's really a murder that's happening which I'm not sure I can. I've got sure I could tell that

from vigorous CPR. But assuming I know that and assuming I had a gun, which although I used in our show and do a big bit on the Second Amendment. Don't actually carry. But assuming I had a gun and assuming I'm not that. I warn't a coward which I am. I'm not the one up here. That's a decorated Marine helicopter pilot. Remember? I'm the one who's Carny, trash. Would I use a gun to stop a murder? Yes. Would I use a gun to stop a rape? Well, if I hadn't read about it, Rolling Stone?

Yes. Would I use a gun? To protect personal property. Yeah, I would would I use a gun? To build the library. I'm from a dead factory town in Western Massachusetts, a poor town Greenfield, Massachusetts, and I'm wicked old 60 years old. I grew up before the internet. And I went to a terrible terrible public school, but I've been three times redundant there. Terrible. Terrible School. I Didn't Know Jack, so I went to the library all the time, the library, really, really mattered to me.

The libraries were first read, Kafka and Allen, Ginsberg, because Frank Zappa told me to swear I first heard Stravinsky and Perez for I first heard album, Barrack and stockhausen. It's where I first learned about magic and juggling and religion, which for those of you, who remember the Dewey Decimal System are all in the 900s. And man, I love that Library. I got on my bike and I rode there all the time. Frank Zappa said, skip the senior prom and go to the

library if you've got any guts. Precisely what I did. But what I use a gun to build the library, well, you know, I'd put up my money to build a library. I have, I'd beg you to put up money for a library, but I point a gun at someone and say, we're taking your tax money to build a library. Would I do that? No, I wouldn't. And that to me is right where we go down the line. I love NASA. When Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, I cried so hard that

I'm still crying. Now, when I say Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. No, I wouldn't. That's got to be done privately. And, you know, I like crazy crazy art. I like art that I bet everybody in this room hates. There was an artist named David Warner rohit's who got his Nea grants pulled in the 80s to because Nea grants pulled because his stuff was very anti-catholic and very Pro gay and they pulled the Nea money

from him. He was one of my favorite artists and my reaction when he lost his Nea Grant. When I was living in New York at the time, I went to his studio and I bought a lot of his work because I figured he just lost his Grant needs money. Probably be cheap. Would I use a gun for art? No, I wouldn't. I'd get rid of the Nea because now we have Kickstarter Indiegogo. We don't need it. They're more efficient. They're more honest. And they don't use Force. They don't use guns.

We do not use guns. I don't care how unpopular this is. I listen to NPR. I like Terry Gross. I like all that stuff a lot. But man, the fact that it's done at gunpoint, makes me sick. And I don't care if it's only 2% or 1% guns, do not belong at Art. And when Penn & Teller were asked to play a series of the show series in a theater that was all done with Nea grants. We wouldn't do it because Our

show is too goddamn good. And if I need to point a gun at you, to get you to come to my show, I need to find a different job. So that's how I became a Libertarian and I became a Libertarian nut. And I go on TV and I say things that are very, very unpopular. like I say, That I'm against gay marriage before anyone applauds it that I follow that with, I'm against straight marriage. I don't know why the government gets involved in my love life.

I love my wife and my children more than anything in the world. And the fact that the government got involved in that, doesn't make it more sacred. It makes it obscene. And the only reason we're married is because I could not find a lawyer in Nevada, who would promise me. But if we signed a contract and dotted all our eyes and crossed all our T's and spent a metric shit-ton of money.

They could guarantee that if something happened to my wife, I would get custody of our children if her family went crazy. And it wasn't clear that I could visit her in the hospital. So yes, I am against gay marriage and straight marriage, but until we can get rid of that and get the government out of that stuff. We got to allow freedom for all people. And the people that I fight for the most the people that argue for them or most are the Westboro Baptist Church because

they are nuts on the other side. And if I have any doubt, About their right to say what they want to say. All I am doing, is shutting myself up and those of us who are atheists and are people that don't have faith. We are fighting fighting fighting for the rights of people who want to have faith for people who want to believe because that is what Liberty is about. I have a very simple definition of Liberty. Liberty is the freedom to be stupid. No one. No one needs freedom to do.

The smart thing. We need freedom to be stupid. I have never had a drink of alcohol or recreational drug in my life right now. That means I'm banned from, Colorado. I did not not inhale. I said get that joint away from me. You stupid hippie. I was so afraid that if I had One Toke of marijuana, I would want to listen to the Grateful Dead, and I couldn't bear that I was so afraid that if I had a drink of alcohol, I would listen to Garth Brooks.

So I stayed away from all that stuff, but I will not tell you right now. I cannot tell you that. I think my life has had better choices than Jim Morrison. Who died at 28 in the doors. I don't know. That it's better to live a life. As long as I have so far, totally sober. But it is to do heroin and died. Really young. I don't know what's best for other people and I want other people to have the right to be

stupid. I want to fight for that freedom and I stand here before you now knowing that many of you do not agree with me to beg you as you grow in power. And is, John and all the other wonderful people here tonight. Help you get Your point across, please. Remember that there are nuts and whack jobs and creeps and freaks who disagree with you, but need you more than anything to fight for the right to be stupid and crazy. Thank you so much for letting us cheap Carny trash come here.

Thanks so much. Peace. When you hear the word libertarian, you think we'll gosh Libertarians they want Nothing goes right? No rules. No laws. You can do whatever you want and it's not exactly what we Advocate Libertarians do, Advocate, Freedom Liberty. We Advocate government ought to leave you alone and that you ought to get to make choices on your own. But would that mean lawlessness? Would that mean no rules. Anything goes we even Libertarians believe in some

sort of rules. And so one of the rules that Libertarians believe in something called the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle means that under a libertarian. In society. If we had one, you pretty much could do whatever you wanted as long as you didn't hurt somebody else. So as long as you didn't invade their sphere, of their rights, you could kind of do what you wanted. And you say well gosh, then there still would be all kinds

of crazy things. Everybody be doing heroin or be prostitution to be all these things and really many of us who are Christian and libertarian believe that not only would you be restrained by government from doing things that would harm somebody else but that, a Libertarian Society or even a republic as We were intended to be, would have some kind of restraint, and some people have described it as virtue, Washington, describe the beginning of the Republican.

He said it would be necessary for our country to succeed to have virtue. So you'd have the idea that the government would restrain you from harming other individuals, but there has to be something that also guides us that keeps us on the straight and narrow allows us to cooperate as a civilized society allows us to be an advanced Society.

Most of us don't. Steal, most of us, don't rape murder, do all these horrific things, not because there's a law against it. But because we have a sense of, right? And wrong. We have a moral compass. We have something grounded in religion. We have this this sense of virtue. No, so you capitalism simply says you can't initiate the use of force and your property rights should be respected. That's all it says. It's not a system if the absence of assistant, it's not a system.

If the absence of a system it says do not initiate Force. Well, I guess you know, you can say three but the two of them sites in gotta keep it contracts. Don't initiate Force, respect property. Which is the basis of civil law of criminal law. Well, hi everybody. I'm Bill Whittle and welcome to the firewall, you know, I think that the fundamental divide between liberal and conservative philosophy and policy comes down to how people feel about wealth. Not money.

Money is just a unit of exchange. I'm talking about wealth having more than you need to survive. Now. It seems that most modern liberals believe that wealth is essentially limited. They see the multi-millionaire with the Learjet, the big car and the three or four big houses as of One.

Because if wealth is more or less fixed if there's a giant but limited pot of money out there somewhere, then the fact that he has more means that someone else has less, his wealth has to be the result of stealing from the poor but we conservative see. Well, very differently.

We believe that wealth can be created from thin air that people can through, creativity, invention and hard work, physically, create new wealth, essentially, out of nothing for us. The rich man with a Car, the houses and the Learjet is not a Villain at all. On the contrary. He's a hero. Not a good man necessarily that depends on the individual.

But his personal wealth is just a small percentage of the much larger wealth that he has produced, which translates directly into hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of new jobs and valuable products or services that wouldn't exist. Otherwise, now, back in 1862 during the Civil War, the US federal budget was about 530. Million dollars in 2010. That number was three point five five trillion. That's three thousand five hundred and fifty billion dollars, that's about seven

thousand times more now. Does that mean in very general terms? Just as a milestone that there is 7,000 times as much wealth in America today as there was back in 1862. It absolutely means that the population of America today is only about 10 times what it was then, but the country is unimaginably, wealthier in 1862 the city that I live in Los Angeles looked like this. This was downtown, Los Angeles, right around the time that the

u.s. Federal budget was 500 million dollars today, whilst Angeles looks like this. Wealth is limited. Where did all this stuff? Come from? All of the shops? The restaurants, the 7-Elevens, and the endless rows of houses each, with automobiles air conditioning, widescreen TVs, Xbox 360s, and all the rest. Where did the money? The excess wealth come from to turn Los Angeles from a couple

of Huts into this. Oh, by the way, this is a place where the poorest people have things that the richest people in 1862 never had or could have dreamed of fine things like The biotics electricity cell phones and a thousand other common everyday Miracles. Where did all of this spectacular increase in wealth? Come from what caused it?

Well, it was three things. Let's say that one day, you sat down with a pen and paper and you wrote a hit song or maybe you're an architect and you're Drew floor plans for a new office building. Or maybe you patented the light bulb or the transistor or any of the rest. You created something in your head that wasn't there before something that had value. Which simply means that other people wanted it. And we're ready to turn over

some of their extra money. Their extra work tokens in exchange for it. You see this. This is an iPhone. This iPhone costs more than an abacus, because it does everything that an abacus could do a thousand times more quickly and easily. And it does a bunch of really cool stuff that an abacus can never do. We're now able to produce and own things like iPhones because thousands actually, it's

probably millions of individual. People had the mental creativity to make each one of the Technologies and components that lets the iPhone do what it does, the raw materials, the plastic, and the metal. That goes into making this iPhone cost just a few pennies, but the idea, the essence of this iPhone is worth much much more. But what about work? That doesn't involve any creativity or inventiveness at all? Does that actually create wealth?

Yes, it does. You know, I was an office temp when I first got to LA and one day I was led way in the back, past the cubicles to a desk facing, a cinder block wall and there I had to take one massive printout of customer names and compare them to an identical, massive print out of cheques issued and to mark them off one by one to confirm that. These people had gotten those checks. What did I done, that was worth my 750 an hour? Well, I'd make that insurance company just a little bit

wealthier by confirming. Those check mailings. I was reducing loss of customers, due to frustration and error. I was reducing the amount of time that higher level more valuable employees need to spend on doing the damage caused by unsent checks and all the rest. What I had done was, I had added just a little to the complexity of the entire world. And therefore, I added a little bit of value because in this is important.

Across checked and confirmed list was more valuable than one that wasn't and of course they made me just a little bit wealth here, too. But even these powerful elements of creativity and complexity Fade to insignificance compared to the real engine of wealth creation. Let's say you're a member of a hunting tribe up in the

mountains. Your tribe is great at making Spears. They're solid, they're straight and they've got a strong Flint spearhead, but you don't get to do much Gathering. So your baskets look like old birds nests. Now meanwhile down in the valley is a gatherer tribe, their baskets are woven tight enough to hold water, but their Spears are a little better than Sticks. Now one day a guy from the hunter tribe meets a guy from The Gatherer tribe and together. They agreed to trade.

One of the hunters. Excellent Spears. For one of the gatherers top-notch baskets. They both go home. And the question now is which one of them is wealthier. They both are and that's the miracle. They both are returning with things that they and their tribe prize more highly than what they gave away, simply because they are harder to obtain their rarer. But that's just the beginning.

You see the experts spear maker, then realizes that if he gets up early and stays up late, he can make more Spears than he needs for just himself and he can trade that extra work for something. He considers valuable a basket. Let's say it motivates him to do more than he needs the exact. Same thing is true of the basket Weaver and pretty soon. Both of them are employing. They're idiots sons-in-laws manufacturing Spears and baskets.

Yes, the guy making and trading the Spears gets relatively rich, but the fact is everybody wins the idiot. Sudden law the guys making the Flint spearheads the entire Hunter tribe gets the kind of baskets that they would never have had otherwise and likewise for the gatherers with their awesome new Spears. Now, for our Progressive friends, who feel that all wealth has To be stolen.

Yes, the guys with the spears could go out and kill all the gatherers and take all the baskets and then there'd be no more. Baskets. Free trade is non-coercive. Both parties. Only get wealthier when both parties willingly trade what they have for what they want. Now in a similar vein, some say that America is Rich because it stole all of its wealth from the third world. Well, let's blow this silliness

away, just real quick. U.s. DP is about 14 trillion dollars the GDP of a third world country Djibouti. Let's say is about a billion dollars. Now, America has 400 times as many people as Djibouti, but Americans don't just produce. 400 times what your booty produces we produce 14,000 times as much as they do. If we sent in the US Marines to take every single thing Djibouti, produced in one year, just took every single thing their entire GDP. Well, that would power the US economy. 4:30.

Eight minutes of the first hour of the first day of America's GDP year, if we took everything from the bottom forty countries, it might run the US economy for a day or two. The whole idea is ridiculous, at least two people who know how to add subtract multiply and divide.

My friends. Whenever two parties make a free-will trade spices for wool or grain for firewood or even three dollars and fifty cents for a Happy Meal, both sides benefit because the customer would rather have the hamburger and McDonald's would rather have the 350. Now. You're welcome to disagree with me. Of course.

You can email me a comment on why you hate business and corporations using your Apple computer while you sit at Starbucks and send messages down AT&T phone lines to YouTube's servers running Hitachi, hard drives, all of which. Powered by something like Consolidated. Edison most likely generating electricity by burning oil provided by ExxonMobil. Now, if you want to hand deliver a message scratched on a tree bark, using a sharp stick, while

wearing a grass skirt. I will be much much more impressed with your moral outrage. Creativity complexity and free trade make people wealthy. We conservatives believe that this is the great miracle of a free country and a free people. And that the government is not capable of doing any of this, all that, the government can do is regulate constrict and take away. Now, some regulations are good and appropriate and some tax

dollars are necessary. But every time we put the miracle of wealth creation, in back of rather than in front of the government, Ruin will surely follow. And that's the way things are heading. So that's why we have a tea party. And to keep these messages coming, go to the Declaration entertainment.com, and become a citizen producer. Just like the rest of the Kids on the Block. I'm Bill Whittle, we'll see you next time on the firewall,

you're dealing with government. You're dealing with the most dangerous Monopoly, that has ever existed in history and the other is, and I'll begin with the other, the morality of Taxation. It's a Very difficult moral subject. And that's always been my preoccupation moral subjects. Think about it for a moment, you earn money honorably and legally, you work very hard for it. And then people tell you, you

will give half of it away. And if you don't, we will arrest you, we will take you to, we will send police. They will physically remove you from your home and you will go to prison. Now. Under any circumstance other than the word tax, you would consider that to be immoral. You would consider that to be in fact, robbery thievery. Give me half your money or I will kidnap you. That's exactly what taxation is.

I win that bracket because of the combination of federal taxes and California, which I think is the highest of the country taxes as well. And people don't think that way. so, for those who say, well, It's not, it's not, it's not thievery, because people voted in a democracy. People voted to tax you. So, I don't quite understand.

If people vote to rob me. Why is that less robbery that if they don't vote to rob me, especially considering that half the people voting to take that money from me. Don't pay anything or don't pay any federal income tax to be very precise. 27 from the most dangerous Superstition by Larkin Rose. If human beings are so careless, stupid and malicious. That they cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own. How would the situation be improved by taking a subset of those?

Very same careless, stupid and malicious human beings and giving them societal permission to forcibly control. All the others Shadyside. Exactly. Right? But me, I don't look at Bill Gates and think that he's an Real person. I mean, I actually agree with the objectivist when they say, well isn't he a good person so well, yeah, he's made my life infinitely richer by giving me a an operating system that gives me easy access to almost all of the information. I want. I can do anything.

I want, I believe video games. I can watch movies that he's made, my life better, and what to do, what to do. He charged me for his work. Okay. I paid happily, you know, there's there's nothing immoral about this this and another thing, as well. Just the constant assaults on capitalism, a driving me nuts because I'm currently reading. Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker. And if you guys aren't sure about capitalism read that book, it is is just a wallop.

It's only stole their Thunder just real briefly because the reduction in World poverty over the last 50 years as the result of free trade and free markets has dwarfed anything that the Socialist has ever been able to achieve the Socialist have this program called take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Take money from the able and give it to the less able or however you want to phrase it and that is generally driven entire societies. If not see. Violations in to penury.

But the idea of open up free markets, open up trade and how much like in in China and India alone in India. 50,000 people a month, are moving into the middle class. It has been the biggest single reduction of poverty even since the 1990s just a couple of decades, you know, his and this should never have happened under capitalism and it should have flourished under socialism. And now that the empirical evidence is going against everything they stand for everything, they claim they wanted.

We actually find out how much they Really wanted it because if they say well we want the poor to become wealthier. If that's the real goal. They should be saying, I'm setting fire to Capital and I'm going to praise Adam Smith, but they don't do that. So I really question whether they do really want to help the poor are using the poor as guilt clubs to beat down and take power over others.

It's got to be that because they, I mean, you would have to be a Madman to suggest socialism to try and get people out of poverty. I mean, where is that ever happened? What I mean? We have a live. Action experiment while I wouldn't say experiment curse in Venezuela right now.

I recently did again like a 40 minute video but you know, which hundreds of thousands of people watched just going through the events of 2017 and watching the socialist government of Venezuela implements socialism in Venezuela, and it's just crushing the country. The country with the biggest oil reserves in the world. There should be no reason he.

It's insane. I mean it Argumentation ethics is a Libertarian political theory developed in 1988 by Hans Hermann hop, a professor emeritus with the University of Nevada. Las Vegas College of Business and Ludwig von mises Institute, senior fellow. Argumentation ethics aims to prove that arguing for any ethical position other than libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is

logically incoherent responses. Have mainly come from hops colleagues at The mises Institute among whom the arguments reception has been mixed hop states that because both parties in a debate propound, propositions in the course of argumentation and because argumentation presupposes various Norms, including non-violence, the active per pound, The proposition that negates the presupposed Norms of argumentation is a logical contradiction between one's actions and one's words.

A performative contradiction specifically to argue that violence should be used to resolve conflicts. Instead of argumentation is a performative contradiction, thus hop, argues that arguing against libertarian anarchism and the non-aggression principle is logically incoherent. Hope states. That how is Theft, how is it? Not somebody's ain't give me your money or I'll hurt you. And it actually came up before, when people say well, but they give us Services. All right.

Well, if that's the justification, then, give me $100 and tomorrow, I'll give you a moldy sandwich and then we're good, right? Because as long as I give you something with some of the stolen, after the fact that it's okay. And of course, everybody's well. No, that wouldn't be. Okay. Okay. Well then stop pretending, it's not fast. And stop pretending that them giving us something back afterwards retroactively makes armed robbery. Okay, because that's insane.

Again. It's just people sticking up for mythology. They were taught that they've never thought about and still haven't thought about. And they just, they repeat. So well, it's called, so it's called taxation. So it's not the same. Okay, I call that zebra-striped horse. Now. Is it something different? Or is it the same thing? With different words? I love how you call it a moldy sandwich. You You can't even say it's a regular sandwich.

You hate the state so much that they're not even a regular sandwich. Well, that's efficient enough to make a normal sandwich. Can you tell us what Anarchy means to you? And it really is just people getting along and and and not standing for anyone who uses violence or extortion against others. There's only one principle. It's actually the same. As Jesus said, the Golden Rule do unto others as you want them to do unto you, or we call it the non-aggression principle.

Any P. Do not aggress against others. And if you see others doing a stand up against it, everybody got if you are for gun control, then you are not against guns because the guns will be needed to disarm the people. So it's not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns. So you are very pro-gun. You just believe that only the government, which is, of course, so reliable honest moral and virtuous should be allowed to have guns.

There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political Elite and their minions. He is considered to be the founder of anarcho-capitalism a new form of modern libertarianism. Not only, was he opposed the Central Banking, like the other economists, but he also opposed all of them enough.

These services that the state provided saying goods and services that are provided, by the government can be provided more efficiently by the private sector. Unlike most socialist Jews, this to promoted, they complete opposite of Communism preferencing self-ownership unregulated, capitalism private, property rights. And the non-aggression principle above all else. This relatively new school of thought is still alive and spreading around the world today and is the major inspiration

behind the vehicle flying. But all right, but here now we're getting back to a fundamental problem. What's that? What is it? What is the fundamental problems? A little something called competition? Yeah, the lack of it. Government does not have competition and thus their windows are, hey, we'll see if we get a guy from the DWP out to the house between 8 a.m. And 10 p.m. Yeah. That's that's what competition. Does. It breeds. Nothing. You got it bleep breeds flab. Underneath your arms.

You have a business. You know what? It's like you can't charge 50 bucks for a bottle of Pinot Noir. If everyone else is charging 19 Bob's you got it, you're out of business, but imagine how your attitude would change. If you were the only guy who could sell wine in Napa. No, you guys. That's where the attitude comes. It. I agree with you. And that's, I mean, you're 100%, right? And so you got these monopolies government. There's no damn place to go,

right? And so at least we can Put some sunshine and light of day on it and here's some examples. I have my book, you know, you got Yelp for example, the complaint about restaurants and coffee stores or whatever and we out that way out there rating those things. Right? But why don't we have Yelp for government services and start writing your DMV comparing and contrasting, the DMV and your city. They got a deal, they'd be delighted. They be they be bragging that they got to F.

It was the other DMV. Okay. So your DMV that you have to use is the worst DMV and North America. There's no mechanism. Now you're going to do Let me ask you. This is all legitimate governmental power. Derived from the people did, the individual citizens ever have the right to initiate physical Force against other citizens that have not initiated remember, going back to physical force. All right.

You keep making this point. I don't know what your political background is, what the political background. Let me finish it because you just answer that question. Answer the question. Okay. I don't know really where you are coming from politically, but you keep coming back to the point. I presume that every law that is passed by the federal. The government or local government is some kind of forceful attack on innocent people.

I happen not to think. So I happen to believe that any Civil Society in a civilized society people come together. They elect their officials, the officials try to do. Well, sometimes they do sometimes they don't they determine priorities. They raise taxes and they spend money. Your implication is that sometimes that every government in the world is somehow beseeching innocent people in a forceful and violent way. I do not accept that basic premise.

What was the my question? And I answered your question. My question was, whether the individuals ever had the right to initiate physical Force, against other citizens that have not initiated or threatened to initiate physical Force. You seem to be, you think they did or they didn't? I think your question answer. Your question, is that all acts of government, every war that is being passed. Somehow implies physical Force against innocent people.

No. No, I have not said that that has nothing to do with the question that I asked. All I've asked you is whether the individual citizens ever had the right to initiate physical Force, against other citizens that have not initiated or threatened to initiate physical Force against the question. Five times five. In this country of people do not like what their towns are doing their city government, the state government, the federal government. They aren't elect people.

That's what freedom is about. What I asked willing to answer that question. It's an absurd question. You are employing. Find everywhere that people want to know what you like. No one has ever asked me that question. I must tell you if your implication is that every piece of right now, as we speak on the floor of the Congress, there is a discussion about a law. You can interpret But after that war is past, if people choose not to obey it, they will be punished.

Is it not possible for you to Simply to answer the quiz? Answer your question as best I can? Well, I have no idea whether it's a yes or a no, what is it? I've answered that. Question is best that I can? I think it's an absurd question. And then you mischaracterize the he wants. You don't refuse to answer that question. I've answered it in five different ways is your. Let me ask you to maybe help me clarify. Okay. Help me clarify the question. Sure.

Because I'm not quite sure. Where you coming from. Is it your suggestion? Every law that is passed by a city state or federal government implies an act of force against innocent people. No. That's not my suggestion. That's how can you answer the question of whether phrase it? Yes. The question is did the individual citizens ever have the right to initiate physical Force against other individual citizens. I would expect that would be

against the law. People do not have the right to go around beating up. That would be wrong. Right? I will people. So if they never had that right, could they have delegated to the government? I guess they have to have delegated. The right of governments to make war. They have delegated. The right of governments to build roads. They have delegated all types of rights to people. And in a civilized society, as you know, we have laws. We are Judges, we have courts, we have appeal processes.

And when people break the law, they are punished. Can you delegate a right that you don't have? I believe the American people have the right in a representative democracy to delegate. Power to their elected officials to do best for cities states and the federal government. So I guess the answer is yes, but didn't you say before I that they didn't have the right to do that? Like me, finish the show and I must confess that your questioning is interesting.

I've enjoyed the discussion, not quite sure where you are coming from, but I've tried my best to answer your questions, and I thank you very much for the kind. I've got a vote as you can say. I was one of the obligations of being the representative is to vote to try to represent the people as best. We got our got an important vote. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. You're very welcome.

Thanks for watching. I would like to worry, formations exactly where the show is going to be very who you are, where you come from. I think you gave me, I would like to know. Leave me your card for something, like, some very specific information, about who you are time. Will finances in the show were bills. Okay, would you like to do the show our minimum wage like family? I guess. Do you think that Chris Kyle is a hero. Yes, I do.

And why do you say that? Because he saved so many people, Do you think it's because like he was defending his homeland? Yes. So if someone is defending their Homeland that makes them a hero. Yes. So what would you say about someone who goes out and kills a bunch of people that are heroes for defending their Homeland? I don't know. Well, what do you think about the people that Chris Kyle was killing in the movie as a sniper? What were they doing?

No, well, I mean, you know what, the war, the movies about, right? The war in Iraq, right? Yeah. So, what were the, what were the bad guys in the movie? What were they doing defending their Homeland? So are you saying that the insurgents in Iraq are the heroes? No. What you said before, Defending Your Homeland, made you a hero, you know, you're saying the insurgents were defending their Homeland, right? Ford it? Yeah, absolutely.

I mean You know, if if Obama wants to go back to Iraq and you know, kill some more terrorists. Then hoorah. Let's kill all the terrorists. Hold on a second. I just realized something because I when I was in Iraq, we were we were dealing with insurgents. Right? And you remember, the scene in the movie, The First kill that he has, he kills a mother and her son, right GE. What are they doing? In that scene? They're trying to take a Russian

grenade and throw it at a squat. An American soldiers. And where are they somewhere in Iraq? I believe you remember what the city looked like, right. I mean, they're like a city square and it's pretty bombed-out, like, full of rubble. It looked like a war zone. Yeah. So look like their City. Just got really messed up by someone from from outside. It does. Yeah. And who did that? Well, it could have been Americans. That could have been the. It could have been Saddam.

No, Saddam was not bombing any cities in Iraq during the war. The Americas, ruined it up. Yeah, so doesn't that mean that like the mother and the kid, they were defending like their City against against a foreign Invader, like, in a someone who was coming in and like, doesn't that make them the heroes guy, right? And what we're trying to do is to get people to see The gun that's in the room that nobody talks about which is the initiation of the use of force.

That is at the core of the statist, philosophy and it's really hard to get people to see that gun in the room. It's like going to a bunch of fish and saying you're swimming in water and they say what water we don't know because it's all we know it's our entire environment people can't see it. And the against me argument is really designed to show the violence that is in people's advocation of state of solutions. The social problems.

Because there are two characteristics of evil that I think are really, really important to understand. The first is that it's really really really effective. I mean, it works really, really well, if you want a cow, a population if you want to take their money, if you want to put their children, In these lack of concentration camps called Public Schools, if you want to rule them. The Gun Works everywhere. Always beautifully.

But it only works if people won't look at it, violence is incredibly effective as a tool of ruling, what? Of course, I call the human tax livestock, but it's only effective to the degree to, which people don't look at it because the moment people see the coercion that is at the root of statism. They see that it's tomorrow and statism is a philosophy false. So, the first characteristic of evil is that it is incredibly effective and we all know this,

right. It's is it six years now that this Iraq war has been going on six. It's longer than the second world war. Right? It's actually I think coming on for longer than the u.s. Involvement in the first and second World War. and, It's amazing. It's the incredible Invisible War. There's no bodies, six years. You can look at the mainstream media and you can't see any of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed or driven out.

You can't even take a photograph of a flag draped coffin. Coming off a plane at Andrews Air Base. That's not legal. The elf. Is it? Did they change that? Okay, good. So, in year 6, You can now maybe take a photograph of a body. But what you see is you see these yearbook photos of these guys, you know. The guys who fall in like, they tripped.

So when we look at something like a war, you here patriotism Flags, you know, protection of the realm defense of the Homeland service to the nation and this and that. So you hear all of these amazing morally eloquent terms, but what you'll never see is the reality of War which is people being disassembled by machinery and bullets. And that's very clear why they would not want you to see that because if people see violence, they oppose violence.

So the violence has to be hidden in order for it to work and the argument that I'm going to lay out for you is designed to help you show the hidden violence. That is in the statist position, which I and to take the offense, right? Because Generally, and I'm going to generalize here, but maybe I think it'll make sense the way that we approach. A statist argument somebody who's advocating status position, or when we proposed a voluntary asked position is,

will take one of two approaches. There's either the pragmatic practical approach. It doesn't work. Right? Or there's the abstract moral approach. The initiation of the use of force is wrong. The government is an agency, which is a monopoly of individuals who claimed the right to initiate violence in a particular geographical area, and that's very abstract. And that's very hard for people to connect with in a visceral way.

Because another thing that's true about violence is that there's very few people who want to do it directly, people will support it in the abstract as long as they don't connect it. With what is actually happening at the other end of the bullet or the bomb? But there's very few people who actually want to do it directly. So that's what we need to do is to bring these this violence that is inherent in the system that we live in to people's understanding when you take the

pragmatic approach, right? So you argue the welfare state, right? What if someone says, oh, the welfare state is is great or necessary or good or whatever. The pragmatic answer is to say well, but you know, there were these friendly societies before we had the welfare state. They did a much more effective job. There's private Charities. And by the way, the number of Poor was declining 1%. A year until the welfare state came in in the early 60s and then it leveled off and now it's

increasing. So it doesn't actually solve poverty and so on, and you end up arguing statistics, which can always be criticized for bias or interpretation. You end up having to be the libertarian googlebot research, robot. Right?

Where you you sort of like, oh intellectual property rights, let me go and study intellectual, property rights and and then I'll come back and I bet to become the master of everything and I have to understand everything and I have to know every statistic and here are my charts. And here are my graphs and Here, I mean it's exhausting, right? And you can't ever become an expert at everything.

And when you finally do have the Ironclad case as to how the welfare state contributes to the problems of poverty. People say well, but it's the social contract. So I'm glad you did all that research. I'm not giving you a degree and I'm going to walk away from the argument anyway, and maybe there's, I mean, be anyone, you've all done that, right? So, we've all and it's not a lot of fun, right? I mean after a while you sort of feel like, man. This wall is really beginning to

end. Now the second approach is where we take the abstract argument. Well see the welfare state relies upon the initiation of force against usually legally, disarmed citizens. That's immoral blah blah, blah, right? And what the people say? Why? Didn't anyone what the people say to that argument? Well, it's not the initiation of force because it's a social contract, you can leave at any time you vote. You can change the system, you can get involved, you can do this.

You can do that. Right? So it's not forced because, you know, When you're in my house, you do. As I say, right? I mean, that's what that's what people say. That's how they view the government. Right? And so you don't and then you can argue about the social contracts, which is a real Quagmire, right? It's really hard to pin people

down on the social contract. So, I have not found those two approaches to work and I poured an embarrassing amount of time and energy into just those approaches to making these arguments. So in desperation, you know, when you're looking over that Cliff, saying, if I have Our argument like this. I'm gonna jump. I started to try and take another approach, right? Because I like to be so proactive that I wait until I'm really desperate before I come up with a new approach.

So my third approach doesn't rely on any statistics. Oh praise be to the heavens above, I don't have to look up everything all the time and then just have people say, well, those come from the Cato Institute. Come on. Might as well be quoting from Hitler and I don't have to have all these abstract arguments against the social contracts and, and go into that Quagmire which never seems to come a particularly effectively. So I wanted to come up with a third way and I'll give you an

example of this in action. And then I give you a tiny bit of theory and then, you know, grab a mic and let's take this thing for a spin and see how it works. So in a call-in show that I do every Sunday at 4 p.m. Eastern, a listener brought a friend, you know, that's always exciting because you always got to start from zero, right? And his friend. This is a woman who was a teacher and she, she said, I'm really for the surge. In Iraq, you know, I think it's going to work.

I think it's good. I think it's going to be effective. I think it's I'm really behind it. And I hear that you're not like, well, it's not that, I'm against the surge, you know, a doctor isn't against one cancer. And my old way, if I queuing would have been a 939 start of the Iraq War and its imperialism, which is really bad and the troops are paid by aggression against citizens and, and, and, and, and right in other words, trying to, you know, move her.

Like the 4-ton piece of cheese through the greater of Education in libertarian principles. I see other people know that greater, right? We've all had our fingers, right? Oh, wow, but you can't, and you can't push a camel through the eye of the needle, right? You can't. Yes, you just need a big needle. I don't have that big, a needle. So, so, I took another approach and and I'll just run through the argument, briefly will then apply to to stuff that works hopefully for you guys.

But what I did was I said, so you're for their search, right? And I didn't say, but there's the fifth Surge and they were for before they didn't work in, right? And I said, that's fine. I said, I completely respect your right to be for the surge. You like, The Surge, go hug The Surge. I'm fine with it, you know, take it out for dinner, by it, some flowers, whatever you like, you know, I said and I would never never think of using Force. Against you because of your opinion.

I would never dream of hiring guys in costume to come to your house. And cut you off to some torture chamber because you like the search. You are free to, like the surge. I respect your opinion. She was a little surprised but you an anarchist. I just left the yell at me. And so, I then said, I don't agree with the search. Do you give me the same respect and consideration to be against the surge as I'm giving you two before the surge? What you're going to say?

No, I want the guys in costume to come to your house. We have to, you know, you got to use the levers that people already, believe in the ethics, right? And people already believe in freedom of expression, right? So if I say, look, I'm allowed to disagree with you, right? You don't Advocate the use of force against me because I disagree with you, right? Of course, she's going to say no

across. I don't think that you should, she said, you shouldn't be a aggressed against because you disagree with me. I said, excellent progress. I'm not used to this. Let me get used to this. I'm dizzy. And So then I said, now it wouldn't make any sense at all. Logically. If I was allowed to disagree with you, but I could not act upon that disagreement. That would make that's an illusory, right? It's like, alright, the money,

right? Like, if I don't know, I had some daughter in the Middle Ages and and I said, you are free to marry whoever you want. But you have to marry the man I choose. Okay, we understand that would be a logical contradiction, right? That you can't be free to disagree with someone but not be able to act upon that disagreement. Right? That's like having the right to a free press, but not the right to type anything, right?

I mean, wouldn't make any sense. And she said, yes, it wouldn't make any sense if you were allowed to. If I said it's okay, if you disagree with me, but you can't act on that disagreement. Excellent. I'm even more dizzy now. Like how can we be? There should be three months down the road and I said, okay. So if you like The Surge, you like your less urge. No problem. Then you should take out your checkbook. And you should write. I think he goes by Don as well. Back then, Donnie Rumsfeld.

He is my money because I'm so damn with the surge. Here's my cash, right? Because you should be free to support the surge. So they the money if you like clearly since you have already agreed. That I am free not only to disagree with you, but to act tangibly on that disagreement, because there would be no right to disagreement. Otherwise, I'm allowed to not write a check to Donnie for something I disagree with.

And there was a pause and, you know, somebody's brain hangs in the balance, you know, like a pendulum, you know, a big wet thing going back and forth, you know, reason propaganda, really needs and propaganda. It's like one of those claw things where you're trying to get something out of the, come on Fall here for here. Actually, they're there. So She finally said well, yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. If you're free to disagree with the surge, then you're free to

not pay for it, right? And shockingly that was it. Now that doesn't teach her volunteerism. Obviously, it doesn't teach her. The theory doesn't teach her all of this lovely stuff that we sit and dream and reason about and think about and talk about and read about But what it does do is it puts her on the defensive and this is the core of the against me argument. Right? So the welfare state will do that one. Then will do anything that you guys want to talk about.

Because I know it's really tough to get a room for a Libertarian. So, grab a mic. It's but if you can somehow find it within yourself to someone to speak, well, we'll have some fun. So the welfare state. Okay, so someone says the welfare states. Good, right? So I say, well, I respect your decision. You'd like the well for a steak I respect. I would never dream of using violence to prevent you from acting upon your beliefs, your values, your virtues. What you consider to be moral.

Just right and good. Never dream of it. Gun is safely in its holster. Will you Accord me the same respect that? I am according you? Am I free to disagree with you without violence? Am I free to not like the welfare state? Without you thinking I should be thrown in jail. Am I free? To disagree one-on-one in person. So James, I'm actually curious of what, how did you come to call yourself an anarchist? I know it's been a long journey for you.

And eventually you got to the point of being an anarchist. How did you get to that point? I prefer the term voluntary us actually and it's one of those cases where the more clearly you understand the problem, the more clearly you can articulate the solution. So as obviously throughout anyone who's seen the Corbett report in my journey over the past eight years, trying to document all the things I document, its Was really The Logical inevitable outcome of

that. Because once you identify the problem of concentrated power in entities, like these governments which are always trying to accumulate more and more power and trying to obviously send it further and further up the pyramid. The only counteract counteraction to that is to decentralize 2D to localize to to bring the power back down the pyramid, back down to the individuals and there is no statist philosophy that can

accompany and accomplish that. So I use as the basis for my sort of Ethics ethical principle. So my basic ethical principle for the construction of any political ideologies should be that, the only valid basis for human interaction amongst adults is voluntary participation. And once you've got that as a base, I don't care what you build on that base. You can have your anarcho-syndicalist, your community, or your free market, libertarian Community, or whatever it is.

As long as it's based on voluntary participation. That's all that matters. And I think that is the answer to the problem set that were documenting her and how do we get? Is prohibited that it can do

almost anything it wants. In fact, of course, the federal government is limited, if the Constitution means what it says unless it's this sneaky majoritarian document intended to create to tell at arianism when we have a dictator like Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt or even his cousin Theodore or the guys that have been in the White House in the past couple of terms. You'll have to decide for

yourself. Whether the Constitution was written to permit that That, but we know that at least, as you read, it is one of limited powers. Do you remember Reagan's? First inaugural address? I know you do. Where is my microphone? All right in Reagan's first. Inaugural address in the third paragraph. I know you remember what he said. Do you remember what he said? The states formed the federal government and not the other way

round. Now if your humble temporary Professor had been the author of that speech, I would have added and the power which the states gave to the central government. They can take back. They can even know if I forgive me. Those of you who are my generation. This is the smartest guy in the room. They can. Even notify what the federal government does.

As you know, a concept readily accepted articulated in the Declaration of Independence, if we can separate from Great Britain, why can't the part of the country that hates the central government separate from the rest and make sense to, you makes perfect sense. Okay. Anybody else want to throw anything out at us? Sir, do you hear me denying anything? Oh, I thought there was going to be going to be a follow-up.

And what I want to do is just say a couple of things briefly about so-called fiscal stimulus and then monetary stimulus. In fact, I think I'll actually do them in reverse order to show that, of course, we should expect these things are only going to prolong the agony of a depression. Now for the monetary part, let me not assume that everybody in the room. Knows Austrian business cycle Theory. A lot of people are coming to this for the first time in recent months or in the past 18

months. Two years. And so I don't want to assume that, you know, that or if I say they've been misallocation of resources. How did that happen? So let me give the really, really stripped down Reader's Digest version. And for those of you in the room who are experts, who are saying, I can't believe he didn't talk about the. Well, you're right. And I deserve that rebuke, but I'll happily take an extra 15 minutes, but Doug French will. Never let me speak at one of these again.

So, so just please, just be patient with me. Let's just give the the stripped down version. Basically goes like this. What Hayek was arguing in his important writing in the 1930s was that interest rates actually play a role in the economy. They're not just arbitrary numbers, they play a coordinating function and when they are permitted to play this coordinating function, what they do is they coordinate production across time. So that is to say when we save more and that an interest rates,

consequently decline. That is the very time that it makes sense for businesses to produce goods and to Engage in projects that are going to bear fruit in the future. Because when we save more were basically saying, I'm going to consume this portion of my income in the future. Well, that's the future that businesses are are investing for. And why are they investing now? Because the interest rates are low and there and the longer term their their production project is the more interest

rate sensitive. It is. So it's going to give a disproportionate stimulus to longer-term types of Investments. So the interest rate, then coordinates this I desire to consume in the present versus the future and businesses production processes oriented toward the present versus the future. Secondly, the very fact that I'm saving that I've earned my money and have not returned back into the economy, to take that money and claim all the resources to, which, in a sense. I'm entitled.

I'm actually leaving some of those resources out there in the economy. Well, my deferral of consumption, my releasing of resources into the economy, provides the material, wherewithal to see all the new Business projects undertaken by investors through to completion. So again, now, the interest rate is coordinating this as well. The in effect the supply of real saved resources in the economy.

And what Hayek said is that when you tamper with the structure of interest rates, as the market sets them, you are introducing discoordination into this coordinating structure. So now, if the Central Bank, like the Federal Reserve simply says, we're going to force interest rates down through our open market operations. The problem here. Is that in this case? The public has not necessarily indicated. They want to consume in the future. They want to consume right now.

They might want to consume even more right now, but yet businesses are still being encouraged to engage in long-term investment. So people are demanding more of existing Goods right now, but get investors are being misled into engaging. In long-term product development for new products in the future. It's a Time mismatch likewise. If just because Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan says, hey, we're going to force interest rates down that doesn't release any more. Resource into the economy.

So you have an unchanged resource pool to fund a whole bunch of new investment projects. Well, how you gonna do that? They can't all be completed. So there's going to be a bus that comes. So this is the super duper really fast overview with us. So that's why simply saying, let's create more money and let's jolt that money into the banking system and keep interest rates down. That's not a solution to a depression. That's the cause of the

depression. That's what gets people on to these unsustainable investment trajectories. And if you continue to do it, all you're doing is encouraging people to continue building things that ultimately can't be finished or won't be profitable or there won't be sufficient. Consumer demand to in effect rationalize these Investments at the end. So that's a super duper duper stripped-down version of the theory.

So there are implications here. But what you should do during a depression again, stop the money creation. Now, mises example that he uses in human action of the Master builder who's building a house, but he's under a misleading impression of how many bricks he has. He thinks he's got 20% more bricks and he has and let's say he can't buy anymore. He starts building the house, but he's building a different kind of house than he would have

built. If he had known the real supply of save resources in his micro-economy. So he's building a house that he won't be able to finish. So if we say to him, well, in fact, let's think of this way. What would be the best way to get this Builder out of his predicament? It would be to alert him. Him, you're building a house that you won't be able to finish and alert him as soon as possible.

Don't wait till he's at the last brick and say, oh, that was the last brick, because now he's got a demolish, the whole building. Now. He squandered all those resources. Now, he's wasted all that labor time and he has made society poorer. So we see first of all from this example that the boom period the period where he's building the house. He's got a point, everything looks great. That's where the damage is done. The recession period when he realizes. Whoa, whoa, I'm doing something

unsustainable. I'm Wasting resources. I'm wasting labor time. That's the return to health, and so likewise. Now, let's think of that in terms of the economy as a whole, if producers are engaged in projects, the economy as a whole is on a series of investment trajectories that are unsustainable in the long run. It's better that it find that out right now and that it not find it out in the distant future.

So in effect, the analogy I've used is when people say the solution is let's Pump more money in the economy. Let's put interest rates. Way down. Let's put them down to zero. In fact, zero is too high at what we're doing, even hearing from some people, zero is too hot, whatever, whatever that means, whatever they wanted to

do with that. But when they say that, what they're really saying is that the way out of the master-builders, Dilemma is that we should just get this guy drunk, just licking them up. So he doesn't notice the dwindling supply of bricks. He just keeps on, he's having a great old time, but does that hold off the bust? The bust is inevitable? So likewise by saying, we all just keep pouring in more money, that doesn't change the fact that you're going to unsustainable structure.

And when Alan Greenspan did exactly this in 2001 when he started, you know, with all these rate cuts and we're going to just get things going again, and he refused to let that recession take its course and that healthy process, whereby. These unsustainable Investments are stopped and they stopped impoverishing us. And those resources are reallocated into sustainable project.

He wouldn't let that happen. And It's the first recession on record in which housing starts did not decline and it's right at that time that people therefore drew the false conclusion, the FED fueled conclusion. That you know, everything goes bust in a recession apparently except housing housing prices. Never go down a house, is the best investment you can make. You should make a living flipping houses because that's an easy way to make money.

All those myths, get started right at that time because Greenspan is trying to hold off the recession by keeping the master builder liquored up, but now, the master Builder is on the last brick and so the recession is all the worse. So we shouldn't look back at 1920 and say what a big surprise, the FED didn't try to keep the bubble going and yet somehow the economy, get out of it. No. No, it's because the FED didn't try to do that. That the economy recovered.

It's precisely for that reason that the economy recovered. Relations to fall. I tend to toggle in my own self description between liberal, which I think is actually the historically, accurate phrase and Annika switch to me represents, you know, my ideal of my conviction that that Society can manage this health better than the state can manage Society. If you can get there, intellectually to imagine a world without the state and and have a conviction that things will be perfect.

But at least I'll be always improving. We have a model for correcting, our errors and And gradually building a better Society for everybody. That's a big moment in life. And I don't think you're ever fully step back from that. Hey guys won't care because at least socialism is inherently more morally altruistic than the evil greedy. Capitalist warmongering seen in the west greed. What's more greedy than wanting

to take from someone else. Something that you haven't earned unlike capitalism free enterprise, which can only occur truly through voluntary transaction. Socialism can only Only occur at gunpoint.

That's what it comes down to. If you don't pay your taxes, once you get through the IRS and the auditing and the lawyers, and the pr stunts, people make, you give the government, your money increasing amount of your money, the more successful you are or they send in scary men with guns to take you away page 29 from the most dangerous Superstition by Larkin, Rose. Perhaps most telling is that if you suggest to the average, Person that maybe God does not exist.

He will likely respond with less emotion and hostility then if you bring up the idea of life without government this indicates, which religion people are more deeply emotionally attached to and which religion they actually believe in more firmly. Are you for gun control? Yeah. Who should control the guns? Who should control the guns? Probably the government you trust. The Government know, you don't trust the government, but you want them to control the gun others. What is libertarianism?

Well the way I see, libertarianism first. I have to say that if you get 10 Libertarians in a room, you're going to get 11 different views as though it libertarianism is. It's sort of like hurting hurting cats or something. So my own view is that libertarianism is either a two-edged sword or two sides of the same coin. And on one side of the coin is the non-aggression principle. And on the other side of the coin is private property.

The non-aggression principle is pretty non-controversial. What one says is, keep your bloody mitts to yourself. Don't grab other people or their property, without their permission. Now, if you ask the, the next hundred people that walk down the street, do you favor murder rape and theft, you know, they'll say of course, knives. And even if they do, they won't admit it. But the difference between libertarianism and other people is that we're really serious about that.

We apply it to everything. We apply it to other people. Other institutions including government, the way, I see, libertarianism. The essence of it is anarcho-capitalism because the government itself is a violator of the non-aggression principle because it it tells people you have to pay taxes whether you like it or not. And then they're the these excuses. Well, If you live here, you know, you've implicitly agreed. I didn't implicit agree to anything like that.

I never signed any Constitution, or any agreement that other people can take my money and give it to other people. It's just that if anyone else were to do it and not calling themselves government. We would know, clearly that it's a violation of the non-aggression principle. But somehow government is free of this problem. The way I see, libertarianism. There are like three or four stages. The highest is anarcho-capitalism which applies the non-aggression principle to

everything with no excuses. No exceptions, including government. The second one level down would be menarche ISM or minimal government libertarianism, which says okay, there is a role for the government and the role for the government is to protect persons and property and to that end. There are only three institutions that are Justified armies to keep foreign bad guy. All of us police to keep local bad guys off of us and courts to tell who the good guys, and who the bad guys?

Are people associated with the First anarcho-capitalism with the Murray rothbard. For example, people associated with the second, one would be on ran and Ron Paul. Then the third one a little bit below, that would be classical liberals, who would say, yes, so we have to have government and it should include those three functions, but it has a few other functions as well public goods. And And, and two or three other things.

I'm not sure who I would put in there, maybe Robert nozick, and then fourth after that would be sort of free Enterprises, but who make a lot of compromises and who say, yes, we have to have the government do this. We have to have government do that, but they talked a good friend, a prize line. I would include Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek here.

In that category. They make a lot of exceptions, and I think one of my lectures upcoming is an attack on Milton Friedman and cosine Buchanan, who I would also put in that category. Okay, so that's the first side of the coin. The first side of the libertarian coin. The non-aggression principle, but you need the other side of the coin. Also, because suppose I go and grab sunjai's wristwatch.

He's sitting in the first row and I just grabbed his wrist watch, and he smacks me. Well, did I commit aggression? And he was Defensive or not? It depends upon who owns that wristwatch, if he stole it from me yesterday, and now I'm repossessing it. Then I'm the good guy and he's the bad guy on the other. And the reality is, I never met the man before, he didn't take his wristwatch.

He didn't take mine, and if I take his wristwatch on the aggressor, so we have to have a theory of private property rights. Otherwise, we can't tell who the aggressor is, and who the aggressor isn't. Well, the libertarian view of Homestead property rights is based on homesteading. This is John Locke. This is a Murray rothbard Hans. Hoppy as made a magnificent contribution to this Theory as well. And the idea here is you mix your labor with the land and

there are continuing problems. How long do you have to Homestead? How Deeply how intensively can you put one corn plant? Every foot? Every square foot every square yard, every Square. Your every acre, every hectare every square mile Watt and Murray rothbard used to say, well, it depends upon the culture east of the Mississippi and in the u.s. You have to form more intensively, because it's a more fertile area, west of the Mississippi. You don't have to form as intensively.

Okay, so you form some land, and I domesticate a wild cow, and now I have a cow and I get milk from the cow, and you have wheat, From your form and now we trade. So this would be another legitimate title. Transfer one would be homesteading. Another would be barter or voluntary, trade anything voluntary, anything peaceful as Leonard, read used to saying. So what are the other legitimate title transfers beside border? While this purchase, there's a gifts, there's a gambling,

things like that. So you trace back all property to that to that end. And one of the radical things I've done is a thing called. What's the word for losing? My marbles here, reparations? What about blacks who were? Most of my examples are not going to come from Australia? Because I'm not as familiar with that country, as I should be.

But in the u.s. There were black people who were enslaved and now, there are white people who have plantations in South Carolina and should this stuff be given to the black people. Well, Murray. Rothbard answer is possession. Is 9/10 of the law. We assume that whoever is the legal owner, is the rightful owner, and it's up to the other guy to prove that he isn't the rightful owner and could this be done? Yes, so we can have reparations. That.

Wasn't that far back that we had slavery in the United States only 150 years ago. And if there's evidence that a specific black person who now lives in the Bronx, his great-great grandfather, worked in the Plantation in South Carolina, and there's some sort of evidence. Well, he should get part of that Plantation namely. It shouldn't have been given to the the white slave master of sun. When the slavery ended. It should have been given to the slaves as punishment for slavery

or kidnapping. Okay. So here we have. What I see is sort of the Bedrock, the basic principles of libertarianism the non-aggression principle. Private property rights based on homesteading and voluntary trade. And then, the way I look at the world is through these eyeglasses of libertarianism. Any problem that comes up, I say, well, how does it match with the non-aggression principle? How does it match with the homesteading private property? And then I might not have the

answer. You have to do a little bit more research and thinking about complicated issues. Like I don't know abortion or blackmail or something, which I'll be covering later on. My lectures, but at least you have some sort of grounding some sort of background to approach the problem. And I think that this is very invaluable, very important for Libertarians to have Okay, what I want. Well, how are you surviving? There? Is somebody who's you know, you

know, on TV is a concern. So I might not have to deny self is open to Donald Trump's ideas because there are a lot of actors. I know many of them who are part of the Hollywood conservative underground and they do not reveal mean right at all. I like I'm really an anarchist. That's how that's how I look at it as comedians. I'd only anybody tell me what to do. People still objected. Quite simply a statist, is somebody who believes in having a state.

Basically, anybody who wants government government is the exercise of authority over a people or place, and that is basically the right to rule. It's not just the ability to control other people. Because most people have that in one way or another, it's the right. It's the idea that certain people. It's legitimate for them to forcibly control others. Belief in government is a purely faith based in They did belief. It doesn't actually make any sense in Practical terms or in

evidence or Logic for years. I thought it was a really good analogy to compare government to religion and only a few years ago. Did I realize it's not an analogy. It is a religion in every way. It has a superhuman day at government, that has rights that Mortals don't. It isn't restricted by the rules that apply to Mortals, IT issues commands. And if you disobey Now you're a sinner and you deserve to be punished, the faithful, the true believers.

They have great faith in these bizarre rituals elections and legislation and appointments and they dress up and then they say, Tada now, I represent government. I know I just look like a person but I don't just have the rights of a person because I represent the magical day at he called government and so I'm allowed to demand your money and boss you around and hurt you. If you disobey me. I'm acting on behalf of government and it has Commandments called laws. And these laws aren't just the

threats of humans. They are decrees from something superhuman. And so all you good people out there, should bow to this day a day. And if you want the world fix, this is what you pray to. And we give you certain rituals of how to pray to it. And when you're supposed to pray to it and pray to the god, to make the world, what you wish it was and to save you from all the uncertainties. Of reality.

The doctrine people are taught is just patently, absurd, and a bunch of examples of that are like consent of the governed. There isn't such thing. If it's consent, it's voluntary. If it's being governed. It's not the actual give an excuse is we have the right to rule you because you decided we did even if you didn't vote for us and even if you oppose everything we do to you and while they represent us.

Okay, they And asked by doing a lot of things that we don't have the right to do and they represent us by, bossing us around and taking our money. Like, I bet if I went to my neighbor and boss them around and took his money and said I'm representing you, he would say what what a stupid thing to say to me, the most insane is, we are the government, which you hear everywhere and I asked somebody, wait. Do you really not? Notice that there's a group of

people over there? They issue threats and they call them laws and they issue demands for money. Money and they call it taxes and if you disobey they send men with guns to hurt you. Now, are you really incapable of distinguishing between yourself and them? One of the, the biggest giveaways that the belief in government is a complete Blind. Faith religious believe is the way. People respond one, very easy line of questioning is, can you give somebody else a right that

you don't have? And everybody says, well, no, of course not. Well, how about you? And your buddy? The two of you give someone else a right that neither of you had. Well, no and it only takes a couple more questions to get to work. How did Congress get rights that you don't have, they get emotional and they get angry or they get defensive or they run

away. They didn't come to this belief through reasoning and evidence and logic, they came there by having a blind faith, belief smashed into their heads. Starting before they get even talk.

It's just something. They were taught to believe that there is this This thing called Authority and that it's allowed to do things that human beings are and that people have an obligation to obey it. To the point where yet, it's some people, they were gods or anything, some people wrote down a thing on paper, and then they called it legislation, and they did certain rituals. And then people go around

saying, well, this is law. Most people literally feel physical discomfort, and fear at the thought of disobeying anyone in Authority. Most Can't say, no. I'm not gonna do that because it goes against their years and years of programming and indoctrination that trains them to think. If you do, as you're told, you're good, if you don't you're bad and that's the message of school and that message gets pounded in people's heads. Students are taught over and over and over and over again

every stinking day. They're in school. That the measure of your virtue is how well you obey Authority, the whole approval disapproval thing. The one thing you learn in school. All is if you do as you're told, you get approval and reward, if you don't do as you're told you get disdain and condemnation, though, make sure everybody knows you're a bad person because you didn't do, as you were told the belief in

Authority leads, everybody. Good people bad people everything in between to Advocate and do things. They wouldn't otherwise do bad things. They wouldn't otherwise do including cops because the cops really and truly believe that they The right to do things that I don't have the right to do and you don't have the right to do. The only reason most of them do what they do is because they believe in authority and they really believe that legislation gives them an exemption for Morality.

So that when they do something and someone says, hey what you're doing is bad. Hey, I don't make the law. I just enforce it. I'm not responsible for my actions. I'm just a tool of some weird thing, somewhere else called government. You can't blame me for what I am personally doing because I'm not really doing it. As loony as that is. That's what most of them will say. Whenever somebody says, hey, why you're doing is wrong. It's not okay. To no, it's not.

Okay, to lock people up for smoking marijuana. It's not. Okay, you know, all the ways in which quote, unquote law enforcement initiates violence against nonviolent people. And if you bring that up to them, they literally talked as if they didn't do it. The only reason they do that is because they were taught the LIE of authority in government, and law, along with everyone else.

And then they were told You're just a tool of the thing called law, and that makes it. So, you have rights that other people don't have. So, you don't have to feel bad about physically, assaulting nonviolent people, because the law says it's okay. It really is just permission to ignore your conscience, by saying you have rights that other people don't, you know, you don't have the right to tell other people what happened to have on your own.

You don't have the right to go and extort people on your own, but once you are law enforcement, Iseman then not only is it okay, it's Noble and great to go around robbing people and bossing around. That is the biggest danger of the belief in Authority. It tricks. Good people into condoning or doing really nasty, horrible violent things because they think, well, this is okay. If Government Authority does it, they are raised by their parents

by the school by the government. By the culture, by all the authoritarian messages built into everything. To think that obedience is a virtue and when you raise the culture to think that and you get one nasty psycho at the top who says, hey, go do bad stuff. People say, well, have to follow orders. I have to obey the law. I have to do as I'm told because that's a virtue and then good people. March often do evil stuff. I'm not scared of the mouth and the songs and Hitler's.

I'm scared of the thousands or millions of people that hallucinate them to be Authority. And so do their bidding and pay for their Empires. And carry out their orders. I don't care if there's one gloomy with a stupid mustache. He is not a threat. If the people do not believe in the authority, some people assume that while you must trust everybody. If you don't want governments, not at all true.

I don't yearly trust everybody. But if I don't trust people to run their own lives, why on Earth would I trust them to be in a position of power? Where they can forcibly run other people's lives? Really what it boils down to is saying, I don't trust people. People are untrustworthy and

unpredictable. So my solution is to take some of those people, some of the most untrustworthy around, give them permission to violently, control, us, all, and that will protect us from the untrustworthiness of mankind. Okay, you're so scared of of the average man out there. I'm so thankful for government. Let me ask you, who is taking more of your money under threat of force, private people threatening you or agents of authority threatening you, how

many murders are committed. By private people compared to how many are committed by people acting on behalf of authority. It's not even close. The number of murders committed in the name of law enforcement, and government and Authority, completely dwarfs. Private murder. Even Governor's, killing. The people of other countries, is small compared to them. Killing their own people. In the last 100 years, over 270 million, human beings killed by their own. Governments not counting War.

That first step is always the hardest to get someone to dare to set aside. His Blind Faith long enough to think about things to back up enough to say maybe government isn't even legitimate at all. It takes a lot for people indoctrinated into the faith to dare to think of those literally Blasphemous ideas that. Now, those people in Washington don't have the right to rule their threats aren't laws.

They're just threats. It demands, our taxes as just extortion and that really feels like heresy because it is it is heresy against the god called government. I now have a huge amount of Hope because I see an acceleration of the number of people who dare to think about these things. And now the number of people able to have this conversation is just hugely exploding and they're still a minority, but that exponential curve. I don't think. It's stopping. I really think the cult of

statism is as good as dead. Ultimately. I think the belief in government is doomed for the exact same reasons that the belief in a flat Earth is doomed. There's too many people pointing out the utter inherent Insanity in the belief and that is not going to go away. Nobody who understands self-ownership and understands why Authority is inherently bogus wakes up the next day and said suddenly, you know, I think I should do whatever the

politicians say. I think really humanity is just beginning to wake up to what it's supposed to be Humanity. Wasn't meant to be a domesticated species owned by a ruling class. Every human being owns himself as in charge of his own life. I'd like to see actual rational moral civilization to my lifetime, but we are going to get there sooner or later. We are totally going to get there. The like will never outlive the truth forever. Force versus violence.

We need to understand that these concepts are complete opposites of each other. They are not the same. The term should never be used interchangeably with with each other because not only are they not even remotely similar, their direct diametrically opposed opposites. Let's look at the difference there. Often spoken about is if they're the same and they're used interchangeably. When in fact, they are actually diametrically opposed to each other Force.

The definition of force is the capacity to do work, or cause physical change in the physical world. Okay? For any change to be created in the physical world. In any capacity, Force must be used and applied. There's nothing you can do. That doesn't require Force. If you're going to make a change. The physical. Okay. So to set up this equipment or so is required. We had to lift it. We had to set it up. We have the plug in the cables forces. Required to do all those things.

It's the capacity to perform physical activity, physical work. OK. Action forces actually action with, which is in harmony, with morality and natural law, because the taking of it, the usage of it doesn't violate rights of other people. So as soon as you're stepping over the line, into coercive usage of force, that becomes violence, the initiation of force for coercive reasons, for coercive applications becomes violence. That's what makes it violence.

Force itself is not violence. As such forces action, which one always possesses the natural right to take. And this includes the defense, the physical defense of someone's person, their body against the act of violence Force. May be applied in that situation. When you are a costed with violence, you do reserve the right to use physical Force defensively against such an assault. Violence on the other hand. And this is the key to keep in

mind with violence. It is the immoral initiation of physical power, to coerce compel or restrain unrightfully. No one has the right to ever enact violence because violence is always starting it initiation. That's the key word there. It's the immoral, the unrightfully initiation. So, you know, teachers in schools. You know, if there's a skirmish that happens between a couple of male students one day, they'll say, it doesn't matter who started it.

If it matters is who started it. All that matters is who started it all that matters, because the person who actually conducted violence is the person who struck first, they initiated the immoral, use of physical, behavior of physical Force, to coerce physical power, to coerce, compel or restrain. Therefore, when the person beats back that physical assault with Force, they have not Committed an additional wrongdoing. Okay, it's difficult for many people to understand who are in

right brain and balance. They don't want to acknowledge that you maintain the natural right to use Force when you are a cost in with violent Behavior. If someone just came up to me on the street and started swinging, okay, because they want something I have or just because they don't like the look of me for whatever reason, they don't have the right to do that if I replied by beating back their attack with sufficient. Forced to put that action down. How many wrongdoings would have

been committed one? Correct one, not 21 because I maintain the right to defend myself with physical power with physical Force when necessary when violence meaning someone else started the immoral Behavior. That's what matters, the initiation who started it is. All that matters. All that matters. And, again, it's a very difficult thing for the ego to comprehend. The ego, doesn't want to hear that. It's been conditioned so long. That responding with force is also violence.

We are verbally and mentally equating these two things. And when they, in fact, they are actual complete opposites. Hey, if somebody, if a kid got hit by somebody else in a school and then that other kid said, maybe even said once stop what you're Doing. And then when the other kid wouldn't stop, he punched him and knocked him out. Okay, I would ask other people whose who struck first and the kid lying on the floor struck first, I'd say you got what you

deserved. That's it because that person had a right to defend themselves. You had no right to strike him, you initiated the violence. He responded with defensive Force, many people don't want to hear that. Because they're very conditioned. I'm not saying you have to do that. You also reserve the right not to do that. But the right does exist, both

things both rights exist. You would have the right to not respond with physical Force, but you would have the right to respond with physical Force. See that's a free-will decision that the person has the right to choose between those actions. I don't even look at either. One of them is the high road,

you know personally. I think if somebody keeps beating somebody and keeps conducting violence to them and the other person keeps accepting it and never reveals against it and never uses any Force to put it down. I almost look at that as the low road. I'm not a pacifist, not a pacifist. Okay. I am 100% about non-violence. Meaning don't initiate harmed. Other people. Don't start. It. Don't start. None won't be none in street lingo. That's how that's how it really.

He is. Okay, but if somebody else starts it, they're asking to be put down with the amount of physical force that is required to put down. The act of aggression. Violence is coercive action. See, that's the key. It's always coercion saying. You're going to do what I want you to do, or then I'm going to strike. Then I'm going to commit the act

of violence. It's coercive, its action, which is always an opposition to morality and natural law for the very reason that it involves the Nation of others rights. That's why it's called violence. It's a violation. The act of violation caused. It resulted in violence. Your rights have been violated. That's why it's called violence. The same root word. Violence is action, which one never possesses the right to take ever.

There is no such thing as the right to commit violence doesn't exist because violence is the immortal initiation of physical power to compel coerce restraint, which no one has the right to do know, you don't have the right. No one does have the right to initiate that type of action force. On the other hand. There is a time and a place to exert that force in a defensive capacity. All right, so we'll talk about

that here. This piece of trash comes up to somebody on the street and says, give me all everything that's valuable. I want your shoes, other leather, take them off, take the wallet out, all the jewelry in your purse, in your wallet. Okay, it's called a thumb. Nobody would believe he has the authority or the right to do

that. And we would have the moral obligation to obey this criminal, you know, you know, if the criminal sorry calling himself government we might start believing it. Right, but let's say, let's say, I somebody on the street saw what was being done, took out their own 9-millimeter and Bloom this guy away how many acts of violence were committed 11. But while I understand what again that somebody saying, I prefer not to see it that way again, perception. And reality do not really

aligned. In many cases, they're not the same. That person is M incorrectly perceiving. What is they're not seeing the truth. Many people don't want to hear that, that's the truth because they're very condition and they are very well-behaved slaves, you know, as harsh as that is to say, they don't want to understand the inherent right to use Force against violence exists and is always.

All right, always now, I'm not telling you go out immediately do that either because the perception is so screwed up in the body of humanity, that the majority of people don't believe that would be a And they will persecute you for doing it. Is he the self-defense principle is continuously being eroded. Human beings possess the natural way to defend themselves from violence with defensive physical force. A person who was accosted by violence, possesses the right to

stop. The person who is conducting the violence from continuing to do harm to them. With any amount of force that is necessary to stop the attacker the assault, okay? Up to and including deadly force. I would say to if you want to be nice about it. Give the person one verbal warning to stop. Say no, once after that, it's on, that's it. And that's really my policy. Okay, that would be my policy on the street with an individual. The problem is here, the so-called authorities of the

government. Like you say, don't want to see it that way and they're constantly trying to take this right away from somebody. They're constantly trying to say no we own the Monopoly on the usage of force and all you may do is wait and be accosted in assaulted until One of us shows up. Well, you know what that's called. It's called a big crock of bull, shit is what that's called and it shouldn't be accepted by anyone who has any Common Sense, shouldn't be accepted by anyone.

Unfortunately, again, like I said, people are very, very well conditioned, and they think that they think that this is an example of two wrongs. Don't make a right. There's no two wrongs committed there.

There's one wrong committed and then there's a right that is being exercised, big difference between Or sizing a right that involves the defensive use of force and committing a wrongdoing, which involves the initiation of violence and people got to get clear on this, they have to get clear on it. So the question becomes does violence magically become a right? One. It's conducted by government when they shut down people's Free Speech rights and assembly rights.

Or when they conduct direct theft from people through, what's this euphemized form of slavery, called Taxation. And like I said, I'm not, I'm not asking you to accept or believe, taxation is slavery. I'm telling you, if you don't understand that you're wrong. I don't care what you think. I'm telling you, is that way, in truth? And in reality, taxation slavery. Shutting down a people's rights is slavery. Telling people what they may or may not put in their body is

slavery. It's not my perception. That's what it is. Okay, and that's what we're accepting. As a people were accepting that. These people have no more right to do it than any other

individual would. And this concept brings us to what my the way I tried to define and explain to people what real spiritual enlightenment is because what the new age Community is telling you that an enlightened being looks like is equally as a big crock of bull of what people who don't understand self-defense, the self-defense principal believe. Okay. Enlightenment is not what this new age nonsense Community is trying to tell people that it is.

All right. It's not about not taking action and sitting under a tree and meditating until you're magically enlightened. Okay, Enlightenment means knowing what's going on around you, Enlightenment means knowing what's going on within you and lightning needs. Truly knowing the true objective difference between right and wrong and living that in your life.

On a daily basis enlighten. Me unlike Enlightenment means, Not aggressing upon your fellow human beings but not agreeing voluntarily to be aggressive upon by them either. Okay, there's two pillars to dynamics that go hand-in-hand with real Enlightenment. I call this the two pillars of Enlightenment. Okay. So here they are. The first pillar is the sacred feminine principle. This has been called the non-aggression principle. All right, it is.

The simple simple law of don't engage in violence, or quite simply put, don't steal, don't steal. We talked about that. That's what all spiritual law can be boiled down to don't steal from other people. Don't take what isn't yours? Don't take life. That isn't yours. Don't take property. That isn't yours don't take rights that aren't yours. They're the property of others respect their ownership. Okay. Most people can grasp this

pretty readily, okay. And even in the New Age movement, they grasp this, in other words, don't immorally initiate, non rightful, use of physical power to coerce constrain, or compel the rightful physical Behavior or free will choice of another sentient being respect. Other people's free will their rights, their property their life period, real simple. It's the Golden Rule don't do things to other people that you don't want done to you. I always stayed in the apophatic in the negative.

It's much more powerful that way. But there is a second principle, a second, pillar or tenants of Enlightenment. If you will, this is the sacred masculine principle. This is what religions of the world whether they be government. Organized religion of different regions of the world and cultures the New Age movement. All right.

This is what they want. They're seeking to suppress because religions are right, brain modalities the right brain methods of Mind Control just like government who thinks. It's A monopoly on the physical use of force. That's a left, brain imbalance mindset. All right. The second pillar of Enlightenment is the sacred masculine principle, which is also known as the self-defense. Principal your bodies, your property. You have a right to defend it when it comes under attack by violence.

This principle states sentient beings have the inherent right to use Force to defend themselves from violence, conducted upon them by another. This is the part many people don't get. You know, that's why we're not rebelling against our slave. Keepers are slave masters, who are masters of other people, in their own sick, distorted, Psychopathic, minds and are nothing but Thugs and criminals.

That people magically believe have the moral authority to continue to do what they're doing, just because they euphemized slavery and call government. Now. That's the sacred masculine principle. There is no such thing as an enlightened being that doesn't fully grasp. Both of these principles anywhere never has been There's no such thing as half measures. You got to get them fully both or you're not there and that's the problem.

We're not all the way there. If people were already there, they won't be tolerating what we're putting up with more more aggression, against people's rights is being conducted in this country than when the founders of this nation actually separated from England. They would have been horrified. I tell people look to not to get nasty. But I tell people if the founders of this country could magically come back to life somehow and see what's going on

in this country. They take a piss on people. That's what they would do. That's how much disrespect they would have, for what we're putting up with. You know, again just to just say it the way it really is. That's what they would want to do to us because they would tell us we warned you about all this. We warned you about it all and you know you did, you ignored it ignored it. So what did all those people who died in that Revolution die for?

We have to understand true ownership, real deeply, not peripherally super deeply. We got to know what we own and what we don't own. We have to understand. Why is this, our current condition? That's the question. We asked the beginning. And here's the reason. The reason our species to continues to experience a systematic and growing loss of freedom, is because we collectively do not deeply, understand ownership and we continue to commit and condone theft. This is a prison for thieves.

That's what Earth is. It's a prison for people that don't want to respect ownership. They want to take things that aren't theirs. And that's, we're here to learn. We're here to learn that there's only one natural law. Stop stealing from other people. Stop taking things that you don't own. Stop condoning theft of things that other people don't own. Don't condone that activity that behavior either. So what is ownership? What's the definition? What does it entail to own a

thing? Means that regarding that thing, an individual maintains three basic things regarding it. The first is rightful possession. Means you acquired it without doing harm to somebody else. You rightfully owned. It lawfully owned it. Okay, you're in possession of it. You have it in your possession. It is yours. The second thing is you control its usage. Okay. So your house you control, its usage, your car. You control its usage, your clothes, you control their usage.

My computer is mine. I control its usage. I'm using it. Okay. Control. The usage of something means that you own it, and most of all, maintaining personal responsibility for that possession. Is the third aspect of ownership. So, to own something means, I'm in lawful rightful possession of it. I control the usage of that thing and I maintain personal responsibility for it.

All right, and this is what we have to understand, natural law can be essentially reduced to One single spiritual law. I gave you the working definition, the soundbite definition before. Here's the super simplified to word concrescence of all of this information. Natural law gets boiled down to two words. Don't steal. That's it. You want the key out of the prison? You got to understand property the Auditors, understand all rights, or property rights. Stop taking the property of

other beings. Stop condoning. The Taking of the property of other beings the end. No government. What is the case for privatization? The case are to ethical and economic the ethical case for privatization is that it's compatible, the non-aggression principle. If things are private, then we can buy and sell rent when whatever and there's no violation of Rights. Whereas if it's done through the government, then they're necessarily is a right of Rights.

Because the government is per se, an invasive organization because it taxes us and it doesn't have our permission to do. So. None of us have signed a contract with the government. Therefore, when it's not property, namely, one of the public sphere, then there are problems of Ethics because there's compulsion It into the third possibility between government and private and that's non ownership, but I'll

get into that when I do oceans. Okay, so the ethical case, I think is clear the case for economics. The economic case for privatization is, will be wealthier if things are private, then if they're not, the reason we have pretty good wristwatches and Thomas then shirts and shoes and cars and things like that. Is because if somebody Do a good job. It can go broke and they have to exit and do something else. Whereas, in the government.

If they don't do a good job, like, in the post office, they just keep on going and going. So that's one advantage. Another Advantage is the nieces. Puts in that. If you have to the extent that you have government, you don't have a rational economic system of prices that reflect scarcity. Hyack tells us that information emanates from free prizes. And if you don't have free prices, the information that prices give you are is not indicative of scarcity or

desires or anything like that. And the third one is incentives. If we have something done by government. We have less incentive to produce because you can't fail. Another one. Is we as consumers have more control over producers. Then we as citizens have control. For our politicians, we get to vote for our politicians once every four years, we get to vote for a dollar vote for our suppliers of goods and services. Every time we buy myself something.

So, it could be every second, or every day or whatever. Another reason is that in the market. You don't have to have a package deal in the market. You could buy a violin and a motorcycle. And a sailboat, in the case of the government. It's a package deal. If the two parties and you like policies, 1 3, 5 and 7 of one party and two four, six and eight of the other. You got to pick one or the other. You just can't get one from column A and one from column B. You can't pick what you want.

Whereas in the market, you can go and pick this. You can pick that you can satisfy yourself. There's no package deal imposed upon you. Now they're all package deal 27 from for New, Liberty by Murray rothbard the libertarian Cree dress, upon one Central Axiom that no man or group of any men, may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. Okay.

What's my worldview activism is based idea that everyone is self opener and that, the guiding principle for social relations is what we call the non-aggression principle. Meaning you are not in a position to aggress against another person who Force or fraud. And if someone does issue Force against you, then you have the right to retaliate. And this very simple principle is basis of all interpersonal relationships. Thank you very much. Mister bloom in one minute. Well, mr. President.

I'm minded actually to quote, the Great American philosopher Murray rothbard here that the state. The state is an institution of theft writ large tax is just about a system where politicians and bureaucrats steal money from their citizens to squander in the most disgraceful manner. This place is no exception fascinatingly and I I really don't know how you managed to keep a straight face.

When you're talking about tax evasion, the whole commission and the commission bureaucracy, avoid their taxes. You don't pay taxes, like citizen pay taxes. You have all sorts of special deals. Composite tax rates, High tax, thresholds, non-contributory, pension schemes. You are the biggest tax avoiders in Europe and here you sit pontificating.

Well, the message is getting home to the people of the European Union, you're going to find that euroskeptics are coming back in June in ever greater numbers in ever greater numbers and I can tell you worse as the people get your number. It won't be long before they storm this chamber and they hang you and they'll be right. We will never initiate Force against somebody else and that is you know, a pretty simple principle, that everybody should endorse.

It's a principle of what makes civilization that is you respect other people's life, use respect other people's property, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not murder. It's that simple and most everybody agrees to that. And the next question ought to be is what y it is. Why should you be different than Republican Democrats if they tend to agree with that same principle.

Well, we Even such an important moral principle that if we can't take somebody else's property and we can't hurt anybody, or we can't intimidate anybody or threaten to use Force willing to government, can't either. But we see the government as the initiator, a force to bring about social and economic changes day in and day out. I mean, they may not come up to our front door with a gun and occasionally they do.

But we know if we don't deliver our money in our records and do, Abby didn't lie what the government wants. In order to give up our portion of our income through the Internal Revenue Service, the gun that will be quickly at our door and we will be in prison. So it's the threats and the intimidation and therefore they're transferring. Well something that we can't do as individuals.

So we as Libertarians reject, this whole idea of forcible redistribution of wealth, which is the welfare state. Same way in personal liberties. We apply this principle in the area of personal Liberties. In, although I might want you and think you should leave Certainly the certain lifestyle because I think it's good and right and moral. I've no right to tell you what to do, you know, if you want to live a certain way? I disagree. That's that's tough. You know, that's your choosing.

That's the individuals Choice as long as you don't hurt somebody else. So the person has the right to his own life, in his Liberty is own lifestyle, as with one special rule that your lifestyle, the individuals lifestyle can't hurt somebody else. So if you do things that I disapprove of, I is a Tyrion and tolerant and I accept that up until the point of no injury to

anybody else. Now. I talked Libertarians or listen to them or view them on TV and they're talking about government power all the time and abuse of governmental power. But I also see some Libertarians, not a whole lot of them, a lot of them also talk about corporate power as well. In other words. They're talking about power in general there seem to be two types of Libertarians. No, I And I don't find, I think we have one type of libertarian because we all accept that the

same principle. I think it's more easily found that you have several types of Republicans and several types of democrat because they're interventionist and they can intervene any way they want. But I think Libertarians are pretty consistent in certainly condemning the power of government. I haven't heard a Libertarian saying that we need more government or, they're not a Libertarian, but on the corporate power, I think where the confusion might come is Corporate sighs.

If it It's gained by serving. The consumer is not necessarily evil. So if you have 90% of the car industry, for some miraculous reason, for some unknown reason, there's no Imports. If you have 90% of it, that doesn't bother me as a Libertarian. If you have the best car at the best price and to Consumers are very happy. Now, if you hone, if you have 90% or 100% of a utility company and your gouging, the customers, and the customers have no place else to go.

We detest the corporate size. We detest corporate power. When it's gained through government power, you know, government coercion. If it's a contract. The military-industrial complex is a pretty good example of how large Industries benefit by big government, of course. In big banking, big Banks benefit by this monetary system because they're sort of, in collusion with the Federal Reserve System. So we detest that we detest bigness and we detest corporate power.

When it's gained. Through privilege from government. If corporations are large and there's always free entry in a free market, if they're large because they serve the consumer. We don't worry too much about that because we know the consumer is benefiting if they get to the point if they had 100% of IT industry, which is not possible in a free market, but let's say just for instance of 100%, And then they started to gouge the people it would

immediately be competition. The people, you know, there has to be there, always has to be free entry and free competition. But there's nobody's ever figured out where there's ever been a true Monopoly in a free market system. To all monopolies, can be traced to some form of government protector about something that should be pretty obvious to everybody. But I keep hearing statements like the Constitution grants us the rights.

We currently enjoy. Or if it weren't for the Second Amendment. You wouldn't have the right to own a firearm or had it not been for our founding fathers, given us Fourth Amendment, privileges. We wouldn't be secure in our homes or Or in our cars, what we travel. Now, whether people acknowledge, the freedom of an individual or not is not the basis of individual liberties. If one of us is free, then we are all free. According to the same standard that makes that one guy free.

And the only reason that that one person is free is because no other person on the face of this planet has the legitimate right to claim any measure of ownership over that one person's life or property. If a person does have a higher claim, The life and property of others. Then it must be asked where did such a power or authority come from? How did that one person or group of people acquire, such a power over others, are these people superhuman. And why doesn't everybody have

the same power and authority? Also, if no one person has such a power or authority over others, then how can a group of people who don't have this power delegate? It to so-called elected officials while none of these questions can And so when I told him I said, I think taxation is theft and he said well, you know, I think philosophically I you might be able to get me there but I still don't understand how you would do it. And I said well to me it really is a philosophical understanding.

It's like I don't know how well she look at it and I've yet to hear anyone. Give me a logical rationale for how taxation is not theft. Because you see if I own myself. And I own that, which I create. Or I own the byproduct of my labor would be a better way to say that I own myself. Then the work that I do, I own that work. And I can do a couple of things with that.

I can either do it for myself. So if I say I'm a carpenter and I have to build beautiful Furniture, if I, if I own myself and I go and I get the wood, I chopped down the tree, and I take it in, and I do the carpentry work too, and I create a beautiful table or beautiful chair. I own that chair. It's mine. I owned the wood that I produced with the chair is mine. I can do whatever I want to with it. I can sell it to I can sit in it. I can set it on fire. It's my chair.

You can sit on fire if you don't have the proper permit because that would be wrong. No. Well. Oh man, you're right. But the point I'm making is quite quite clear. I ought to be able to do whatever I want to with the stuff that I own. It says basic understanding of property rights. If you don't believe that, then what you believe is that anyone that what you have, none of what you have is really yours that it all belongs to somebody else.

And it's just a matter of how much they want to let you have. And we of course don't have that philosophy because we have an understanding of both individual rights and property rights here. But if I owned the byproduct of my labor, let's say I don't want to go to the effort of having to find people, to buy my stuff. So yes, I make beautiful Furniture, but I don't want to have to spend my days trying to find people to buy it.

So, you know what, there's a guy down the street, he owns a company and he's looking for people who know how to build chairs and he will pay me for my expertise. To build chairs for him to sell. And I can have steady pay and I might be able to have a little bit of a caishen time, and I will have a little bit more security because obvious Teddy paycheck coming in. And so I decided rather than work for myself. I'm going to go and work for my employer. Well, I own the byproduct of my

labor. So I have to be compensated for the work. I do the guy down the road. Can't say, you know what, I need a guy who makes tables or makes chairs. So you have to come work for me. That would be slavery. So if I own myself, I own the by project, the what I create. What is the government entitled to? How much of what I create and I produce is my neighbor entitled to, how much of what you create or produce is. Your neighbor entitled to?

The answer is nothing. He is entitled to zero dollars or zero, percentage of what you have. Because he did nothing to earn it or create it. What taxation says is you have to pay a portion of what you earn or what you create because you live here. There's no exit. No, other explanation for it is theft, pure and simple. It is the taking of one's property without their consent. The 4 foundational principles of volunteerism. Yes, freeze.

Number one, self ownership self ownership is the Cornerstone to voluntariness values. It is the Axiom that states that each person is the highest authority over their own body. And that each person has the greatest claim over.

What happens with it while there are many thought processes by which this concept could be derived, a simple observation on the nature of Human Action. Makes it clear the brains exertion of impulses on the body demonstrates that individuals control their bodies and Wrecked. Its course by a biological default. People act accordingly from the sensations of this exertion, both in inclusion. And exclusion. Is this Axiom is accepted as the humans?

It develops the solid and logical basis from which to describe the other properties of voluntary, assault. Number two, the non-aggression principle. The non-aggression principle is the idea that stemming from self-ownership individuals should not initiate physical harms against others, and should only use Force if necessary and Self-defense as individuals have the highest claim to their body.

No one has a right to use Force to tell others what they can do or say with their body was self ownership in mind. If individuals respect the bodies of others, fewer conflicts will emerge. Number three maximizing individual consent. The concept of maximizing individual consent. Is the notion that permission to the body or property of another is predicated on attaining.

Consent of the individual for example, This is the difference between an act of intercourse being categorized as sex or being categorized as rape with the norm of maximizing consent. Principled, voluntarios seek to enhance the accuracy of consent through specific, observation action and words to further

understanding. Looking to ensure that individuals are respected in their decisions to either join or to abstain from their activities of others is an encourage social Norm generalize Collective consent is rejected. As lacking individual. Conscious decision, for example, government, which is the claim to the bodies and properties of

others. Through a single, or small group of mandatory, automatic rulers is viewed as violative of consent to extent that rule and control does not require individual Ascent. The accuracy of consents manifestation is increased with proactive, communication Market technology and scientific discovery number for minimizing the initiation of violence minimizing the initiation of violence against There is the idea that conflict should be

resolved as best as possible without increasing the damage and harm originally caused. For example, if a child tripped and stepped on your toe, it would be escalating violence to shoot the child in the head for this accident because it causes more damage with intent than the original action. Minimizing. The initiation of violence is a conscious effort to avoid initiating violence against others and to look for opportunities to deescalate furthering, physical harms. We're possible.

Voluntary has consider how they can ask permission and communicate their wants and needs and seek to better resolve disputes through reason, rather than through physical Force as you have heard now, the core principles of voluntary ISM, revolve around the idea of consent its manifestation and acceptance antithetical to individual consent, is the

nature of government. Government does not seek out individual consent, they claim to own the bodies and property of others by default with automatic mandatory rule. Earth government seeks to minimize individual consent in favor of collectivism and maximize the initiations of Violence by justifying, theft by unilateral decree.

If you want to instill, a sense of voluntariness values in your life, you must start with love and empathy as that is where voluntary ISM Springs from if you love yourself and you can empathize with others and how they would want to be treated as you do yourself. You can see how to start reciprocating voluntary us, Essex. Thank you for watching and a special. Thank you to my Fado sirs. The Asian capitalists a clock house key and Crawford came McDonald of ECM.

Real Estate Group to help choose the next video. I produce. Join my patreon page at the Philosopher's boba. Tea level. See you soon. Yes, freeze. I consider it a shameful thing that the subject even has to be debated. What the US did was attack backward. Primitive Country that had done nothing to it. That used to be a bosom Ally of this, this corrupt government here in the US.

And I can tell you this, that if a Muslim army cat attacked the US, I should hope that every American would be out there. Every night, trying to kill a Muslim Soldier. Just like those people are out every night trying to kill an American Soldier. Now, this war for which there's no excuse whatsoever. And I listen to these guys. There's no excuse for it whatsoever. In my opinion. This is complete rhetoric and sophistry that you've been listening to this war is

counterproductive. It cannot possibly have any good up shots at all. I'll tell you why it's going to destroy freedom in this country this place. When when When the Muslims who feel that we're attacking Islam. This is an extension of the Crusades. I don't want to who started the Crusades was at them or us and back and forth. Forget about it.

This is ancient history. Literally when the next 9/11 happens in this country because of the way this country has been bureaucratized into a National Security State. They're going to lock this place down like one of their numerous new federal prisons. And let me tell you something. If you ain't got out by then you're going to be in a world of trouble because none of you people.

You're all the usual. Rex you're you're considered enemies of the state even coming to something like this and I'll bet I'll be surprised if there isn't if there isn't some spook some creep, some somebody from some federal agency here, taking names, and writing them down because that's what's happened

to this country. And that's what happens in a war economy that happened in this country in its happened, in, in the Civil War. It happened in World War 1 and World War 2 and by God, it's really going to happen in Earnest now because they've got a gigantic bureaucracy that wants to find something to do. So the first thing this, Or is going to do, it's going to just totally destroy American Freedom, which has been on the slippery slope for a long long

time. Second thing it's going to do is it's going to totally bankrupt. The US government which Vietnam went a long way towards doing. I see this is a double-edged sword, perhaps it's a good thing. I mean, there's Nietzsche said that which is about to fall deserves to be pushed. So. And and the third thing is and this is very serious is, it's creating new enemies people. Loved the idea of America. Now see us as a dangerous criminal bully around the world.

So it's doing absolutely no good whatsoever. Now winning the war, you know, it's funny how people say, oh, you're you're anti our troops. We got to support our troops and so forth. Let me tell you something. You remember during Vietnam. The average American is seemed they were spitting on those soldiers when they came home and so forth. All right, now if you're not actively supporting Szura is shoes on the other foot.

I think it's all mass hysteria. It's all necessary, it driven by rhetoric and fear and it's been brought up. We have to do this to defend America. This is complete nonsense. What the what these people are going to do is start World War Three because even though we attacked it's shameful. I mean, what do we pick on somebody? Your own size Yutaka, 20 million person country where the people are starving? They got no technology. They've got nothing.

Okay, we pick on these nothing to wear countries that can't possibly be a threat to us. But it's going to wind up especially if they take this war to a ran. It's gonna wind up as World War 3 and that's going to be really, really unpleasant. And that's the big danger. Now. Who's the enemy? Well, they say well, wait a minute working. We attack the Germany and Japan. This is ridiculous. This is he can't make this comparison.

First of all, these were modern, industrialized countries and your your flight fighting a one-to-one type Worf here. If you're getting into a guerrilla War where you're fighting the people, you don't even know who you're fighting, not even fighting a government. You're fighting and not even Al queda. You're not even fighting Al-Qaeda. This is this is another

nonsense. They like to say we're fighting Al-Qaeda so that it seems like we got one enemy, one hit, one snake that if you crush the head and we can go home, know what they've done is they've created 50 100, Al qaeda's. It's like they said, in Vietnam. Remember, 23, many Vietnam. Well, now you got 50 or 100 of these groups. They all like each other. You're all sympathetic with each other. They all communicate each other. They'll have pies links. Like they say.

But I'll get is a big, nothing. You've got 50 or 100 of them that have been created by this. You can't win a Korea War. Who's the real enemy in this? It's not these primitive backward, Muslims, for Christ's sake. It's the US government. That's the danger. You know, during the Vietnam war. And I'm a big fan of Muhammad. Ali is and I was back then too. And when when he heroically declined to be drafted into that slave Army, he said, I ain't got no beef with no Viet Cong.

No Viet Cong ever called me nigger. And frankly, I've got no beef with the Muslims. I mean, those are you heard me earlier? So I don't believe in Islam and I don't believe in Christianity to me at all. Should be flushed all of it, but they're just, they're just human beings. They're misguided. They don't have, they're attacking us because we attacked them. That's what's going on. Are we defending democracy? Should we bring democracy to them? What is this? Where we busybodies?

We know best that will give you something that we think is good. This is this is embarassingly. Insane. Anyway. Is democracy a good thing. No, it's nothing. But mob, rule dressed up in a sports coat. What should have been done? What should have been done about 9/11? Should we have should we have attack Beijing? Because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor which is exactly what we did here. No, it was a criminal act and it should have been treated like a giant criminal act, not as a

cause for war. Last thing is where you're wondering. Well, now that we're in there, we have to win it. While you can't win. It is impossible. And it's the chances are with these Maniacs, that are running the government. And I think they Bush certainly Cheney. He may be criminally insane. Actually. This thing could really blow up out of Total Control. Certainly, if Iran gets involved because now, you're hunting big game and the average Iranian is going to go from being still.

So very sympathetic anti his government. Still sympathetic towards the u.s. He's going to turn it around entirely. And We're going to whack The Hornet's Nest them. So how do we stop this war that? Now that it's been started. Certainly not by trying to win it. That's the definition of insanity. You know, what insanity is continuing to do something that's failed and failed and failed. Doing it again and again. And again, I'll tell you what you do. Here's what you do.

I was President of the United States and I hope Ron Paul. Who's, I don't know if he's, the only decent person that Congress is absolutely. The only decent human being running for president this year. And if, if through some Act of providence of some type Ron, Ron one, what I would advise them to do, three things to solve this problem, and this war with Islam, before it spins out of control and before America becomes the most hated Nation since the Roman Empire.

Number one withdraw, all US troops from the hundred countries where we have significant all come home. All those soldiers are doing is picking up a lot. The bad habits in those countries. Number two, stop meddling in these countries. Government's top overthrowing, the government stuff, giving foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, want all of it. And number three, apologize, sincerely.

And an openly for having done these terrible things to these to these to these poor people with with our soldiers. And you know what? I think, I think those people are going to stand down and slip back into the Dark Ages, which is, you know, where they are. That's my answer to that. Listen. I gotta say Larry and I have

been friends for 30 years. We love each other, but we do disagree on this Larry and we First of all, and Larry, Larry accuse me of being a rhetorician, but Larry, Larry is an excellent Runner. Russian Israel. Okay, I've got no problem with Israel. I've got no problem with the Jews. I've got no problem with the Arabs, are the Muslims. I just don't want a dog in that fight. That's all. And as far as the Arabs and the Muslims hating the Jews. No, they don't.

And they never did the fact of the matter is, is before the creation of the state of Israel. And the fact of the matter is the the Jews stole that land, I don't care about what the Bible says. It's our historic property. They basically stole it from the residence there, you know, and I'm not anti Israel. I'm not anti John, just tell him, I'm just calling it the way I see it. The fact is is that before the alley has started?

Okay? Before the Jews started, massive immigration, the Jews that were there got along fine with the Muslims that with the Christians. It was the imposition. Vision of a political structure. This is why I'm an anarchist for God's sake. Well, no, it's the state of Israel's fault. It's the creation of a state and that's a where, where the people that aren't controlling. The state are disenfranchised. That's the problem. So, I don't know how it's going

to work out. It's a big problem, but I don't have a dog in that fight and I don't think you ought to either. They got to work it out for between each other and Larry also said that I have contempt for the country. No. I have never said that. I said, I have contempt for the government. And I am, I am I a pacifist. No, I'm not a pacifist.

I'm personally of the opinion. There are a number of people in the world that need killing, but I'm also of the opinion that if you want to kill somebody, you ought to do it yourself and, and you shouldn't be. You shouldn't try to get control of some slimy government to force me and other people to pay to force people to go over there and pay for and have others of us. So we can be busy bodies on your

account. Okay. That's all I'm saying. I would think the Baseline assumption should be that we own our bodies. We should get the decide for ourselves government. Says, no, you may not, why do Americans go loss libertarianism, which is the philosophy of peace. And that's, that's what we stand for.

So. There is no question that there is real exploitation in the world, but I would think it's fairly obvious that exploitation is somebody who violates somebody else's rights exploitation to me a good example of that would be something like slavery and slavery is evil, and it's evil because you are forcing somebody against their will to become your private property, denying them self ownership. You're forcing somebody to work for the good of somebody else and stealing the fruits of their

labor. Not like, oh, you offered them a job, but you're not giving them, you know, you're profiting off of them. Not what we all do. Every fucking day talking about actually putting somebody in Chains, dragging them around, and if you want to understand why that's wrong, because we all know it's wrong, right? So that's where I started with this. That's where I'd start with libertarianism like why?

I'm a Libertarian, and I start with morality and I say, look, do you believe in right and wrong? Do you believe in Morality? And there's some people who don't, there's some people who don't, but I think the vast majority of us do and pretty much everybody on every end of the political Spectrum. No matter what you look for

them. If you look at left-wing people or right-wing people, whether it's Neo cons or, you know, social justice Warriors or neoliberals or, you know, whether it's Obama or Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump or fuckin Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul, or Richard Spencer. Or like, The end of the political spectrum that you can hit on. Okay, all of them believe in Morality, you could probably pick up any article that any of them have ever written or listen to any speech and all of them

believe something is wrong. And something is, right. And this is an outrage, and this is, you know, Bernie Sanders will say income inequality, as a moral outrage and, you know, Hillary Clinton will say the Donald Trump supporters were, you know, these irredeemable bigot And misogynist and xenophobic people that you know, they're horrible. They're morally, you know, wrong and Donald Trump will say it's, you know, we're letting our country be destroyed.

It's a moral outrage. And so everybody is accepting this one premise. Which is there is such thing as right and wrong. There is such thing as morality. Now, I would say this, I think if there is such a thing as morality, then morality transcends, Government, it transcends, the state. In other words, if murdering somebody is wrong. And let's say, let's just say for steak the sake of argument. I'm in New York right now. Let's say over in New Jersey. There's there's no government.

There's no State and there's no laws. Okay, and let's say, I, you know, I cross over into New Jersey and I see somebody getting murdered. And then I cross back over into New York and I see somebody getting murdered and then the police come and arrest him and send him to jail. There's no difference. Morally speaking in what I just saw.

It's not like it wasn't a moral to do it in New Jersey just because there wasn't a state there is and it was moral to do it here in New York. Morality is something we recognize and then we support laws to come in and do justice. Okay, but it's not as if we believe in right and wrong. It's got to be just as true in, New Jersey.

Jersey as it is in New York, it doesn't matter what rules we set up and obviously the rules that a government sets up, don't determine morality because all of the things that we would all consider the most immoral things throughout human history were pretty much all codified by law. So slavery was the law of the land and and you know, the Nazis were able to fucking round up all the Jews and all that shit because they change the laws.

So changing the laws obviously doesn't change morality because morality has to transcend. Which human beings get to just decide on their whims? So it doesn't matter if you get a few people together and we decide something's different that can't change morality. And therefore I'd also say that you can't decide that one group of people are above morality. So in other words, the state is not above morality. They're just as morally responsible for what they do.

At the end of the day. We're all human beings. We're all human beings. Whether it's us, whether it's the Congress, whether it's someone in the police department, everybody here is a human being. Nobody else has some, you know, species above humans that gets to operate above morality, anything that I would do. That's a moral. If I put on a blue uniform and three other people decide. I'm now a member of the state.

What I would do is just as a moral or just as Morally legitimate as when I was a person because I'm still a person. So that being said. One thing that we all accept in in western civilization, advanced societies is property rights. And the non-aggression principle. Everybody accepts that every Everybody accepts that anywhere we every day when we go out and interact, we are, we are following that bait. Those basic principles of private property and non-aggression.

The non-aggression principle. So if we're Walking down the street, you know, if, if it's me and four of my friends and we're like, hey, what movie do you want to go? See and someone goes? Oh, I want to go see this movie. And then someone else goes. No, I want to see another movie and we go. Okay, let's take a vote or something like that. We can vote on it and we can vote on where you want to go. But it's understood that this is

all going to be voluntary. So it's basically up to you whether you want to accept the rules of this Vote or not. So if we all vote on seeing movie X and someone goes not dude, I just I can't sit through a movie. I don't want to go, we can't put a gun to his head and make him come to move the X. We would all recognize that that's wrong. You can't force people into it.

You can ask them if they want to go and every day if you walk into a restaurant and you start screaming curses at the top of your lungs and they go, hey, we're going to ask you to leave right now. And if you don't leave, we're going to make you. Leave people accept that they have a right to do that because that it's that guys store. It's not yours. So you have to leave, we understand that. It's wrong to break into somebody else's house because that's their property.

Not yours. We understand it's wrong to punish. Someone in the face because that's their face. Not yours. It's all basically the same principle of non-aggression and we all accept this as a moral principle that it would be morally wrong to do that. In other words. If I were to see someone smoking a joint outside and I come up and I stick a gun in their face and I throw them in Chains and I dragged them into my home into a cage that I've built in my

basement and I hold them. There we would all recognize that this is wrong. This is like a moral outrage. It's not just that like, oh, well, this isn't a very A efficient way for society to work and you haven't been chosen as the person who's allowed to do that. No, you would go. This is fucking wrong and you deserve to be punished for that because that is wrong. You owe this guy something now because you have wronged him, you kidnapped someone you fucking traumatized harassed,

kidnapped and abused somebody. It's a violation of their rights of their their self ownership. Okay? So if that is true, that it is morally wrong for me or you to do something like that. Then it's also morally wrong for somebody in a blue uniform, with a shiny badge to do that. To me. That's the essence of why I'm a Libertarian. That's the essence of what why I believe the the things that I do because it's not it's about believing in, right? And wrong.

And the fact is that private property, and the non-aggression principle is something that we all accept every single day. As moral rules as a basic moral starting point, it's not, that libertarianism is a complete moral philosophy. It's not. It's a basic moral philosophy of Justice. It's the philosophy of peace is not telling you everything else about life. I mean, piece is just kind of a prerequisite, like first. Let's not be violent toward each other.

Let's try to work out a system where we can avoid these violent conflicts, what we do with that. There's a whole bunch of deeper and Next Level shit, but it's like, it's a basic philosophy. That says, we all agree with this moral belief. Every single day yet. We carve out this special area for the state and they get to be above it. All they can do all of these things that we would think you are a despicable human being. If you did every single day,

they do these things. And that that is wrong, we should not do that. We should view the state morally the same way. We view any other group of people, because, after all, that's all they are, is a group of people. It's the the hole. Like statism is just a fucking religion. It's just a religion. It's got everything. It's got its deities. It's got its priests. It's got its hole. It's like, well, that's man in blue uniform with badge, so he can do things.

The rest of us, can't do. It's all just a fucking illusion, man. It's all just a bullshit, religion. In fact, the whole thing doesn't exist. There's no such thing as the state. It's just an idea. It's just a fucking idea. All there are are are people who are ordering around people with guns. And then there are people who those guys with guns are sticking the guns in their back and making them do things. But in terms of morality, there's no fucking difference.

If I came up with some great charity, and I was like, hey, everybody, I think we should give money to this charity and you were like, okay. I don't know. Seems like a decent charity. And then I said, well, if you don't give money to this charity, I'm going to take you and throw you in a fucking cage. We would flat-out be like that's extortion. That is wrong. It's, I don't care how Noble your charity was. And by the way, for a lot more money than goes to some Noble.

Charity goes to mass murder campaigns and foreign countries that have never threatened us and that is fucking wrong. The same way of you killed. A bunch of people who would be wrong if the military does it. It's just as fucking wrong. So to me, that's why I'm a libertarian. That's where I'm going to wrap up today. Fuck Karl Marx. if in time, Blasting. I'm from from be stopped. Yeah, but blasting a drop of a facilitator for other burgers. Finish it up.

He doesn't let him do some blasting. A yeah, there's about new inertial, you running. Yeah, mock-mock-mock-mock. But um, yeah, so listen to yourself. Have difficulty making data are hopeful music, a thousand, or two kind of cannot also from that's resulted in. Not see the okra to Black border dispute arose, from the dead are so fun with them. If you're planning for note, of course, of an audience to start and we will tease look the event as we shall. And that's really, really key value.

Who are you can? It's shocking that they deserve the setting. It kept it for of who Da Brat from actor named Anakin Ahsoka. That's what the tiles we have. Lost yourself into doesn't like her team do for blasting Health. Very Congress would have burst onto the scene now. And and how clear are the others? Wait on the incomes of lasting about 20. Capreit endeared, the km helps in infamy red and black light, but is your idea to look which were blasting metallic?

It's just what you told him. So you could tell who can offer Tank, Man. Fishy is not even men's Vector force and left her life of fruits and other elements of a doula total bills from like an envelope Marked Ones, laugh and Hoot. Those are fundamental Mentor there that it's Elvis kickings react, the overheads Martha imbler. Cope their option, ammonia or

100 military districts. The necessities of soft and outdoor middle from the love seeing everything that it came close with intimated of his ears. For military inspection back on track of material is very hot. I'm recovering from drug ability to deliver an anaphylactic neurological tracking or not excit seldom to see pers Oak fins. That lashing of an embolic is orbit. A contract directly onto the shank of the hook to fire back at the office.

Fax has not held for Orphans. The are still paid out in cash. Black stuff is aching from the, from the apple and the coning, the Nia is mental health, condition. A fucking deal. And it's folk as men can do Janet full guide for detailed and Ahmed alhasan of the Lefty mirror. Maurice time in selecting. It is preferable for your academic needs. If the holler, make sure that they associate the word, your skin will become old.

I'll show you how to do the washing machine, figure out, and hook up his load for neat, done from a shift that's going to start on our health Contour Dimension to the, I have a table setting in and hook and everything moved to mention of to Matt Morton has difficulties officer places. Marshall, do batons holder conceivably, have crafted an SOS Jaws before about these Christy controls Blossom Vuitton has done in certain. He'll homeless and Otto Hecht.

There's the agitator, and they're gonna have insulin and health of the whole family, every state and scribes. And as he day in front of me a glass coffin, people are exported. I'm having open shorter women here today, I did and it didn't share. My name is an individual to whom they could start a bit. Answer them. And it's fact not until, for not self need what for bribes, do the politically to a soccer field, but they were two black time to do decide to deliver.

We need to improve our seven little Shameless too. Matchy from Hoth. For it was a witty and truthful rejoinder, which was given by a captured pirate to Alexander. The Great, the king asked the fellow.

What is your idea and infesting the Sea and the pirate answered with uninhibited insolence, the same as yours and infesting the Earth, but because I do it with a tiny craft i'm called a pirate because you have a mighty Navy your called an emperor these words written by st. Augustine encapsulate one of the most fundamental problems of political philosophy. Namely why governments are morally Justified to take actions that no individual or group of individuals are

permitted. Take. Governments demand, a portion of everyone's income decide what substances may be consumed regulate, and restrict voluntary transactions, and even Force individuals to fight their Wars. These among many other things would be seen as ethically impermissible if undertaken, by any individual or group other

than one's government. Justifying this special moral status of government is known as the problem of political Authority. In this video relying on the work of contemporary philosopher, Michael humor and his book, the problem of political Authority. We will look at the various ways.

This problem has been approached before we begin, it should be noted that our purpose is not to examine whether government is beneficial or a prerequisite for an adequately functioning Society for, as humor points out. The question is whether the government has certain special rights that you, and I do not have and whether we have certain Special duties to the government that we do not have towards anyone else. A government.

Just like a private vigilante, could be highly beneficial and yet still lacked Authority. An easy and relatively uncontroversial way to justify political Authority, would be to say that people explicitly consent to it. This was the route that the 17th century philosopher. John Locke took with his social contract theory as the name implies. The social contract theory is based on the idea that there is a contractual relationship between the government and those governed.

However, while Locke's theory is certainly famous. It is now largely of historical interest because no such contract exists nor has such a contractual relationship ever played. Schiff, any role in forming governments, the philosopher, David Hume realized this and suggested that, most governments were not formed by contract, but rather through conquest and War. The lack of evidence to support.

John Locke's theory has not LED philosophers to completely abandon the consent theory of government. Rather instead of suggesting that there is some form of explicit consent between the government and governed. It is now suggested that the consent is implicit, implicit consent is consent, granted, not through any verbal or written communication, but through one's conduct. Humor suggests that there are four main ways that people can potentially Grant implicit consent, to their government.

Firstly, there is the case of passive consent. This is where one expresses agreement to a proposal simply by refraining from opposing it. The second case is that of consent through acceptance of benefits arising when one commits oneself to accepting certain demands by soliciting or voluntarily accepting benefits to which those demands are known

to be attached. The third type of implicit consent can be Called consent through presence arising when one indicates agreement to a proposal merely by remaining in some location. The fourth type humor identifies, which is called consent through participation occurs, when one implicitly consents to the rules, governing a practice by voluntarily participating in the practice. At first glance one might think that there is a good chance that

at least one form of implicit. Consent, justifies political Authority, but under closer examination, this becomes doubtful, as humor points out, in order for a contract or agreement, to be valid. Whether based on explicit or implicit consent. It must satisfy certain criteria. For example, for an agreement between two parties to be valid. Each party must have a reasonable way of opting out. However, short of abandoning one's home, in the jurisdiction of one's government.

There is really nothing one. Can do to opt out and prevent being subject to political Authority for this reason. All the implicit consent possibilities for political Authority except consent through presence. Fail to meet this criteria of valid consent. As humor explains almost everyone knows that the state will still impose the same laws in the same taxes. On one regardless of whether one objects-- to the government, accepts the government service or participates in the political

process. Therefore, once failure to object ones acceptance. Of government services, and even one's participation in the political process, cannot be taken to imply agreement. Another criteria for consent between two parties to be valid, is the requirement that both parties have obligations to each other, which if unfulfilled grants the other party adequate grounds for terminating the agreement. These days.

It may be difficult for people to agree on what exactly government is obligated to do. But most will agree that it includes enforcing the rights of citizens and protecting them from criminals. Both domestic and foreign whether one sees this as the only real obligation governments have or if some claim governments have further obligations. The fact is that governments do not behave in accordance with the criteria of mutual

obligation. There are innumerable historical examples of severe government failures to protect their citizens and few if any examples of a Mint voluntarily abdicating power. In fact, government failures. These days tend to result in increased government power. As more laws are passed on the assumption that they will prevent future failings. The inadequacies of the implicit consent theories to justify political Authority.

Have led some to suggest that consent arises through the will of the majority as expressed at the voting booth. The problem with this theory is that to accept it. One must also accept the premise that the opinions of a large group of people can somehow impose obligations on a smaller group. Some may accept this but it is certainly a view which runs counter to Common Sense.

For example, if you are out for dinner with four people could the consensus of three of them that you pay the Bill make you morally, obligated to pay. Furthermore this belief that majority opinion is enough to coercively impose obligations on minorities can lead to what is called the tyranny of the masses comments. By some of the greatest thinkers in history. Reveal their distrust of vesting too much power into the will of the majority Aristotle.

Wrote unlimited democracy is just like oligarchy at tyranny spread over a large. Number of people Benjamin Franklin famously said, democracy is two wolves in a lamb voting on what they're going to have for lunch and Edmund Burke made this Minute of this. I am certain that in a democracy. The majority of the citizens is capable of exercising.

The most cruel oppression upon the minority and that oppression of the minority will extend too far greater numbers and will be carried on with much greater Fury than can almost ever be apprehended from the Dominion of a single specter. The difficulty of justifying political Authority, based on consent, whether it be explicit implicit or the consent of a majority, has led some to resort to what are called, consequentialist Arguments for political Authority.

The consequentialist argument suggests that the benefits that arise from vesting government with a special moral status are significant enough that they warrant the cost of obedience or in other words, political Authority is justified by The Beneficial consequences that arise from government action for the consequentialist. To hold a, government must be seen as providing benefits that outweigh the costs of obedience.

And this has not always been the case as the author Lark and Rose. Put it flip through any history book. And you will see that most of the Injustice and destruction, that has occurred throughout the world was not the result of people breaking the law, but rather the result of people obeying and enforcing the laws of various governments, the evils that have been committed in spite of Authority or trivial compared to the evils that have been committed in the name of authority.

But even if One Believes the benefits of government largely outweigh, the costs of obedience. As many do it is not clear how merely providing benefits can justify the special moral status associated with political Authority. If providing benefits, gives the individuals who make up government a special moral status, does it not follow that? Other groups should be able to obtain this special moral status.

If they provide significant benefits to society, it is doubtful that many people are willing to Grant beneficial Vigilantes the power of political. Authority. And so, when reply to this question, one may claim that only a government.

Can obtain the elevated moral status of political Authority, but such a response would be begging the question or in other words, assuming what must be proven and what must be proven in this case is why governments have a special moral status, that differentiates them from all others.

This issue of how providing benefits can confer government, but no others with a special moral status, coupled with the open question of just how beneficial governments are makes the When she lists argument difficult, for many to accept. To conclude while it is apparent that the problem of political Authority is both an important issue and one which has not adequately been resolved. It is interesting that. So few people pay attention to the issue, perhaps David Hume

was onto something. When he wrote in the 18th century, No Maxim is more conformable both to prudence and morals than to submit quietly to the government which we find established in the country where we happen to live without inquiring to curiously into its origin. And first establishment, few governments will Bear being examined. So rigorously, Let me ask you this in a sense, philosophical question. We've gone a little bit into philosophy today.

I believe many people in my own State, believe that Health Care is a right righ, T regardless of income that every American has the right to the best quality health care that the system can offer regardless of income that. If you're low income kid, you are wealthy kid. You have the same opportunity to access the healthcare system. Do believe that, I believe that. Every person or to get good health care.

And the Hippocratic Oath says that I would provide Health Care regardless of whether the person pays me or not. So I definitely did people need health care. Give the mic over to some of the Pole. Thank you very much with regard to the idea of whether or not you have a right to healthcare. You have to realize what that implies. It's not an abstraction. I'm a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me means you believe in slavery.

It means that you're going to enslave Not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses. If you have a right to their services, basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone Services, you have a right to Plumbing. Do you have a right to water? Do you have a right to food? You're basically saying that you believe in slavery. You're saying, you believe in taking and extracting from another person.

Our founding documents were very clear about this. You have a right? Right to pursue happiness, but there's no guarantee of physical Comfort. There's no guarantee of concrete items in order to give something concrete or someone surface. You got to take it from someone. So there's an implied threat of force. If I'm a physician in your community and you say you have a right to healthcare. Do you have a right to beat down my door with the police? Escort me away and forced me to

take care of you. That's ultimately what the right to free health care would be if you believe in a right to healthcare your Leaving in basically the use of force to conscript, someone to do your bidding now, just because it's a noble thing, to believe that we are obligated as Christians. We are obligated to the Hippocratic Oath. We have always done this since the beginning of modern medicine. We have always provided 100% access. I do it in exchange for

privileges. I do it because I believe in the Hippocratic Oath. But my Hospital also says to me, you can only operate in this hospital. If you agree to see everyone come coming through the emergency room. I always have we have always treated. We have always had 100% access through our emergency room. Those were for emergencies. They're not the best place for Primary Care. We all agree with that, but we've always had 100% free

access. I think it's fair to say that senator Paul and I have some slight philosophical. Differences, my profound question to dr. Krauss is, do you as an employee at a federally qualified Health Center? Consider yourself as a slave? I love my job. I chose to work there. I do not feel like a slave. Thank you, Ms. Drape of the implication again from my friend. Senator Paul is that we have kind of solved the problem of healthcare access in America that the at any place in the

country. I guess that anybody who has a problem. If you're on Medicaid, if you have no health insurance, maybe you have health insurance because walk in the door tomorrow and find a doctor to treat you. Is that true in your judgment? Well, there's a huge body of literature that discusses the difficulties, particularly Medicaid. Beneficiaries had to finding a physician. There are many Physicians who are unwilling to accept Medicaid

patients. And also for those who are uninsured, face equally challenging, or maybe more, so challenging access issues. My last question is for. Dr. Chris McCann, picking up on Senator, Paul's coming as you know, A month is moving toward a medicare-for-all single-payer approach. Are you worried that if we consider Health Care as a right in the state of Vermont, but the st. Johnsbury Police Department in the middle of the night is going to break down your door and

force you to treat a patient. Is this an immediate concern of yours? I want to thank senator Paul for being here and it was provocative. Interesting discussion. I want to thank mostly the panelists for being here. I think we're discussing an issue of great importance. And again, thank you all for your participation. An introduction to volunteerism by Chase Rachel's. So here's an overview of what we will be discussing today. So, first things first, let's

talk about the state. So what exactly is the state? Well, in the words of our good friend, dr. Hans Hermann. Harbour the state is defined as an agency characterized by two unique and logically connected features. The first of which is the state is an agency, that exercises a territorial Monopoly of ultimate decision making that is the state acts as the ultimate Arbiter or in other words acts as judge and jury and every case of conflict up to and including conflicts involving itself.

It allows no appeal above and beyond itself. Now, this clearly reveals a gross conflict of interest

inherent with the state. Dr. Hopp continued stating that s the state is an agency that exercises, a territorial Monopoly of Taxation. And that is it is an agency that you don't laterally fixes the price that private citizens must pay for the state's Service as ultimate judge an enforcer of Law and Order. So basically, what this tells us is that we not only have to abide by the arbitrary rulings of the state, but we must also pay whatever. Price. It deems necessary to fund.

The necessary means to enforce these arbitrary verdicts. Of course, this leads us to the conclusion that what distinguishes, the state most from. The rest of society, is its legitimize not legitimate, but it's legitimised ability to engage in or threaten others with the initiation of force. Next, we have a social contract. And when a social contract, is in short. It's a binding contract Applied to all persons arbitrarily. Determined to fall into the jurisdiction of the state.

Simply living within this jurisdiction. Is that only requisite for the contract to be binding? Your lack of individual and voluntary consent is truly immaterial any other contract even when agree to made under the threat of coercion would be deemed invalid, but not with the state. You may say that, well, we do, in fact, choose and therefore voluntarily consent to such a contract by indirectly selecting various public goods to be provided through the process of voting yet.

Again, even assuming you aren't just voting in self-defense for fear that if you don't, some of my use, the State against you and majority vote, does not translate into the consent of each individual being bound by the contract. So, in other words, the idea of a social contract is akin to A pie down someone's throat and expecting them to pay for it. Next, we have the principle of self ownership.

Now, dr. Murray rothbard defines the principal self-ownership as the absolute, right of each Man by virtue of his, or her being a human being to own his or her own body. And that is to control the body free, of course of interference. So in short self-ownership entails that each individual owns his own life, body and actions. Now there are only two alternatives to the statement. One is that another person or group of people have a higher claim to your body than you do.

This philosophy, of course, lends itself to aristocracy oligarchy and despotism in the other is that everyone has an equal claim to everyone else's body. So no one fully owns anyone nor do they really own themselves? Now this philosophy, of course, lends itself to ideas of democracy, socialism and communism. This second alternative is the philosophical premise upon, which our current state rest upon today.

Now, some may argue that perhaps, it's a hybrid of these two Alternatives with those in Washington, being the oligarchs and the populace being the mutually own proletariat. However, what can be certain is that we are not being permitted to exercise exclusive rights to our Sovereign bodies as stated in the principle of self-ownership. Okay, next we have property. Now. There are three ways in which property may be legitimately

acquired. Their first one is original appropriation, which is just fancy economic speak for Finders Keepers. If you so happen to stumble upon an unclaimed good in nature, then you may claim ownership of said, good, if you so choose. The second is simply a consequence of the first as it states that anything you produce from. Your originally. Appropriated good is also yours. And the third is simply through voluntary trade, our good friend. Dr. Hopp rightfully adds that to deny.

These truths is the as to claim that a second person or set of people have a higher claim in your property or that everyone shares equal share of all property. Next, we have the non-aggression principle.

And in the words of dr. Murray rothbard the non aggression, aggression, principle states that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else aggression, is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence, against the person, or property of anyone else. And aggression, is therefore synonymous, with invasion. Now, the state must necessarily be in conflict with this Principle.

As its functioning is predicated upon the initiation of the use of force and coercion as discussed earlier. Does proponents of the non-aggression principle. Must endorse a system of volunteerism as the only viable and logically consistent alternative to the state? So does this non-aggression principle preclude us from being

able to defend ourselves? Of course not if we are defending ourselves or our property and applies it, someone or a set of people have already initiated Force against us? So what are some conclusions we can draw from these? Well one conclusion we may draw from these principles is that if our actions you'll know victim, then no crime has taken place. Now we alluded to this one earlier, but another striking conclusion we come to is that all taxation by its very nature.

Must be theft threatening people with Force whether or not you wear a shiny badge or a funny hat as a means to confiscate their property against their will is theft. Plain and simple. And finally, voluntary is subscribe to the idea of spontaneous order. They believe, coordination May naturally take place absent a coercive Central plan or planner, and that such coordination, only requires people to pursue their own self-interest great, examples of this.

Include the Advent of money and language our social interactions and romantic relationships. And if we believe in Adam Smith's concept of the Invisible Hand of the market place, then we should also be willing to apply this objective and benevolent Force. And our social spheres. So in the end, if I would have you grant me one favor, it would simply be that you not support the use or threat of violence to forcefully. Impose your will upon me and I promise, I will pay you the same respect.

Thank you. Gun. Control laws are violence. Contrary to some beliefs gun control laws. Do not decrease violence. Gun control laws are actually themselves, threats of violence made against peaceful people who have not been suspected of threatening others, or violating the rights of others. When people fail, The comply with new gun control laws, the government sends in men who themselves have guns to threaten. The gun owner with deadly force.

This Thread is a lethal threat. One that will be carried out with the death sentence. Should a person resist, the government's violence. So when people say, they are for gun control, they're not really for getting rid of and restricting guns, rather. They're forgiving government goons a monopoly on guns and leaving the public helpless against aggression, whether from a Mugger, You're a rapist or even the government itself and don't be fooled by Propaganda.

Suggesting that gun, bans lead to less violence as anti gun Advocates. Routinely frame, their studies in a manner, to deceive most often by including suicide. As a part of the gun violence by failing to discount for murder rates in cities, where guns are virtually band already By ignoring violent crime down trends that begun before gun control legislation by leaving out.

The fact that Crimes by They're instrumentality escalate when guns are banned and By ignoring the plights in developed countries, like Mexico, where guns are banned yet. Murder rates are still high. Remember the government and criminals will not give up their guns. Neither. Should you defend yourself? Don't become another victim. Yes, freeze. Excuse me. Do you guys have a few minutes for an interview for my YouTube channel? Yeah, we should probably just catch an Uber right now.

Okay. Thank you. This year while you're waiting. What does it say? Hello for Lewbert. Two minutes, two minutes. What do you got? All right. It's taxation. Violent is a violent. I did not as far as I know. I did. What part of Well, the concept of Taxation itself, the the implication of we're going to charge you money for being here. I think that everybody needs to do their part.

I mean, it's our as our moral responsibility, as a citizen to contribute to the well-being of our country and the well-being of our people and the the progress of our nation, but if someone isn't doing that, should we steal from them in order to make them do that? To force them to do that? I don't think it's no because I, well, first of all, I think the Mrs. Uses a lot of our tax dollars. So no, I don't. I don't think that's right,

divorce them. But, I mean, there's there needs to be some sort of responsibility by the American citizen to be responsible for paying their taxes. Every, every, I mean, today. It's got to be done. And what happens if you don't pay your taxes, wait, if everybody did it. Where we be, we would have no you what happens. If you don't pay your taxes, I've obviously we go to jail or something. It's death and taxes. Of course, that's what's. So you're threatened your threatened with force or

threatened. Violence. If you don't pay your taxes, well, yeah, we're not really a free country. I mean, come on, right? This is why are oh, whoa. So, you know, what's up, right? Absolutely. So if so, you think it, maybe if we didn't have a system based on theft in order to get people to their party, think we could have a better country. That would be. It's easy to say much harder to do. I would say, well, if I told you there was a really easy way to get all the answers and figure

out how to do that. Would you at least be interested in taking a look at it? I'd be Carrie. I'd be curious to see it. Yes, right. Well, we just released a book called freedom, and it explains how we can actually make A better Society by eliminating organized coercion. I appreciate if you check it out sir. I really appreciate. Thanks so much. Cheers. I'll go through which one you want to touch first voluntourism monetarism. I volunteerism.

I like that phrase because Anarchy sounds scary. Right. Anarchy sounds scary when people when the average person a Libertarian, here's Anarchy. They go. Yay, when the average person has Anarchy they go. Oh my God, blood in the streets. Zombie apocalypse. Yeah. They assume that, right. They think it's The Walking Dead season 4. That's what they assume that's happening. Right?

The second that you say entropy and what I'm trying to get to them is, you know, of volunteers of voluntary Society, volunteerism. That sounds good. That's why I like it is the idea of people wanting to do is the

idea of people. When people get upset about what there are people suffering, there are people struggling, you're right, and that will always be the case, but when someone has a problem, whether that is mental physical Financial, whatever it might be whatever issue, they might have have medical, who cares, whatever that issue is. The first thing they need, is that a program. It's not Services. The first need is someone.

Who cares. When they get someone who cares that person can now give them the things they need to get their self together. Whatever. That is, right. The problem is we at the side that people need services and I hear this all the time. Particularly New York. It's all over particularly New York. My child has an e so they need Services. Yeah, services are fine. And they are but services are cookie cutter.

That put your child in a box and now you feel like your child is going to have success because they got services. I don't want your child to have Services. I want your child to have the best success, your child can have with whatever their special need is and when I know is some bureaucrat in Albany is not going to have an answer. But with some individual who maybe has had that issue before, who knows? Children who've had your issue whose work with them Mike that person.

Oh, yeah. And they also might be able to tell you what you can expect and help you decide what can be success for your child. And for your family, right? People say with a special needs. They need X, if you have anyone in your life, who has special needs. I have a nice visit istic. If you have anyone, you like for a special needs. It's a wide spectrum of what special needs are, you know, there's one special needs child. Whose success is getting dressed on their own.

Another special needs child. This is having a job and living on their own and the wide Gap in between, how can you decide what success is by Services? I want, I want volunteerism means I get what's real and that is the individual decides. I want to help you, and when they want to help you, you get good help. It's the idea that it's not about someone saying his cookie cutter. We've checked the Box, have a nice day.

It's we want to help. We want to make things happen and you might say but Larry that never works. That's completely natural at all. All of the best. If you've seen any of the actual programs that government has even tried to adopt, almost all of them began as voluntary programs, almost every one of them and then a government grab them and they became worse. That's almost Universal are some exceptions but very often it's it worked well before and now doesn't the best programs are

now voluntary. In fact, there's one right now in Massachusetts that I'm talking about. I'm going to bring to New York. It's called Humvee and its housing units for military veterans, and it's a prison system just for people who are veterans. And it's run by one peg guard. And the rest all volunteers.

That's happening. Now. People who want to help veterans and there are literally millions of people who want to help veterans and we'll do it well for free, but Larry, there's no credentials it. Work. The recidivism rate right now in Massachusetts is about 70 percent. That's pretty much throughout the entire country's about 70% for that program. It's less than 5% That means less than 5% of people. Come back to jail from that

voluntary program. This is what volunteerism is about people wanting to do people deciding to do and people deciding what a success among themselves. This is the goal. What is the non-aggression principle? This is a harder one for people to deal with as some people fight on this. So I look at it as a very simple idea. Of I don't want to, I never want to initiate force. Force is not by default. A bad thing for scan, and should

we use in many cases? But it should be used when there is a violation of someone's rights. And the best example I was bring on bring is when people have a problem. They very often say, To be law, 30 law, that's wrong. There to be long. Now. The problem is the first part that's wrong, may be true. But the second part there to be law is rarely true. And the problem is law.

Remember, at the end of almost every law, with some minor exceptions is always a guy or a gal with a gun who will put you in a cage, right? That's the end of a most every law, which means by default law is force, government is force. They are the Same. They are equivalent. They are equal, if that's true. When should I use government? When should I use law? I should when there are things like, threat of Life, loss of life threat of loss, of property, loss of property loss of limb.

Of course, when you're losing your life, liberty Pursuit of Happiness, when you're losing something forces appropriate. I would like the police or cops to take care of people when there is actually Force involved. Yeah. So the non-aggression principle says, why would I use Force when no one's using force on me, but I don't have a problem with people saying as an example, cigarettes are bad. You shouldn't smoke, and then

it's awesome. But my point is, do you as an individual belief that I have a right? Me personally to come to someone's house. Grab a cigarette from their mouth, smack them in the face. Take the cigarette. Throw it out and grab the It's and burn them. Of course. You would say no laughter. Of course not. Well, then watch the cops, do it. Yeah, that is the difference between Jehovah's Witness coming to your door and saying, here's what here's what you can learn

about. Here's a book, you can read here is here's where our churches. You can come talk to us. We really want you to believe this. That is non-aggression principle. And voluntourism force is come to our church, or we're going to put you in a cage. Where is this? The cage? And will shoot you. That's, it's a principle. We live by every day that we just, we just have to extend it. Government, I'll give you a great good example of how it failed in New York City.

And that was, if you remember, I New York City. They tried to ban. The thing. Was 16. Oz sodas. I think so does. Yes. Now here's where this actually find your having a soda now. Perfect. Yes. So, the, the problem that we had here is the science behind what Mayor Bloomberg and of time said, is absolutely true. The science is demonstrable. It's That if you give people smaller sodas, they will drink less soda, that is repeatable again, and again and again where people could buy more soda.

They don't that's simply what happens. It is absolutely true. The science is correct. So why didn't he simply say? Hey guys, look, the science is correct. Look at this. It's amazing. Here's a guideline that New York City wants to put out for your health. I'm fine with that. There it is. That's volunteerism. Here's what would have Happened.

What would have happened? Is there would have been some health-conscious cool stores in New York City restaurants, who would have said we care about your health. We're only going to give you 60 down sodas. And now that's a marketing tool for some restaurant. Some place in New York, others would have followed if it would become popular over the next 20 or 30 years. Actually, we probably would have made also to 16 ounces on our own because he would have believed it to be true and we've

done it anyway, right? It's what would happen? How do I know that? I know that because right now seatbelt. Cause you don't have to have seatbelt laws. Right now, the majority of people who don't like seat belt laws. Don't actually not like seatbelt. They don't like the law. They would use seat belts.

Anyway, most people would anyway because they realize it safe and the people who wouldn't you see belts are using the about now, so it's not like the law actually work for a lot of people and now you might say, but Larry you save lives because you make seat belt laws laws. Again, just like all force is a very good short. Short-term solution. And this is the problem. If I need money, I can put a gun in your face and say, keep give me your wallet. You give me your wallet. I have money now.

That was a very good short-term solution. But in the long run you and I both have a problem now and we see that consistently if we had just had the law, when it comes to the sodas and just not made a lot all night and try to make it a law. We probably would have more restaurants in New York City using that as a marketing tool and healthy and new. Workers without anyone forcing it trying to pass that law. Now. It's a joke. Now.

No one does it, it's a joke. We actually have less healthy people because trying to force that law. Law is a short-term solution. As far as the science being correct. The science is correct about eating healthy and exercising. Yes, but that doesn't mean I get to force you to go to the gym. I get to force you to eat lettuce, instead of me. One should listen to Dave Matthews and watch Modern Family, but I don't have the right to force them to do. So as far as Government being

forced. This is something. Everyone from George Washington, saying, government is not reason. It is force to Barack Obama. While he was Senator saying, the state is in essence, a monopoly on violence. So, this is not a kook thing. That little Larry just came up with, finally. What is self ownership, if this is the hardest one. It really Is the hardest one. I'm glad we went with this one. Last and the idea is that you own your own body. You own you? I'm Adam, and I'm an anarchist

because I ran out of excuses. I ran out of excuses, her organized politics and more importantly, my participation in them excuses for why it's okay to commit violence against strangers on the other side of the planet. Because they're magical Sky cloth is a different color than yours. I'm going in our case because it boils down to two basic fundamental concepts property rights and the non-aggression principle. I own myself and my property up to and including my life.

The only excuse for violence is in defense of those things. That's why I'm an anarchist. Hi everybody. My name is Stefan. Molyneux. I'm the host of freedomain radio the largest and most popular philosophy on the web. And I would like, to talk to you for just a few minutes with your kind Indulgence about libertarianism. Some and why it's important to

what it's all about. And what it's real purposes in society, probably heard libertarianism, banded around on the web and in the media, and so on, but it's worth understanding in my opinion. So I would argue that really the best function of human thought is to take principles that we learn locally and keep extending them and applying them to see

how far they Hold right. So gravity is something we all learn locally, you know, we throw balls frisbees, jump off low walls and so on. And so the purpose of human thought in physics, for instance, would be to continue to extend the principle of gravity and see how far it holds turns out. It holds all throughout the Universe and all throughout time, producing some really freaky phenomenon, like black holes and so on.

And a lot of these truths That we discover through taking local experiences and extrapolate extrapolating them to Universal principles. A lot of these truths are

really, really freaky. I mean, originally, of course, it was thought or believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and all the sun and the moon, and the stars, and the planets been around the Earth. Turns out, if you put money on that bet you would have lost because, of course, as we now the sun is the center of the solar system, where basically falling around the sun. The sun is falling around the

center of the Galaxy. and we're traveling at unbelievable speeds at all times, but Kind of really doesn't feel that way. You know, unless you stick your head out of a pickup truck window. So there are these truths that are just kind of freaky which is what happens when you take principles and extend them. If you take a principle called the speed of light is constant, you extend it throughout physics as Einstein. Did you end up at this crazy

stuff where the faster you go? The slower time goes, you get Queen songs and additional matter that grabs onto you as you go, faster and faster and faster. It's very, very strange stuff, but It's what happens when you take principles and you extend them to see how far they can go. Now, libertarianism is one of those experiments, one of those thought experiments. So, basically libertarianism is founded on. Can a two things and the two

sides of the same coin. Number one, the non-aggression principle, you are not morally allowed to initiate, the use of

force against others. You can in self-defense, use your nunchucks or whatever, but you can initiate the use of force against others and along, Slide that is a respect for property rights that you own the effects of your actions whether that is a sonnet or a poem, or a song, or a house or a tree that you've planted or or the effects of your actions such as an argument on the internet, you time something on Tinder? That's yours. You have created it.

You own it. And morally, we own the effect of our negative actions, you know, like if I go and steal someone's iPod. I've actually owned that theft. I've created it. It's my theft. That's why I would get. Sanctioned or punished for that. So non-aggression principle, which is called the naep and a respect for property rights is really the foundation of libertarianism and it's really not that freaky a philosophy. When you think about it. I mean, I have a daughter and

like all parents. I tell my daughter don't hit and don't take stuff. You know, this is kindergarten ethics at home 101 on the walls of all the brightly colored classrooms around the planet. So this is what we say. We say no one. Don't hesitate use your words, don't hit and don't don't take stuff. And these are kind of the local ethics that we are very

comfortable with that. We live our lives, by almost all of us have been instructor children about and that we expect in the workplace and we expect in the schools and so on. Don't initiate the use of force and respect other people's property. Now where libertarianism is, I think very interesting and worth understanding is like a physicist or Any other scientist? You take these local principles and you keep extending them. Keep extending them like in the field of medicine.

One of the principles is that anecdotes aren't proof, right? So what you need to do your good double-blind experiments and all these kinds of cool to find out. What actually works and what doesn't in the field of medicine, you know, what's the placebo effect. What is just spontaneous, remission of various illnesses? What if somebody who wasn't sick, thought they were turned out, they felt better. So the double blind experience a way of trying to find out what's

true. And what's not in it separates the quackery from the actual useful medical cures. So libertarianism just takes these principles, non-aggression principle, respect for property rights, keep pushing them out, pushing them out, pushing that, how far And they go, well, if they're true and valid principles, then there should be no limit. As to how far they can go.

So if you take something like personhood, the moral history of personhood is kinda dicey and a little embarrassing for the species and for philosophers because, you know, personhood was, you know, in a rich white guys or whoever. But for the most part, it wasn't including minority. Certainly didn't include slaves for a lot of history. History did include women. So just this concept of personhood. How far can we push it out? Well, we found of last couple hundred years.

We can push it out pretty far and that's I think a very good thing. So what? If this is the question that Libertarians ask themselves and it's a very interesting question, I mean like it or not. It's really, really worth pursuing. How far can we take the non-aggression principle? And a respect for property rights. How far can we take these principles and very interesting

question. Now, when you push principles out some really freaky stuff, a curse, the planet that you think of is flat is actually round or a sphere, although the Sun and the Moon look the same size. What is it about a about a dime at arm's length or something? And they Eclipse they seem to fit together quite well, turns out that the sun is hundreds of thousands of times bigger than the moon and someone so It really messes with your perspective.

When you take principles and continued to extend the right, so for thousands and thousands of years human beings have been breeding animals and and and crops to further their utility for agriculture or pleasure. You extend that principle and say, well, selection for the benefit of right and you end up with Evolution or something like it. And so just keep extending principles. That's really the very important aspect. I think of philosophy of science of medicine and so on.

But it messes with your perspectives confusing. And it blows your mind least, it blows my mind on a fairly regular basis. And so Libertarians. When you look at the world through the non-aggression principle respect for property rights. You immediately come up some with some significant problems in the way Society is currently organized. It's a very nice way of putting it. The way that Society currently manifest is probably a better way of putting it. And what you find.

Of course, is that something like, taxation taxation is the initiation of the use of force. It is a violation of personal property on the pot of other people who call themselves a government and so on, right? It is a violation of the libertarian ethic, and it's not like the taxation is done in self-defense. So, there is a National Defense component to it, which can be tons of litter and During literature will talk about that. But it's a problem, the state

itself, right? Which is a small group of individuals who have the moral right and obligation to initiate the use of force against citizens in a given, geographical area. That's really what the government is compulsion. As has been noted by Barack Obama, Chairman Mao, George Washington. All the people have correctly understood that the government is the initiation of force. And therefore, it is a violation

of the non-aggression principle. Now, what you can do is you can say, well, the non-aggression principle Really good for my kids. It's really good for my workplace is really good for. My marriage is really good for my friendships. It's really good for them all, but it's just not good for government. Well, see, that's a problem. That's a big problem. The moment you have to start creating enormous exceptions to

a principle. Well, then it's no longer a principal and you have significant problems. You can no longer say to your kids or to your co-workers or to spouse or to your friends. That this is a principle that is a moral principle because you've created a massive exception. So, a long time ago said before the copernican and ptolemaic revolution of the so 15th and 16th centuries. They believed astronomers believed that the circle was like the perfect. God would never have an

ellipsis. It's not round, is not perfect. And so, everything had to be circles and this is called the ptolemaic after an ancient Greek astronomer the ptolemaic system of astronomy. And the problem was, is that, of course, as we go around the Sun, Mars goes around the Sun slower, some points Mars. It's called the retrograde motion. Mars seems to be going backwards

at his eyes going forward again. So people started inventing all these crazy circles within circles within circles and it ended up being, you know, hundreds of pages of calculations just to figure out where Mars, I was in the night sky or where it was going to be in a week a week from now, because they had the principles fundamentally wrong.

The Earth was at the center. And everything was considered to be circular where, of course, the reality is on the heliocentric model of the solar system. The sun is at the center and everything's an ellipsis. And once you did that, bingo bango bongo, you've got very easy to calculate Martian positions. No problem. So you can't just create an exception. And have it be productive. And so with Libertarians the argument is well, we have this

non-aggression principle. We have a respect for property rights. That's enshrined in the law. You can't assault. Rape kill steal. You can't do those things. But then the question becomes, if these are moral principles, then they have to apply to everyone. If they don't apply to everyone then they're like aesthetic principles or preferences or something like that. You know, I like the Red Sox and

jazz or whatever. If they do apply to everyone, what people in the government or people, right? I mean, it's not space. Aliens is not lizard, man. So, if the non-aggression principle applies to everyone. And people in the government are people, then the non-aggression principle must apply to people in government. And this is why in the libertarian position things like the war on drugs are considered to be wrong in moral, somebody who goes and smokes marijuana, or something.

Else is not initiating. The use of force assuming, they didn't sort of Steal to go buy and which, they really wouldn't have to do if it wasn't for the War on Drugs, so they're not initiating the use of force against everyone. Anyone by having Terry trade, they are not violating property rights and I'm going to steal the drugs. They buy it for whatever amount of money.

And so the government then by you know, grabbing that person with with armed guys and throwing them into a cage and trying them and locking them up. And so on preventing them from leaving and shooting them if they try to escape. Well, that is the initiation of the use of force against peaceful people. It's not like this Hedonism thing where it's like, oh, I can't wait to get crack into the hands of toddlers. It's nothing to do with that.

It really is just when you look at Something like the War on Drugs from the libertarian standpoint and say well as somebody peacefully buying drugs initiating, the use of force against anyone will know. They violating property rights.

Well, no. Then if you use Force against somebody who's not using aggression or violating property rights, then you are now the aggressor and that's immoral because you are now initiating the use of force against against the peaceful person and whether you're in a blue costume or a green costume or polka dot costume or dress like Ronald McDonald doesn't really matter. You still a person and that's subject to these Universal principles.

So I don't want to get into a lot of detail here because just kind of like a an introductory very introductory thing, but I really I encourage you to explore this way of thinking, the libertarian position is that most of the immorality within Society. Most of the evils that are occurring within Society. Most of the disasters that are occurring within Society are occurring because of a violation of the non-aggression principle or of property rights or both.

And so National debts are violation of property rights in that you are selling off. The future productivity of people who aren't even born yet and can't defend themselves you and I could never do that in a contract.

And but the government can the Monopoly that the government has on money on, can the issuance of currency is a violation of the non-aggression principle because if somebody else wants to create create some currency and we agree to use it you and I are you know, you and I and some other guy then we are peacefully deciding to trade based upon. Raggedy Ann dolls or whatever. It's gonna be. We're not initiating Force

against anyone. We are simply using a different medium for trade and if we want to use gold, if we want to use diamonds, if we want to use anything conch shells and we can do anything we want. As long as we're not initiating Force. Now, of course, the government forces you to use its currency, which gives it an immoral Monopoly and it initiates the use of force against people who

would rather use something else. And so, the Monopoly on currency and a National debts, just some examples, for instance, that's important. A war. Of course, unless it's a purely defensive war against an imminent, Invasion war is a violation of the non-aggression principle in that you are going to attack another country. First and foremost and you are initiating.

The use of force against your own citizens to extract money, from them, through taxation to pay for the war that you are Prosecuting. And so I just really wanted this to be kind of an introduction. I certainly don't expect this to be like ah, Completely agree, but what I would encourage you to do is to look at society and where you see significant

problems. Look for violations of the non-aggression principle, violations of the respect for property rights and I would but you pretty significant odds that where you see the greatest problems in society and the least sustainable catastrophes within Society, you will find these violations at the root and I think it's well worth Looking at society and the world around you through this lens. Does this proposed action on this existing action or policy?

Violate the non-aggression principle disadvantaged property rights, if it does well, look deeper. And I think you'll find that libertarianism has some very interesting things to say and I think we are a long way as a species from friend, finding the end of where we can apply the non-aggression principle and property rights.

For more. Of course, you can go to a variety of places my Site has some more information about this freedomainradio.com, but you can go to a lot of other places on the web for this and I really, really encourage you to look at this very interesting school of thought and well worth checking out. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Hi, I'm Mance. Rayder. I host a free man beyond the wall podcast and I've written two books.

Freedom through me, Madam and the kids are not. All right, I'm here to tell you why, I'm a voluntarist, / anarcho-capitalist / libertarian. One main reason. No man has a right to tell another man, what to do. No man has a right to aggress against another man, unless that person is damaging that person's Or another person's body or property. It's as simple as that. Thank you.

Mayday anarchists in San Francisco are did some preliminary or May Day Eve. Festivities writing in San Francisco. And you know what? I Anarchist Anarchist? I have to put in quotes. These aren't anarchists not real anarchist because the only real anarchists are anarcho-capitalists. The only ones that really understand the non initiation of force, the natural organization of society in the absence of a

government. As opposed to these so-called Anarchist, these non proper Therrien, anarchists who are forcefully imposing their will on others. In contrary to the very Spirit of anarchism and Disgusting to see that the mainstream media allows them to get away with this. It would be like, you know be like me hosting orgies in Street intersections as a matter of protest and saying well, these are Christian protests.

We're protesting to make sure that Christianity is taught in schools and we're trying to discredit evolutionary theory by showing the Divinity of human sexuality and the fact that we're not we're fucking in the streets and we're not making monkeys. Obviously we didn't come from monkeys. So yes, we're a Christian protest and and in the media Going. Yep. Christians protesting in the streets. I mean, it's the same thing when we see anarchists destroying property, rioting when the media

says, they're anarchists. Well, because they call themselves Anarchist. It. Just shows how dumb most people in the mainstream media are that. They don't know better. That they don't at least call them out on this. Because the very concept of destroying property of destroying, someone else's property is a violation of the, the moral precepts of Anarchy. The idea that there should be no rulers. Well, bye. Imposing your will on others by force by destroying property.

You are essentially ruling them. You're taking charge of their property. And what is so sad, is that not just I mean at least when the government steals your property they pretend to put it to good use, anarchists so-called nonprofit Aryan Anarchist as we're seeing in San Francisco. Instead want to destroy property. It's like they're worse than government. Yes, giving giving Anarchy a bad name.

Giving people a bad name. But yeah, this is nothing new and Darkest the black Bloc of the Occupy Movement of so many leftist movements, the the hardcore extremists who don't quite go to The Logical, conclusion of anarchism, but call themselves selves anarchists anyways, because they hate the system because they're so angry. They're going to go and burn down Starbucks and smash windows. They're breaking their attacking individual vehicles in San Francisco.

I mean, what the fuck? This is just a disgrace to political activism. But somehow they get away with calling themselves, anarchists. Thanks to the American mainstream. Media punchline Revisited. Contrary to what nearly everyone has been taught to believe. Government is not necessary for civilization. It is not conductive to civilization. It is, in fact, the antithesis of civilization. It is not cooperation. Working together or voluntary interaction. It is not peaceful, coexistence.

It is coercion. It is force. It is violence. It is animalistic aggression. Cloaked by pseudo religious cult like rituals, which are designed to make it appear legitimate and righteous. It is brute thuggery disguised as consent and organization. It is the enslavement of mankind. The subjugation of Free Will and the destruction of morality masquerading. As civilization and Society. The problem is not just that Authority can be used for evil.

The problem. Is that at its most basic Essence. It is evil. It is everything in everything. It does. It defeats the Free Will of human beings controlling them through coercion and fear it. Supersedes and destroys moral Consciousness, replacing replacing it with uncie. Being blind, obedience. It cannot be used for good anymore than a bomb can be used to heal a body. It is always aggression, always the enemy of Peace, always the enemy of Justice, the moment. It ceases to be an attacker.

It ceases to fit the definition of government. It Is by its very nature, a murderer, and a thief that enemy of mankind, a poison to humanity as Dominator and controller ruler and oppressor. It can be Nothing else. The alleged right to rule in any degree. And in any form is the opposite of humanity. The initiation of violence is the opposite of harmonious.

Existence. The desire for Domination is the opposite of love for mankind, hiding the violence, under layers of complex, rituals and self-contradictory rationalizations and labor, labeling, brute feathery as virtue and compassion does not change. That fact. Claiming noble goals saying that the violence is the will of the people or that is being or that it is being committed for the common good, or for the children cannot change. Evil into good legalizing, run

wrong, does not make it right. One man. Forcibly subjugating another no matter how it is, described or how it is carried out is uncivilized and immoral. The destruction that causes the Injustice. It creates the damage. It does to Every Soul that touches perpetuates victims and Spectators alike, perpetuators victims, and Spectators alike, cannot be undone by calling it law or by claiming that it was a necessary evil evil.

By any name is still evil. The ultimate message here is very simple, all of recorded history. Ramsey yet, few have until now allowed themselves to hear it. That message is if you love death and destruction oppression and suffering, Injustice and violence, repression and torture helplessness and despair, Perpetual conflict, and bloodshed. Then teach your children to respect, authority, and teach them that obedience is a virtue.

If on the other hand you value peaceful coexistence compassion and cooperation freedom. And Justice. Then teach your children, the principles of self-ownership, teach them to respect the rights of every human being and teach them to recognize and reject the belief in Authority for what it is. The most irrational self-contradictory, anti-human evil destructive and dangerous Superstition. The world has ever known. Jeff sessions and weed, which I'm very conflicted.

This is another tough one. I'm very good things about because on the one hand. I don't want the federal government getting involved really in anything. I don't want government involved in very much aside from maybe like infrastructure and defense and everything else. Just leave us alone. I'd be perfectly happy for, you know, all education to be off the table and all the rest of it. I've tend toward and cap on my

darkest moments to say. So we put them together to say the law jurisdiction, literally means to say the law. I'll say what the law is, and then it will magically be that way. You know, that's why they're called themselves off for entities author author. What does an author do? They write things. Say so in your mind. You think they make things, right? They make the rights. Say that's how mind control works.

The words and people never say it because they never stopped even break down the word or consider where it came from. Whenever you're smearing or seeing the word Authority, you're seeing the word author which in your mind you equate with writing something W RI t.i. NG writing but phonetically that is the same as writing, R. IG HT ing, writing, something making it, right? And the mind doesn't separate those Concepts at a subconscious level. Okay, hence is why they call themselves off.

Ortiz writers and that is what they do. They write down the law, they call themselves legislators. I write down what the law is and then it magically becomes. So on my whim or preference and you know, that's called, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's called claiming to be. God is what that's called, Authority is nothing more than an illusion that only exists in people who are mentally. Ali ill.

If you believe in the 40 verse disease within the human psyche, period, I don't care who's offended by that. Get is offended about it as you want. Authority exists only in a diseased mind because the concept is based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief system. That some people are Masters who have the moral right to issue. Arbitrarily chosen commands that they call their laws.

And our people are the slaves of that ruling class who have some sort of a moral obligation to obey the master class and we All this Authority, you know what? I call it. I call it what it really is slavery. It's called slavery. It always has been slavery. It is slavery now and it always will be slavery. Let's stop you from izing things. Let's call bullshit for what it is. Okay, there's no inherent legitimacy to the concept of slavery and never has been and never will be And we need to

understand. That's what that is. Authority is slavery, but we're just euthanizing it and calling it. Something different Authority is the belief, the belief in the legitimacy of authority is the belief in the legitimacy of slavery. If you believe in Authority, you have legitimized the concept of slavery, all believers and Authority. All blanket statement, ego hates blanket statements. Believers in Authority are believers in slavery and

supporters of it. 100%. Always have been throughout the entire time that the Universe has existed and always will be for as long as the universe exists. Blanket statement. Authority is nothing more than the idea that man can become God. And through jurisdiction, dictate the law. That's man wanting to be the creator of the universe and decide for himself. What? Right? And wrong actually are instead of discovering those laws of nature that the creator has put

into effect. It's the same old story, folks. It goes back for tens of thousands of years. Hundreds of thousands of years. There's nothing new is nothing new Under the Sun. There's nothing new here. It's the same story of slavery that's been going on. Since this species has existed on this planet. It was just called different things throughout time. We The Old World Order, he needs to be called, kingship kingship.

The Sovereign on the throne. Yeah, we're still have kings and queens in certain countries, the unimaginable unmitigated Gall, somebody calling themselves a king over other people there, my subjects. I mean, you have to be joking. This concept that Authority is vested in one that person is the representative of God on the planet. You know has anything changed or if we just said we've taken this old world, quote order, you know, I put order in quotations

because can't result in order. It's actually the ancient slavery, chaos system, both of these things and nothing has changed. Okay, the so-called Old World Order, nothing of the kind. The old world chaos. Now, we have the new world chaos. They call it the New World Order. Well, I put new in quotes here and order in quotes because there's nothing new about it. And there's nothing orderly about it. It's the old world chaos. The old world slavery. It just has a different name.

We've wrapped it up in a more attractive package. Oh, oh, I see. We have diffused The Authority. Now, it's not just vested in one person because people would realize the inherent bullshit in that. It's now vested in a few people. That call themselves government. We've taken the same magic, the thing that doesn't actually exist. This magical thing that is based in violence and coercion and we've just diffused it, you know, we've diffused it to now several people have that magic.

Okay. I mean, it can't get any more nonsensical illogical ridiculous and immoral. And yet, people still believe in it. This is their religion, their religion. It's their slavery, is what it is. Okay, because it doesn't make a difference, authority vested in one authority vested in few. It's the same thing slavery. And being awake means knowing that definitively. Deeply. There's only one true divide

that exists in humanity. All the other things that supposedly separate us are divide-and-conquer strategies race ostensible, religion, background social status amount of money, people make how people dress, how people talk what people look like divide and conquer all divide and conquer strategies age sex. It's all just ways of dividing people so that they're easier to conquer and Rule. But there is one legitimate difference.

And it has to do with the level of Consciousness that people are at. And again, Consciousness, meaning the demystified concept of Consciousness that I talked about, in the first section, the ability to recognize patterns and meaning with respect to what's taking place within you and around you in your environment. That's it. So, how much are you? Aware of the pattern. How much of the truth are you actually taking in and processing accurately and

understanding? That's what I'm talking about by a different level of Consciousness. There's only one true division in humanity. That separates us into two distinct types of individuals and that the Criterion for that divided. For that difference is whether or not an individual believes in authority. And therefore believes that there is legitimacy to Avery or not. That's it. That's the only real difference between human beings. And this is what it looks like

the one true divide. The statist or the anarchist. And I searched for some memes on social networking to find you. No good image. That represents the general concept of the statist and the anarchist, you know, you could find a million of them for status. It'll just look at any police brutality image and there's

billions of them online. But I, you know, I took this kind of funny cartoon meme that says, statism is the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people, the right to kidnap. Imprison her ass steal from and kill. People. So we can be protected from the people who kidnap her a steal from and kill people. It makes so much logical sense, don't you think? I love this. Statist argument that we need to be protected from ourselves because human nature is

fundamentally bad. So we're going to put the concept of authority into the hands of people whose nature is fundamentally bad to protect us from ourselves because we're fundamentally bad. Wonderful, Flawless logic as you can readily. See, Flawless logic, Flawless, logic, and it goes back to that worldview Schism that Schism about. How do you view human nature as well? The human nature Schism, are we inherently good and wonderful? Beings are inherently flawed and

evil demonic beings. When in the, the truth of the matter is, we're neither. That's not that in those. Two conditions are just that conditions.

They're not our nature. Our nature is that we are programmable such that we can become either of those extremes if we're program well or badly, So when I was looking for an image to represent, Anarchy and Anarchist, I didn't see any good ones because they give you these utterly ridiculous concepts of anarchists or people that are all about creating chaos and damage in society. Okay, you look up, Anarchy on Google Images, Anarchist on Google Images.

You'll get the so-called Black Block, these children, that are nothing but Communists in Disguise. Okay? Think that communism is anarchy. Hi. Because they've read the absolutely polluted writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Etc. OK an advocate.

Yeah. Well, let's take everything, give all resources to the hands of the state will magically be free then and then they thing anybody who disagrees, it them is a dyed-in-the-wool, you know, crony capitalists that believes money is the solution to everything, you know, and and human greed should see no bounds. You know why people have a hard time with my work? I don't believe in any of it. I'm out out of the Mind Control

out, 100% out. But all of those systems, do nothing, but lead to control and slavery. Okay, and that's what other people need to get out out, is the answer out, is the solution get to the outside of that. So you can see it from the outside for what it is. Something that destroys human Innovation, creativity, Freedom, love excetera. It's all those systems do.

It's all they ever have done. So when I was looking for an image to represent a real anarchists, I don't want to be too egotistical and just put my face up there or some. Other friends who are also real anarchists. I saw this meme on Facebook and I said, yeah, that's it. Christ the ultimate spiritual Warrior, the ultimate anarchists. And again, please don't fill up my inbox saying, don't, you know all about Astro theology. I could write books on Astro, theology.

I problem. We may even do that in the future. Okay, I get it's allegorical, I get there is doubts to the historicity of the actual historical figure and I don't care because it's the message that matters. Who is Christ warring against He was warring against the established religious institutions of his time, the Pharisees and Sadducees. Okay. Well he put out works that went against their so-called law. Okay, there was a big Uprising

against his word. Then the banks of the day became involved because when he went to the temple, and they were charging ridiculous, interest rates on Temple coins, preventing people who actually wanted to go to the temple and worship. They Couldn't do it. Then he freaked out in the temple and turned all the

bankers against him. And then who ultimately did the crucifixion, the state, the Roman Empire, which was the police and military of his day and people in the actual religion who say they're into the scriptures can't even read them. And see the institutions that this being was warring against was religion, money and government. They I can't even see that when it's right out in the open, in their face. And these are the things they put up on a pedestal.

It's a joke and they're fake ass Christians. Okay, it's called looking at the exoteric the outside and never getting into the deep fundamental core spiritual and moral truths that lie at the center because they're too concerned about all the trappings, you know, so the ultimate Anarchist is right there. Well, I'm here today to tell you is that there is no such thing as an awake being that has ever been a statist. Never won. Every truly awake.

Being that has ever existed in the cosmos is an anarchist. And can never not be one who is an anarchist one who believes that there is no such thing as the legitimacy of ruling and owning other people. Because that's what an anarchist is. Someone who believes there is no legitimacy to the external rulership or ownership of other people. Or, in other words, that there is no legitimacy to slavery. That's what Anarchy really is, and I'm going to explain that right now.

Okay, a statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as authority vested in certain human beings magically giving them the right to rule over other people without euphemism, you know, if we stop you from izing things and we're honest with ourselves. Free and it's not just government spending much, more important. Even the government spending is government regulation. Governing regulation makes it very almost impossible to innovate.

All Innovation. Today is happening in areas that are not regulated. Luckily. The federal government has not decided to regulate this because if it did, it wouldn't look like this, it wouldn't be this beautiful machine indeed. If a government committee made one of these, I'll leave it to your imagination. What it would look like and you all know it, whether you're left us await you. No government committee would never make anything as beautiful as this all of you know that,

right? But yet you want the government to make this you do because that's the implication of the policies. Many of you advocating at the end of the day. Okay, he's limiting me. I would go on forever. Yeah. His Foley Harry Potter JK, Rowling benefits with all those examples were in EM, edc's, in, in countries, with good.

So, the China question, cool. Well, I was wondering what your opinion is, then when it affects another part of all part of world such as Africa. I mean, the money we Western companies. I mean it could they are not their time that they don't have the choice of Labor and over time. They are that their job is no, like, the amount. They work is not positive. How much money they get and how much they need. How do you, how do you, how do you get to make that decision

for them? I mean this to me, is this to me, I get this at every particular in Europe and in the US as well, this to me is one of the most anyway, You sit here in Europe in your cushy, middle-class chairs. I'm serious about this, and you want to judge. The African or let's take the Chinese because that's why, you know, an apple, the Indonesian so-called Sweatshop or whatever, and you want to tell me the two bucks, a day is not a dramatic Improvement in their life, it is.

And there's no way for them to get to that point to be as rich as you are, unless they go through that phase, and If you deny them, that Billy didn't make two bucks a day by charging for by insisting. The companies paid for, and therefore, they withdraw completely from the market. Because As you know what, I'm not paying 600 bucks for this. I'll pay 300. And if I stopped buying this who suffers that Chinese kid who's right now, making whatever. 3

bucks a day or whatever, right? And he his alternative is to go back to the farm. And you know what they did in the Farms. Forty years ago, in the Chinese were all producing agriculture. They were dying of starvation, 40 to 60 million, Chinese died of starvation and amount. Suddenly, you've given them opportunity to actually attain middle class suit to learn a skill to make it take to have a profession, to make money to make themselves into something.

And by the way, the Chinese never complain about how much they're being paid. You guys complaint, We complain in the west because yes, to our middle class comfy lights, that seems ridiculous, but that's because you've never lived in real poverty. Nobody in England is lived in real poverty. The way the Chinese And the Africans in need Tunisian is live. When you go, when you go to a place and it's interesting because take take Korea koreas an interesting case study,

right? You've got North Korea and South Korea, 50, 60, 70 years ago. South Korea was as poor as North Korea. They were both dirt poor. And in South Korea instituted, some economic freedom and it made it possible for people to go and work for a buck a day for two bucks a day, and they developed skills and increase their productivity and they started building more stuff. And capital flu came in and increase the productivity even

more and suddenly. And you go to Seoul today and there was rich, as you are petite in 70 years, they did or 60 years. They did what you've done in hundreds of years. How did they do it? Because of the ability? To slowly reach it up. Now. If you demand that they skip and get to your standard of living like that. Then they will stay poor forever. And that's what you're condemning them to.

You're condemning them to tuna poverty, a kid, who is getting a bucket to add a, his alternative is to die in the field. You would make giving it doing him a favor by giving him the two bucks a day and he's producing something. And he's learning a skill at the same time. And one day, he'll run the factory. But if you you demand that he gets paid. For he'll never have the job. He'll never have the the factory and he'll stay put for the rest of his life.

And all you have to do to see this in real action is go to Asia and see what they how they live under poverty and see how the these countries are growing rich. And you know, do you know that over the last 30 years? Now? This is not my statistic. This is the United Nations. You can look it up online right over. The last Thirty is a billion. That's with a B pill. You people have come out of poverty. In Asia, why? Because of capitalism, not because of Fallen Aid.

Pollinate doesn't help anybody except the dictators of put them in the Swiss bank account. What helps poor countries is freedom. You give them the rule of law, you know, property rights, if you're interested in property rights and how it helps poor people read, Capital ideas by Hernando. De Soto Peruvian, Economist a brilliant economists. You give them property. He give them Capital, you give them a job.

That's how you create. Eat wealth not by not, by giving them not by giving them handouts. So a billion people have come out of poverty. Now. I know some people have said, all you guys care about is the rich. Somebody said, what you care about is the rich deserve it. You know, what? I don't care about the rich. They don't need taking care of, right? They're doing great. I care about the poor. I care about the poor and the only system in human history.

The only system in human history to help the poor to help ambitious. Poor people. Rise of a poverty and become rich has been capitalist. Free markets are the only only cure for poverty. The only way in which you become rich. So you don't have to have poor people. He's to capitalism. That's how this country became Rich. That's how America became its. That's how Hong Kong became it. That's how South Korea became Rich. There's no other way to do it when we tried socialism. We get poverty.

We get a return a deterioration. We get a destruction of wealth, not a creation of wealth. So you want people to you care about the poor and the middle class. I also care about the rich because I think that they are villainized for it, which is unbelievably unjust. But I care about young people who I want to maximize the opportunities and I know that the only way to maximize people opportunities is to give economic freedom to the world

and that should be the goal. And that means not sitting here in judging how much a labor makes in Indonesia. It's not that chained. If the whipped slavery, is evil, any kind of slavery is evil, but what's happening? In the free countries, that's not slavery. That's choices that people are making to make their lives better. You don't like it, but it's their lies. Not yours. I have to stop. So. Sorry guys. I'd go on all night.

Inventions, but I want to suggest you that the the state poses, a mortal danger to all humanity. And that this is the best reason of all for being an anti statist for fighting against statism and every way, you know how. And if I seem to be making some value, judgments, as I go along here. I'm not going to apologize for it. Because they're they're not much more adventurous than the value judgment that I prefer life to

death. And I would like to see other people live rather than be destroyed by the state. I'm going to draw on a paper that was published in the Journal of libertarian studies few years ago called if men were angels. And some of what I'll say, Today you'll find there but you'll find quite a bit more development of some of these ideas there than I have time to present to you this afternoon. So if you if you are interested in anything I have to say here. I recommend that you that you

find this article. It's available online like virtually everything that the mises Institute has anything to do with. So it's there for your, for your Perusal. I'm going to be dealing with the state more or less in the way that that fronts Oppenheimer taught us a century ago or so to think about the state Oppenheimer distinguish, the the economic means of getting goods and services that satisfy human needs and desires from the political means of getting wealth.

And that corresponds pretty much to the distinction between Choice and state force or as, as it were the distinction between markets and States. So, let me begin my talk by saying something about the state and social disorder and Liberty by the state. I mean, as Max Weber meant a territorial Monopoly of Law and Order.

Of legitimate force and violence that collects involuntary tribute from the inhabitants of a bounded area and makes rules that it. Enforces on the people in that area, hardly anything is more common than the assumption that without a state. A society will fall necessarily and immediately into violent disorder, indeed, Anarchy a word. We Out from the Greek. Meaning without a ruler. Anarchy and Chaos are often used

as synonyms. the Random House dictionary gives the following four, definitions of Anarchy and perhaps some of you have looked up in Turkey in the dictionary before and found these some of them are fairly straightforward, like the first one, although

that can be misleading as well. But I'm particularly interested in the third one which describes Anarchy as a theory that regards the absence of all direct and coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary Association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. And To the extent that any one of us in the room here espouses? Anarchy. It's in this sense that we

espouse it, suppose. However, that the situation described by the third definition. We're not merely a theory or an ideal but a genuine possibility, perhaps even a historically, instantiated condition. Of course, John Locke James Madison mansur Olsen and nearly everybody else have concluded from their theoretical deliberations that the stateless option cannot exist. At least not for long, because it's deficiencies. Make it. So manifestly inferior to life

in a society under state. In Federalist 51, Madison wrote these words, very famous words, and they're part of a little longer discussion that I deal with in the article. I referred to. But if anybody remembers anything from The Federalist Papers that all there's a high likelihood that, if that it may be this passage, if men were Angels, no government would be necessary. And if the Angels were to govern men, neither external, nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

And then Madison goes on to talk about how framing a government requires that we have a government to administer over men, but we must somehow provide a means of controlling that government. And this is the way in which political philosophers and political scientists have almost always We thought about the issue for centuries. I set up a little table to help me and others think about what's going on here. And it looks like this if men are angels and we can pass Pretty briefly over that

alternative. It's okay with no State. It's okay with us state. It doesn't matter because even if there's a state that people who compose it and operated are angels and so they're certainly not going to do anything untoward. But in the realistic option on the second line. Men Are Not Angels, but for Madison and for almost all others, the idea that we would have no state is simply inconceivable.

They were The Heirs of the kind of reasoning Advanced by Thomas, Hobbes, and John Locke. And, and for these people and many others. Individuals would find it very desirable to form what we now call the state in order to effectively protect their natural rights. And they would recognize that absent, the state they would be incapable of protecting their natural rights, and so they would probably Be subject to all the horrors that Hobbes described as the state of nature.

And therefore the best conceivable situation in a world where Men Are Not Angels is that we have a state and allow it to rule over us in the way. I described earlier. The alleged absence of significant historical examples of large stateless societies during the past several thousand years, buttresses these Theory Laden conclusions. Just as the poor we have always with us.

So except among primitive. Peoples society and state are taken to of always Coexisted. Now, one need not spend much time and however defined theoretical arguments. Some of them worked out in great detail. And at considerable length, for example, in rothbard. So work and in David Friedman's work. Arguments about why and how a stateless society could work

successfully. Moreover researchers have adduced historical examples of large stateless societies, ranging from the ancient Harappan, civilization of the Indus Valley from as far back as 3300 BC running up for the next 2,000 years to about 1300 BC. A society that flourished for almost two Millennia and flourish to a high degree for

much of that period. Examples ranging from harappa to Somalia during the past two decades and given the enormous literature that has accumulated on stateless Societies in theory and in actual operation. We may conclude that if nothing else such societies are conceivable. And for a large compendium of literature on the entire subject, I recommend the book published edited by Ed Stringham in 2007. From this literature.

I've been led to. Think in terms of what I call a more realistic model than Madison's. This one again, manner. Angels. The state is irrelevant one way or the other, but if Men Are Not Angels and there's no State. We will have a bad situation. We would be fools to argue that if we simply got rid of the state, we would produce heaven on Earth. That's not the nature of the human raw material. Some of us are no damn good and that seems to be a condition that tries we met, we can't change.

So it's always going to be the case that in society or some individuals that are inclined to criminal actions and aggression against their fellows, and that has to be dealt with somehow. So if we have no state to deal with it, we will definitely have a bad situation. Her, I maintain that. If we do have a state purportedly to deal with it, we

will have a worse situation. Although I admit that the outcome in a stateless society will be bad because not only are people not Angels, but many of them are irredeemably. Vicious in the extreme. I conjecture that the outcome in a society, under a state will be worse. Indeed, much worse. Because first the most vicious people in society will tend to gain control of the state. And second by virtue of this control over the state's powerful engines of death and destruction.

They will wreak vastly more harm than they ever could have caused outside the state. It is unfortunate that some individuals commit crimes. But it is stunningly worse. When such criminally inclined individuals, wield State powers. Lest anyone protest that the state's true function or Duty or end is as lock Madison and countless others have argued to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property the evidence of History. Clearly shows that as a rule

real states. Do not behave according to that ideal. The notion that states actually function along such lines or that they strive to carry out such a Duty or to achieve such an end resides in the realm of wishful thinking. Although some states. In their own self-interest met at sometimes. Protect some residents of their territories. Other than the state's own functionaries. Such protection is at best highly unreliable and all too often, nothing but a solemn farce, moreover.

It is invariably mixed with crimes against the very people, the state, purports to protect. Because the state cannot even exist without committing the crimes of extortion and robbery, which states called taxation. And as a rule, of course, this crime is but the nearest beginning of the state's assaults on the lives Liberties and property of the resident population. And the United States, for example, the state at one time, or another, during recent

decades, during recent decades. We're not talking ancient history has confined millions of persons in Dreadful steel cages because they had the temerity to engage in the wholly, voluntary, buying and selling or the mere possession of officially disapproved products. Compounding such State crimes, that is crimes of kidnapping and unjust confinement with impudence State officials. Brazenly claim credit for their assaults on the victims of their so-called War on Drugs.

State functionaries have yet to explain how their rampant unprovoked crimes, comport with the archetype described and justified in Locke's Second Treatise of government. In vain do, many of us yearn for relief from the state's duplicitous cruelty. Where is this state of nature? When we really need it? Now I want to go on and talk about the precautionary principle and what I think so is a new application of it at least to my knowledge. It's a new application in pondering.

The suitability of my more realistic model. We might we might well apply the precautionary principle which has been much discussed and nearly always misapplied in recent years in relation to environmental policy. This principle holds that if an action or policy, might cause great irreparable harm, then notwithstanding, the lack of scientific consensus, those who support the action or policy should shoulder. The burden of proof before the action is taken or the policy implemented.

In applying this principle to the state's establishment and operation. The state's supporters would appear to stagger under a burden of proof that they cannot support with either logic or evidence. Everyone can see the immense harm, the state causes day in and day out, not to mention its periodic orgies of mass death and destruction. And the past Century alone States caused hundreds of millions of deaths, not to the combatants on both sides of the many wars.

They launched who's casualties Loom very large, but to quote unquote, their own populations, whom they have chosen to shoot bombshell, hack stab beat, gas starve worked to death and otherwise Rate in ways to grotesque to contemplate calmly. Jr. Rummel who spent a lifetime compiling data on this so-called, Emma side, non-war state killing. Now has a total of 260 to demo site victims in the 20th century, 262 million.

And if you go to his website, for j.r., Rummel demo site, you can find a great deal data on this matter. All Sufficiently horrifying data, I might add and I believe even rumbles numbers are under statements of the amount of true Dem aside because many state actions such as the Food and Drug, administration's actions that have caused hundreds of thousands of premature deaths are not included in. Rommels. Compilations.

Only people that were violently killed outright but the state has enough imagination to find many indirect ways of killing people as well. Yep, almost in comprehensively people fear that without the state's supposedly indispensable protection Society will lapse into disorder and people will suffer grave harm. Even an analyst as astute as mansur Olson, who speaks, frankly of quote governments and all the good and bad things. They do in.

Quote, proceeds immediately to contrast quote, the horrible enter keys that emerge in their absence. Although he gives no examples or even citations to support his characterization of Anarchy. But the state's harms and Olsen's words, the bad things they do are here and now undeniable immense and horrifying. Whereas the harms alleged to be suffered without the state are spectres of the mind and almost entirely conjectural.

A Turkish did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey. They did not deliberately starve to death millions of ukrainians. They did not create a system of death camps to kill millions of Jews. Gypsies and Slavs in Europe. They did not fire bombs scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them. They did not carry out a Great Leap Forward, that killed scores of millions of Chinese people.

They did not kill more than 500,000 members of the Indonesian Communist Party. Alleged party, sympathizers, and others. They did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia. Murdering 1/4 of the country's population. They did not kill as many as 200,000 Mayan peasants and others in Guatemala. They did not kill more than 500,000 Tutsis and pro pea shooters in Rwanda.

They did not Implement u.s. And Allied trade sanctions that killed perhaps five hundred thousand Iraqi children. They did not launch one aggressive us war after another. There's a great deal. Anarchists did not do, but status, did do. States are clumsy and inept in many ways. Thank God. But they are exceptionally good at Wrecking, death and destruction. Indeed, if they were not, they could not sustain themselves as States. In a functional sense, we may Define the state as the

organization. With comparative advantage and deliberately violently killing people, and appropriating, and destroying wealth. What you see here, human bodies piled on a rail car in Dresden. This is only one of many such piles made after the British and American Air Force has decided in February of 1945. To firebomb this old and beautiful city. when the war was clearly, Already won. These are some of the products of the German government at its

death camp at bergen-belsen. as depicted in 1945, after they, Allied troops that overrun the area. There were so many such pits in Eastern Europe that you cannot even begin to imagine. Here are some of the lucky ones. After the state had its way with them at Auschwitz. And that's the scene of what was left of the city of Hiroshima. After. The US government took pleasure in dropping, an atomic bomb on this place that had little or no military value at a time when the war was absolutely

conclusively. One. And here's a more recent seen and the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Unfortunately, I could not find any of the photographs that. Depict in a visually compact way. The full horror of what the US Armed Forces, did in that City particularly by their use of white for phosphorus and other Munitions that have horrifying effects on human beings. And if you read about Fallujah, you'll find it.

Ever since these attacks babies have been born with horrifying deformities in that City and will probably continue to be born for many years to come. The debate between status and any status is in my judgment not evenly matched.

Defending the continued, existence of the state, despite having absolute certainty of a corresponding continuation of its intrinsic engagement and extortion, robbery, willful, destruction of wealth assault, kidnapping murder, and countless other crimes requires that one, imagine non-state chaos disorder and Death on a scale that non-state actors seem completely. Incapable of causing.

That's what I just said. I'd like to take a moment and let you read it. Nor to my knowledge do important, historical examples, attest to such large-scale non-state Mayhem. In general with regard to large-scale death and destruction know person group or private organization can even begin to compare to the state which is easily the greatest instrument of Destruction known to man. Almost all non-state threats to life, liberty and property appear to be relatively Petty.

And therefore can be dealt with. In general, only states can pose truly massive threats. And sooner or later the horrors with which they minus-- mankind, inevitably come to pass. The lesson of the precautionary principle is plane. Because people are vile and corruptible the state which holds by far the greatest potential for harm and tends to be captured by the worst of the worst is much too risky for anyone to justify. Its continued existence to tolerate. It is not simply to play with

fire. But to Chance the total Destruction of the human race. I want to say a few words now about some Dynamic considerations that enter into this subject. Classic discussions of the State vs. Non-state societal outcomes usually involves static comparisons. They ignore the changes that occurs systematically with the

passage of time. For example, a hobbesian are lockean account stipulates that in a state of nature which has no governing State, a great deal of disorder, prevails and Adoption of a state brings about a more orderly condition analyst recognized. That the people sacrifice some of their Liberties, when they adopt a state Hobbs goes so far as to suppose that the people sacrifice all their Liberties to an omnipotent Sovereign in exchange for his promise to

protect their lives. A ruler always assures his victims that their loss of Liberties is the price. They must pay for additional security order. He purports to establish. Well, might we question whether the ruler has either the intention or the capability to reduce the degree of social disorder. Plenty of evidence, attest that State written societies, boil with disorder. And the United States. For example, a country brimming with official Protectors of

every imaginable. Stripe, the populace suffered in the year. 2011, according to figures, the government itself endorses, which are certainly under statements. Almost 15,000 murders and non-negligent. Manslaughter, 's more than 83,000, forcible rapes.

Three hundred and fifty four thousand robberies. 750 1000, aggravated assaults and more than nine million property crimes, such as burglaries, Larson, these and theft's The governments of the United States have taken the people's Liberties. If you don't think so, you need to spend more time, reading us statutes at large in the code of federal regulations, not to mention your state, and local laws and ordinances. So they've taken the Liberties, but where's the protective quid pro quo?

They broke the eggs of our liberties without a doubt, but where's the bloody omelet of personal protection and social order where? Suppose we concluded if only for purposes of discussion that the initial establishment of the state, reduces the degree of social disorder. The obvious question. However, seldom asked by philosophers then becomes what happens. Next. Does the degree of social

disorder, remain constant? Everything we've discovered in theory and by observation flies, in the face of such constancy. In fact, the likely progression over time is that under State domination, social disorder tends to increase. This tendency exists because the state attempts in countless ways to compel people to act against their perceived self-interest, and people respond by resorting to all sorts of evasions black markets, and officially defined crimes.

Consider for example, what happened when the state ordered people not to make sale possess or consume alcoholic beverages or certain narcotics? Namely black markets and crime Galore. Including countless, assaults and murders. Of course, the states orders to pay stipulated taxes or fees have given rise to a plethora of evasive measures, some of them carrying violence against persons or the destruction of property in their train.

Perhaps equally important, the states concentration of its police force is on tax collection, collection enforcement of victimless crimes, and other measures at odds with the people's perceived self-interest diverts. Those forces from making any more than a token attempt to protect people against such everyday crimes as murder rape robbery and fraud, who's prevention, the people actually

value over time. The social Miss allocation of the state's Protective Services grows as the state itself, shifts more and more resources to Ward the enforcement of laws adverse to the people's genuine interest. And as the people make moving targets of themselves in ways, that augment the degree of social disorder.

If the degree of social disorder in a society, under the state tends to increase, then even if the initial establishment of the state did, reduce disorder, a time will come when the degree of social disorder, will exceed, that of a society with no state. If so, then momentarily, taking for granted the myth of a social contract, the initial bargain, the people struck will, eventually come to be seen as a pact with the Devil.

A bargain that at best held advantages in the short term, but proved to be a disappointing deal all around in the longer term. Moreover, whereas under estate social disorder, 10 systematically to increase. Without the state social disorder tends systematically to decrease. This ladder, tendency reflects the progressive and mutually advantageous solution of social problems characteristic of a free spontaneous order.

We have had three centuries of instruction in the workings of the spontaneous order of a free Society, stretching, from Bernard, de Mandeville, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith in the 18th century to Karl menninger. In the 19th century to F A Hayek and Murray rothbard in the 20th century to. Their numerous followers in the 21st century, unlike the forced exchanges and coerced Arrangements, enforced by the state, the protective and Innovations of a spontaneous

order. Non-state order can achieve acceptance only voluntarily, which is to say, only when all who participate in them, expect them to produce net benefits. Consider for example, a simple example of the householder who keeps a watchful eye on his neighbor's property when the owner is away, just as the neighbor will watch his property

when he is away. And contrast the simple effective Cooperative form of protection, with the foe protection of the state's police officer who, occupies himself at Great public expense driving about aimlessly, Harrison citizens pointlessly and Loitering in the donut shop. The only shops kept open in a large sector of Boston when it was clamped down into virtual martial law recently, see the connection. Neighborliness spreads naturally

and beneficially. Whereas State protection, quote protection, spreads cancerous lie and harmfully, the one preserves Liberties, the other destroys them. My foregoing argument expresses among other things, what? Thomas Jefferson stated more eloquently, when he wrote the natural progress of things. That is the natural progress in a society under a state is for Liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Those are the Dynamics we have

to face here. Thus, even though, the mythical people entering into a social contract might have considered their sacrifice of Liberties to the state at that time. A price, they were willing to pay. They could scarcely have suspected that with the passage of time. Their remaining Liberties would be paid one after another notwithstanding the social order. They initially received from the state in return, would systematically diminish. If a population acts to serve its common interests.

It will never choose the state. In reaching this conclusion. We need not deny the countless problems that will plague people living in a society without the state. Any an article Society being people to normal proportions by vile and corruptible individuals will have crimes and miseries of plenty. But everything that makes life without a state undesirable. Makes life with a state even

more undesirable. The idea that the antisocial tendencies that afflict people in every society can be cured or even ameliorated by giving a few persons great discretionary power over all the others is upon serious reflection. Seen to be a wildly mistaken notion. Perhaps it is needless to add that the structural checks and balances on which Madison relied to restrain, the government's abuses have proven to be increasingly unavailing. And bearing in mind, the expansive claims and actions

under the present u.s. Regime, these checks and balances are now. Almost wholly, suspect superseded by form of executive Caesar ISM in which the branches of government that were supposed to check and balance each other have instead coalesced into a mutually supportive design to plunder the people and reduce them to Absolute Domination by

the state. Today, however, I have tried only to show how we may think more clearly about the choice between a society under the state and a society, composed of genuinely self-governing individuals. Assuming that we really had such a choice, the better option seems to me fairly obvious. If you take anything away from

my arguments and my evidence. However, I hope that it will be an appreciation of how highly warranted is an application of the precautionary principle in choosing between Anarchy and the state. Fire has proven to be a magnificent Aid to human beings. But a fire. That cannot be contained. Portents are utter destruction. And the state is precisely such a fire. Thank you very much.