Dave Smith and Rob Bernstein dissect anarcho-capitalism, refuting Yaron Brook's claim that stateless capitalism is a contradiction by arguing private arbitration replaces government coercion. They critique Objectivism's cult-like devotion to Ayn Rand versus Murray Rothbard's pragmatic views on regulation and the non-aggression principle. The discussion shifts to NYPD brutality in the Eric Garner case, condemning the "religion of the state" and broken windows policing. Finally, the episode mocks CNN's Brian Stelter for hypocritically diagnosing Trump as "crazy" while ignoring climate extremism, sarcastically suggesting Trump could outdo Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined, before promoting an upcoming Libertarian debate. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Libertarian Infighting Explained00:05:36
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, James Smith.
Hello, hello, what's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
Of course, you know, I am the most consistent motherfucker you know.
That didn't flow very well.
I'm Dave.
And as always, I'm joined by the fire, the king of the cocks, Rob Bernstein.
What's up, my brother?
I'm doing well, man.
How are you, sir?
I had a fun weekend.
A lot of podcasting.
I did the Lines of Liberty.
Oh, I love the Lions of Liberty.
He did Mark Claire's, right?
Yeah, he really made me think.
He really put my face.
Did he make you roar?
He made me, yeah, he made me roar.
Motherfucker always tries to make it.
You roar.
I was a camera.
Throw you off your game.
You know, I was in high school.
That's our show.
He's big dicking you a little bit.
He's like, hey, I'm so excited to interview you.
Hey, I'm so excited to interview you.
I can't do a Mark Claire.
But, you know, he's all excited to interview you.
And then he's like, just real quick, just try on this dress.
And you're like, wait, what?
He's like, come on, everybody does it.
And then all of a sudden, and then you're just Mark Claire's bitch for the next hour.
I thought he was doing it in good spirits, but maybe he did bitch me out.
I'll be honest now that you say that, it was pretty much good spirits every time I've been there.
No, maybe you're right.
Maybe I got bitched out right from the front, and that's why I was off my game trying to explain my opinions on liberty.
I love that guy.
The Lions of Liberty are a great fucking podcast.
All three of them are great.
And they have like three podcasts under one podcast banner.
But it's great.
I actually found those guys way.
It was way before I started Part of the Problem.
You know, way before, but it was before.
And I found them back in the day during the Ron Paul Revolution.
There was this site called the Daily Paul because every day you would check on news and information and new things.
But not just him, just Liberty stuff in general.
And they would post their websites.
And I started listening to the show back then.
And it's been great for a long time.
Yeah, love those guys.
So that's cool you were on it.
Yeah, we had fun.
We jammed out Minarchy, Anarchy.
We debated it.
And then I did a crossover cast with the Fad Cast guys.
I'm not sure.
You debated Minarchy versus Anarchy?
Nah, not really.
But what side are you even on these days?
Is Mark an anarchist?
It seemed like it.
I like it.
He was pushing for it.
I think he, you know, I wasn't actually sure about that because I don't really care.
You know, it's like minarchy.
I like the old Rothbard.
I don't know if you've ever read.
If anyone listened to me, you hate the government.
Yes.
Do you hate the state?
I believe was the title of it.
And that's really all that matters to me.
Although I do think anarchy is the correct position, but it's like whatever.
I think you and I mostly come to the same place.
I just kind of feel like I'd love to see the model get proven a little bit because there's a human aspect of opt-in.
And I think you and I are slightly different in that you take a little bit more of the moral non-aggression principle argument.
Yes.
Whereas I'm a little bit more inclined with like, hey, if that worked, I'd be okay with it.
Sure.
And I know that that, you know, but it's a fundamental difference, but you end up at a similar place.
Once you get down to like what most, what most libertarians like yourself, and this is true in general for libertarians that I like, like the ones who pass the do you hate the state test, who are really good on the free market, who are really good on all this stuff.
Once you get down to what you're arguing, maybe there is a role for government, it's so minuscule.
It's so small.
It's like the truth is that, like, I don't know.
You get to a point where it's like, we're really arguing over such a small area that it doesn't seem to be the most important use of time to me.
Although it is an interesting intellectual exercise or any of that.
Anyway, guys, go check out Robin.
Yeah, we jammed out.
It was fun.
Go check out Rob Bernstein on the lines of liberty.
And also, you can, if you're in the New York area, there are still about 15 tickets left.
So this is the last, it's it.
It's all, it's going to be sold out.
It might be sold out by the time you're listening to this podcast.
But if you want to come see Rob Bernstein warm up for the Soho Forum, do some stand-up comedy before the show starts, or I shouldn't say before the show, to start the show.
That was a little insulting.
No, no, no.
I get what you're saying.
If you want to see Rob do some stand-up comedy and then we'll have a show afterward and then some entertainment, go to thesohoforum.org.
Of course, I will be debating the chairman of the Libertarian Party, Nicholas Sarwak.
We will be debating about the future of the Libertarian Party and what direction it should go in.
So that should be a lot of fun.
So make sure you come check that out.
Now, I will say that that, in the spirit of libertarian infighting, the first thing that I wanted to talk about today was a little of a very minor, I mean, I wouldn't even call it a Twitter skirmish.
No, I would say not even.
Didn't even rise to the level.
A light push and shove.
I tweeted back and forth a little bit with Yaron Brooke.
By the way, I shouldn't even say libertarian infighting because he's an objectivist who does not consider himself a libertarian.
Selfishness vs Non-Aggression00:08:50
The objectivists don't.
They hate libertarians or at least disagree with liberty.
Can you define objectivists for me?
An objectivist is a follower of Ayn Rand.
Okay.
And objectivism is Ayn Rand's philosophy of the world.
I don't know if I'm qualified to be the guy to give the best description of objectivism, but more or less, it is the idea that reality is objective, that man, the way we interpret reality is, or the way we understand reality, is through our reason, through logic and rational thought.
And that since we reason as individuals, individualism is consistent with morality.
That the only economic system consistent with morality, therefore, is free market capitalism.
And that anything, since our desires are to improve our lives and live the best lives we can, anything that improves your life is moral, and anything that doesn't improve your life is immoral.
Therefore, selfishness is the greatest virtue, and altruism is the greatest evil.
Are there any kickers on that?
What do you mean?
Anything that improves your life?
Like, does that include murdering someone for their wealth?
Well, what they would say, right, is that, and I don't want to misrepresent objectivism, but almost every time I've heard either Ayn Rand or one of her disciples discuss this, what they would say is that, well, that's not true selfishness because that would, you know, that would be very risky to your life and you might get in trouble or someone might want to come back and murder you or something like that.
But as a theoretical, if you knew as an absolute that you could get away with it and that murdering someone, you would also inherit their wealth.
You're out in the middle of the ocean with the dude who's got, you know, $100 million in Bitcoin on a little thing.
No one knows you're on the ocean with him.
You can push them right off the boat.
Yes, listen.
They would say morally you should do it.
You'd have to ask an object.
No, no, they wouldn't say morally you should do it.
What they would hide behind is that it's not in your self-interest.
That is not selfish.
Listen, this is what you're going to have to deal with with objectivists.
It's my ignorance.
I haven't read any Ayn Rand and I don't even know what objectivists are.
Well, look, I'm sure I'm not doing the best job of describing it, but what they always seem to stick to is that selfishness is always a virtue and that anything like that that violates the non-aggression principle or violates someone else's rights is never actually selfish.
I agree with you.
I mean, I agree that like, of course, selfishness is, at least in the way that we all understand the word, the definition of the word.
And that, well, selfishness certainly could drive someone to violate the non-aggression principle.
And in fact, I think the whole system that we live under today and that lots of societies have lived under is pretty much proof that selfishness will drive people to violate the non-aggression principle.
So I've never really bought into that idea.
Although I do think it's an interesting philosophical thought experiment.
And certainly there is more to it than many would admit.
Can I ask one more question?
Of course.
What is the concept of since we reason individually?
Because it seems to me like we kind of reason in groups and that people debate things and then sometimes come to different conclusions.
Right, but it would be a group of people reasoning together and bouncing their own ideas off each other.
So the idea is that we don't have a collective mind any more than we have a collective hand, right?
Like we're all putting our minds together and being influenced by each other, but we're experiencing this as individuals.
So your consciousness, you experience as an individual.
I believe that's the argument.
Again, I'm not the most qualified.
I'm not an objectivist.
So maybe we'll have an objectivist on.
I would love to have Aaron Brooke on the show.
I actually extended an offer on Twitter.
Well, I don't know if I extended an offer technically, but someone said you should have him on the show.
And I said, I would love to.
And I tagged him in it.
So 2019, that's extending an offer.
Yeah, that's an invite, dude.
I tagged and I said, I'm down.
You better bring a gift.
Show up to the wedding.
You've been invited.
Yeah, that's right.
A little bit of altruism.
Never hurt anybody.
Come here bearing gifts.
All right, no, we're going to be fun.
Let's be funny.
Well, look, it's not, I don't want to be disrespectful because I like Aaron Brooke.
I don't really have anything personally against him.
I don't know that much about him other than like I've seen a few internet videos of him.
He's a member of the Ayn Rand Institute.
He's an objectivist.
I've many times before on the show, particularly in like when we take listener questions, people have asked me about Ayn Rand and I'm like, hey, how come you don't talk about Ayn Rand a lot?
Or like, what are your thoughts on her?
And I always kind of say, like, I don't know, I'm never like disrespectful.
I'm like, oh, okay, you know, she was a brilliant woman.
She wrote some interesting stuff.
She wasn't my guy, if that makes sense.
I'm a fucking, I'm like a Rothbard, Rothbardian, Mises guy.
But like, oh, okay, and I may have a criticism here or there, but I never go out of my way to like shit on her or out of my way to praise her.
That's just not where I am.
But so I saw, now, by the way, first off, I saw that he was on the Ben Shapiro show.
And I saw that because YouTube is convinced I'm a huge Ben Shapiro fan.
Recommended videos, always a lot of people.
Maybe they want to re-educate you.
Maybe that's what's going on.
Well, maybe.
Did you see my email?
YouTube is very into re-educating.
I saw your email and someone had already sent it to me before.
But yes, you sent me our recent most recent podcast.
Yeah.
There's a sales principle.
It's called priming.
And I'm not going to explain it well, but essentially you can kind of give people some information up front to kind of get into their head about, hey, here's what we're presenting to you.
So what YouTube did was they editorialized our content by putting underneath it that here's the official definition from Wikipedia of what global warming is.
So that when you go into our video, you should understand that we're contradicting the internet at large and the Wikipedia, that thing that I couldn't source in college.
But the number one source of what accurate information is has a different definition of global warming than this video that you're being presented.
So understand that you can watch your silly little video, but it's just wrong because the official definition is right here below.
They actually say right underneath, well, like, here's what's going on, and it's a fact that global warming is happening and all of this blah, blah, blah.
I've never seen that on YouTube.
Yeah.
Right underneath our content.
Global warming with its definition.
Yeah.
That's wild.
It was, I saw the only other one that I saw is when we did that episode, me and Gene Epstein, when we were, or maybe it was the one with me and you where we were talking about Jews.
Just, you know, when a few.
They just said, Jews, a race of good people.
You're wise overlords.
But it's only like it was really funny because they put a thing in there about, like, I forget exactly what it was, but you're like, wait, so like a few Jews can't even have a conversation about Jews without YouTube stepping in and being like, here's the official while a high concentration of Jewish folks might work in bank and finance and media, they are actually not your enemies.
We're looking to steal your wealth.
Simple Christian, go about your day.
They're also primarily in doctor fields and engineering and have done much good for the sake of humanity.
It was something not so far from that.
Yeah.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Sleep Number.
Let me ask you something.
When was the last time you really slept great?
Isn't it strange that we'll try just about anything to sleep better when it actually could be time for a new mattress?
If you aren't getting the quality sleep you deserve, I recommend the sleep number bed.
Right now at sleep number stores, it's the biggest sale of the year.
All beds are on sale and queen mattresses start at only $8.99.
Wish your mattress could be firmer or softer.
That's what Sleep Number Bed is famous for.
You can adjust each side so it's right for both of you.
How about a bed that helps keep you asleep?
The sleep number 360 smart bed senses your movements and automatically adjusts so you're effortlessly comfortable all night.
So come on in during the biggest sale of the year for a limited time.
You can save 50% on a sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed.
You'll only find sleep number at one of their 575 sleep number stores nationwide.
Find the one nearest you at sleepnumber.com slash problem.
That way they know that we sent you.
So go to sleepnumber.com slash problem.
Start getting the sleep you need and improve your quality of life immediately.
Sleepnumber.com slash problem.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Banking System Instability00:16:03
But anyway, so what happened?
So I had seen in my recommended videos that Yaron Brooke was on Ben Shapiro, which, you know, whatever.
Fair enough to YouTube for that because I've watched some Ben Shapiro videos in the past and I am, you know, I'm sure I've clicked on lots of like free market libertarian-ish videos.
And so I'm sure that hits some algorithm with Aaron Brooke being on.
But what I saw was, so someone tweeted at us, like at both of us, and I don't know what they said, but something along the lines of, you know, Yaron Brook was on Ben Shapiro's show.
Objectivism meets modern conservatism, modern conservatism.
Good discussion, blah, blah, blah.
And then said no mention of Popper, Mises, or Rothbard.
And then Yaron Brooke responded, huge fan of Mises, not at all of Rothbard.
So I ended up just jumping in because I was tagged in it and he was responding to something I was tagged in.
And I said, you know, I made a real corny libertarian dad joke.
But I said, so you're quote, not a fan, not at all a fan of Rothbard.
I don't know, sounds pretty subjective, which is, you know, that's how you get at the objectivists.
You tell them they're being subjective.
But anyway, that was stupid.
But he, so he responded back and he ended up saying after that, let me see where it was.
And this is what started bothering me.
He said, not a personal thing at all.
I just hate his ideas.
And he lied often.
Not a good sign.
And then Jeff Dice, the president of the Mises Institute, jumped in and was like, Rothbard lied often.
Question mark.
And I said, and I asked for examples and he really didn't give any.
And it just devolved into this whole thing.
Twitter conversation.
Yeah, yeah, just stupid Twitter stuff.
But I don't, look, I don't want to cast all Randians in a certain light, although it's pretty much true for everyone I've met except Michael Malice.
That there seems to be this thing where you, anybody who was critical of Ayn Rand is like out.
And anybody who praised her is fine.
And this is, it's like you're not allowed to disagree with her at all.
You have to take everything she said, you know, in its totality, and you have to agree with every single thing.
And I just don't get why you like, okay, if you're going to say like, not a fan of Rothbard at all, and he lied like often, and then you can't back it up with anything, I find that to be pretty weak.
And then he finally, after a bunch of people, because a bunch of people were jumping on him and being like, well, where did he lie?
And he finally said, he goes, well, he bet he blamed early banking crises on fractional reserve banking alone and never criticized government regulation.
And you're like, well, that's just, that's not true.
So I'm not going to say you're a liar, but that certainly is inaccurate that Murray Rothbard didn't address government regulation.
Like that, that is wholly inaccurate.
He wrote a lot about government regulation.
He just basically said that when you have this fractional reserve banking system, a boom-bust cycle is basically inevitable, which kind of makes sense.
The idea that, you know, if the whole banking system is based on a system where everyone thinks there's a certain amount of money that there isn't, and if everyone were to cash in, the bank would be insolvent, seems like there might be a point there that that's an unstable system of banking.
If you're not familiar, the idea of fractional reserve banking is that a bank takes your money, they put a fraction of it away in reserves, and they lend out the rest.
So if you put $100 in the bank, they might put $10 away and loan out $90.
But can't they actually lend out more than what they have in?
Oh, no, I guess we're saying...
Well, here's how it works, right?
So if a bank, and this is just a very dumbed down explanation of fractional reserve banking, but let's say you, Rob Bernstein, come to the bank of Dave.
You come to the Bank of Dave and I take your $100.
So you now, you have $100 in the bank, right?
But I take $90 and I loan it out to Brian.
And so now we're living in a world where in your mind, you have, now Brian takes that money, right?
You give someone a loan.
They don't just hold the cash in their hand.
So he deposits that $90 back in a bank account, right?
So, and let's say he comes to the bank of Dave again.
So now we live in a world where you're walking around like I have $100 in the bank, and Brian's walking around like I have $90 in the bank, $190 total.
But there's really only $100 in the bank.
So if you guys were to both come in tomorrow and be like, I'd like to withdraw my money, I go, well, I'm insolvent.
And actually, it gets a lot worse than this because then what happens is Brian lends $90.
I put nine of those dollars away and lend out $89.
And somebody else now thinks they have $89 in the bank.
It becomes this system where just from your one deposit, I create all of this money out in the economy.
And everyone is kind of under the impression, just like we all are, when you look at your checking account balance, you're kind of under the impression that I have this much money in the bank.
And kind of, you do.
But if we were to all go and try to take it out, the banks would go under because they don't have anything like that actually in reserve.
Now, it gets more and more complicated because the Federal Reserve will just fucking put some zeros into a computer and send it over there to park in reserves.
But more or less, this is the idea: it's really a Messesian idea.
But anyway, feel however you feel about Murray Rothbard's points.
It does bug me a little bit that a lot of objectivists can't go, you know, like he says in his earlier tweet, he goes, I hated his ideas.
And it's like, really, did you hate Rothbard's ideas?
Like, I would never say I hated Ayn Rand's ideas.
Let's get real.
We agree like 90% of the time.
So why do you have to take some, why do you have to take this route of like, I hated his ideas.
He's a liar.
I just feel like that comes a lot more from the objectivist camp toward Rothbard than it does vice versa.
And anyway, you know, I don't know.
I'm not trying to hold on to these old beefs, but it does seem like unnecessary.
But I would be happy to discuss with Aaron Brook.
Anyway, I did go and watch the entire interview that he had with Ben Shapiro after we had this Twitter exchange.
And I thought it was good.
You know, that was like an interesting episode.
I probably agree with a lot of what he'd said.
I don't know if I agree with the exact reasoning of everything, but I more or less our positions are the same.
Very pro-free market, arguing for laissez-faire capitalism.
Okay, I'm all on board with all that.
No mention of war or anything like that, but that's, you know, which, of course, selfish interest.
You want to go to war and take the wealth of another country and kill off some brown people.
Well, you're just trying to make sure that we have our oil reserves.
Ayn Rand herself was like pretty unbelievably.
I mean, if you asked her about like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I mean, she would just say things like, she would be like, one is a group of people who likes to build buildings and the other plays in the mud like animals.
Who do you think we should side with?
You know, it would always be something like that.
By the way, this is why Aaron Brook won't come on the show.
You're not allowed to make fun of Ayn Rand in objectivist circles.
They just won't.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Prove me wrong, Aaron.
Come on in.
I promise.
We'll be friendly.
I'm not a dick.
I've never been a dick to anybody who's a guest here.
Even Ben Burgess, I treated with the utmost respect.
Anyway, but I mean that.
And I appreciate it.
I respect people who come in.
So there is some of that, but they just don't.
And again, this is one of the major reasons why I'm in the Rothbard camp, in the Ron Paul camp, in the Mies Institute camp, because I just don't understand how anybody can be, can flirt with this libertarian business at all and not go like, oh yeah, I'm obviously anti-war.
Like that, that would be like first on the list of government programs that are really, really bad.
You know, the mass murder program, which by the way, costs more than all the other programs.
It's not even just the fact that it's the most evil by far.
It's also just the worst.
It's the worst of all of them.
I mean, just when I say the worst, I mean, just from a free market laissez-faire point of view, it's the worst.
$30,000 toilets in the Pentagon and shit.
Anyway, so I watched the episode.
It was good.
I enjoyed it.
You know, whatever.
I'm not exactly an objectivist, but more or less I agree with them on a lot of on a lot of stuff.
He gets into the atheist stuff.
Not my cup of tea as a Christian conservative.
But, you know, I listened and he made a couple decent points.
But then toward the end of the episode, they did bring up libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.
I thought maybe we would play that and we would discuss a little bit in the interest of objective rational thought.
All right.
So let's play from Yaron Brook on the Ben Shapiro show.
Smog.
So on a generalized level, what exactly do you think the role of government is?
I think a lot of folks confuse Randian thought with libertarianism, which is not quite the same thing.
And then they confuse it on a more general level with anarchism, which it certainly is not.
So what exactly is the Randian view, the objectivist view of what government ought to be doing?
Well, so let me derive it in a sense, right?
So if we believe that egoism is morality, is the purpose of life is to live using your mind to flourish as an individual human being, to attain your own happiness, then what do we need in order to do that?
We need the freedom to think, the freedom to think and to act.
And what is the enemy of reason?
What is the enemy of ideas, of thoughts, of entrepreneurial ideas, but any kind of idea?
Well, the enemy of that is coercion.
The enemy of that is authority from above.
The enemy of that is anybody who can pull a gun out and say, no, you can't do that.
All right, so pause it right there.
So right there, that sounds to me like a good anarchist.
I mean, I don't know if I derive all of my principles from egoism, but the idea that the enemy of reason is coercion, anyone who can pull out a gun deriving authority from up top, so far, pretty much on board.
Although when he said, you're not libertarians and you're certainly not anarchists, he nodded his head.
So let's get to why.
Okay.
What is egoism?
The idea that self-interest is the root of morality.
All right.
Right.
Well, let me actually, hold on one second.
Just because I don't want to actually get that wrong.
Let me just real quickly.
Egoism, an ethical theory that treats self-interest as the foundation of morality.
Okay, so not far off.
It's so close to Rothbard.
Well, it's really not far off, right?
We're in the same realm.
And he said, coercion is the enemy of that.
So, okay.
Isn't Rothbard basically individual liberty is more important than the concept of for the greater good?
And like, it's just more important.
He certainly wrote a lot about that.
Yes.
But there are some differences, but let's get into what Yaron Brooke is saying here.
The role of the state, the role of government, is to extract that force away so we leave us free to use our minds to pursue our own life, which is the whole idea of individual rights.
The whole concept of individual rights is the idea of freedom, the freedom to act in pursuit of your own rational values.
That's what individual rights are.
So the only role of government is to protect those individual rights.
In other words, to protect our freedom of action.
So it's to exclude coercion from society.
It's to catch the crooks, the criminals, the terrorists, the invaders.
So it's a police force, it's a military, and it's a judiciary.
So we don't go out and duel in the middle of the street.
So we have a mechanism by which an objective mechanism by which to arbitrate disputes.
We're not anarchist.
I believe government is a necessary good.
And it's necessary for capitalism.
Some people out there call themselves anarcho-capitalism.
I think that's a contradiction in terms.
You cannot have capitalism if you have anarchy.
Capitalism requires the rule of law.
It requires contracts and it requires government to enforce all of that.
But its only job is that.
It's the protection of individual rights.
It's a protection of our freedoms.
Okay, so let's pause it right there.
So let's start by saying, you're going to say that the antithesis of reason or rational thought or whatever he said is coercion.
It's like, okay.
And the government's job is to get rid of coercion.
Okay, so the government is going to provide a police force, a military, and court system.
By the way, if you're paying attention at all to our government, the worst three things the government does, the worst.
So we're just going to have a monopoly in those three things.
Okay, so that's going to cost money, right?
You got to pay salaries for the police.
There's going to be administrators.
There's going to be bureaucrats.
There's going to be captains of the police force.
There's going to be a military.
All those guys got to get paid.
The military's got to buy weapons.
All of that's going to cost money.
Got to build court buildings, got to pay judges' salary, got to pay the, I don't know, whoever else, court stenographer, who the fuck else has to get paid?
A lot of people got to get paid, right?
How are you getting that money?
How are you getting that money?
Is it through coercion?
Then how is the government's job to get rid of coercion?
Now you can say, like as we were talking about before, you can have a minarchy-anarchy debate and go, I just don't know if this system will work without all of this coercion.
Fair enough, you know?
We can have that debate.
But to say the point of the state is to get rid of coercion is that.
And then to call anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms.
I mean, does anyone follow that?
Do you see the irony in all of that?
It's like me saying I have to mug you to make sure you don't get mugged.
And by the way, you wanted to keep all your money.
Well, that's a contradiction.
It's like, no, what you're saying is the contradiction.
The idea that a state exists to remove coercion.
Oh, and by the way, it's going to be funded by coercion.
Unless you're saying the state's going to be funded voluntarily, in which case, is it really a state?
And then in which case you go, okay, and by the way, I think Ayn Rand did flirt around with the idea of voluntary contributions.
So then I just say this.
Okay, fine.
So now you've made the contributions voluntary to, quote, the state.
I'm not even sure you could consider that a state anymore if it's voluntary.
But so me and Rob and a few of us, we own a big plot of land and we don't like the local courts or the local police or the local military.
Maybe they haven't been acting in a rational way.
And we say, you know what?
We're going to hire our own courts, police, military.
Everyone here is on board.
That's where we're going to go.
Are we allowed to leave?
Or will we be coerced into staying under this one objective state that you've decided?
Because if so, if we're coerced into staying, see, you've got two choices here.
If we're coerced into staying, then the state hasn't gotten rid of coercion.
It's just institutionalized it and monopolized it, which is probably a lot worse.
And if you let us leave, then you're an anarchist.
Those are your choices.
Monopoly on Force Debate00:06:22
There's no other option there.
You can either say you have the right to defect from the state, you have the right to secede, or you don't.
One, you're on the side of coercion.
The other, you're on the side of anarchy and competing governments.
And the idea that what objectivists hold on to so much is like, well, there has to be one unifying set of objective law.
Okay, there's a few problems with that.
Number one, law can't always be objective.
Now, I'm a big believer in the non-aggression principle, and that's what I think.
I think it's a not just an important principle, but the fundamental principle to society.
Like, I think that's what separates society from, I don't know, the jungle.
Like, that's it, pretty much.
The idea that you respect property rights, non-aggression, you don't like, that's the difference between being in chaos and being in a civilized order.
However, how you interpret the non-aggression principle is not always completely objective.
I mean, when should somebody, when is the age of consent?
That's subjective.
Is it 17?
Is it 18?
Is it 19?
I mean, I don't know.
So the system we have right now is, you know, I think it varies by state, varies by country, varies by different, you know?
I don't know.
There is no objective law.
And the idea that just because one government had or one state had a territorial monopoly that makes the law objective is ridiculous.
It is no, there is no objective answer to that.
Now, you know, I mean, we could pretty, with a high degree of certainty, be like, oh yeah, 12 is way too young and 35 is way too old, right?
But once you get into should it be 17 or 18 or 19, this is completely subjective.
It's a complete gray area.
So the idea that one monopoly on these areas should be able to be objective.
First off, it's just kind of a fairy tale.
Like that's never going to be, you're never going to be able to have this quote unquote objective law.
Aside from that, it seems like you would have to get into why it is that you think.
And this is, here's kind of like the steps of how I thought about this.
And I remember reading Rothbard say this before when, you know, obviously the day one most basic question that libertarians get asked all the time, right, is like, who will build the roads?
And Murray Rothbard said once, he said, asking an anarchist who will build the roads is the same as asking an anarchist who will make the shoes.
I think it was in a Playboy magazine interview that he said this.
And he said, who, you know, it's like, imagine the government was just making all the shoes and you were like, I want to get the government out of the business of shoes.
And you went, but then who will make the shoes?
It's the same exact question.
And that seems like kind of simple, but once you get that line of thought, it's like, yeah, you're just thinking this way because the government has a monopoly on it.
What do you mean, who will build the roads?
Human beings?
People will build the roads?
What do you think?
People are just going to sit with like a fucking a business over here and a house over here and the business owner is just going to go, fuck, too bad there's no roads.
That would be so sweet.
As I believe it was Michael Malis who said, or maybe it was me, who Michael Malice took credit for.
I'm not sure.
That happens a lot.
But I believe he said, it's as if you the government was in charge.
Like contractors built houses and then the government came in and built the stairs.
And you went, who will build the stairs?
It's like, I'm pretty sure the guy who builds the house will also want there to be stairs in there because otherwise the whole thing is unworkable.
Where there's going to be like a little residential complex and then a mile down the road, there's a little like commercial complex and they're just going to be like, fuck, this whole thing doesn't work because there's no road.
God, I sure wish we could get to those people who we need to shop at our business.
There's no entrepreneur who's going to come up with the idea of like, hey, I'll like lay down some pavement and then I'll, you know, I don't know, charge a couple bucks to the people to use it and make a profit and then everybody wins.
There's no way we would do that.
But it is really funny.
I think it was Eric July who said once in one of his songs, he had a lyric where he said something like, it was something along the lines of like, people can build smartphones, but they can't figure out how to put concrete in the ground.
You know what I mean?
Like the idea that we could have a little device in our pocket with all of the information that's ever been recorded in the history of the world right here, but then we would just go, damn it, concrete.
How do you get or whatever?
Pavement, whatever the fuck it's made of, whatever roads are made of.
You know, it's like, yeah, we'll figure it out.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Quip.
I love Quip.
It's the best toothbrush I've ever owned.
I literally, they sent me a free one.
We ordered another one for my wife.
This is what we both brush our teeth with.
I was never an electric toothbrush guy before, but this is hard for me to describe.
It's got the feel of a regular toothbrush, but all the benefits of an electric toothbrush, and it's great for sensitive teeth.
It's not going to be too hard on teeth.
So if you have gentle or sensitive gums, this is perfect for you.
It's also really easy to take on the road.
I go on the road, so that's a big deal for me.
Packing your toiletries is always the most difficult part of packing to go on the road.
But the quip is super easy.
The travel-ready cover protects your brush from any type of dirt or anything like that.
So it just works perfectly for me, for my comedian lifestyle.
And it's just a great toothbrush.
Like I said, it's sensitive.
It's got a built-in two-minute timer pulse.
Every 30 seconds, it reminds you to switch sides so you can clean evenly and you get your whole mouth clean.
Up to 90% of us don't brush for a full two minutes or don't clean evenly.
It's kind of gross to think about, but that's the reality.
I'm sure I was doing it all wrong up until I got the quip.
Anyway, I highly recommend it.
Go check it out.
You're going to thank me for this.
I love the quip.
Great toothbrush.
Easy to travel with.
Free Markets Without State00:11:40
And it starts at just $25.
So if you go to getquip.com/slash problem right now, you'll get your first refill pack for free.
So you get your first refill pack for free.
Go to getquip.com/slash problem.
That's G-E-T-Q-U-I-P.com/slash problem.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Now, the other, so anyway, the point I'm making about the roads, it's it also applies to the cops and the police.
Why should that be a monopoly?
I mean, why would you be against a monopoly in every other area in life, right?
You don't think there should be a monopoly on shoes or roads or pants or belt buckles or microphones or any of these other things, but the police have to be a monopoly.
Well, why?
I mean, I would think if you're against monopoly in every other instance, it's on you.
The onus would be on you to demonstrate why that has to be a monopoly.
Because you ask me, that's the most important thing to not have a monopoly on.
A monopoly on the fucking police, on the men with guns who come around fucking locking people up.
Well, that's an area I'd really like some competition in.
Government monopolies on military, hmm.
How's that been working out for you over the last 150 years or so?
Or really, you know, go a lot further back than that.
But the other thing that I think is a pretty big problem with this idea that you have to have a state, you have to have a territorial group.
And Ayan Rand explained this herself.
But the idea that you have to have one monopoly group over a territory, you can't have competing legal systems within a territory.
Okay.
I think if you think it through long enough, you will realize that where that argument should take you is to one world government.
Because if your problem is that, like, well, this neighborhood can't be under one state while this neighborhood's under another state.
Well, why should the neighborhood called the United States be able to be under a different state than Canada?
And why should Europe be able to be all these different states and then these Asian states and these South American states?
I mean, why?
If we need to have one objective law, why does it only stop at where we say our national boundaries are?
Shouldn't it go through the whole world?
What Ayn Rand initially said was that her problem was that, well, you know, you may have one, you know, defense agency or private court or something like that.
And we may have another defense agency or private court that could get into a dispute.
And then what are you going to do?
It's like, oh, okay, fair enough, but you have different nation states.
They might get into a dispute.
And then what are they going to do?
By the way, has the track record on that been?
I mean, we had two world wars within 100 years, not to mention all the other wars that were fought in those 100 years, but two world wars.
And you also had, you know, hundreds of millions of people exterminated by their own governments precisely because there was no competition in that area, because they had this monopoly.
So why is it so evident?
Now, so you're going in a direction where to be logically consistent, you'd have to say we have to have one world government.
But I think anybody, certainly any objectivist or any libertarian, should be able to see the problem with one world government.
Well, okay, what if that government goes bad?
Now you've got the whole world enslaved.
So do we really want to go the route of pure monopoly of control over everything?
Or would it better, would it be more consistent with individual liberty to go the decentralized route with lots of competition?
You tell me, what do you think works better?
Monopoly control over everything or decentralized competition.
Because if you pick A, why the fuck are you an objectivist or a libertarian at all?
If you pick A, you should be a communist, not even a socialist, a straight up international communist.
So that's the thing.
Now, what he says afterward is that anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms.
Because without the state to guarantee contracts, you can't have contracts.
Now, this is just, I don't even know what to say.
It's just wrong.
It's just flat out wrong.
Not just wrong in theory.
It's wrong in reality.
It's wrong empirically, demonstrably.
There are contracts that are enforced where the state never gets involved.
Right now, in the United States of America, under the biggest state that humanity has ever seen, there are lots of contracts that go to private arbitration.
There's lots of contracts that are enforced where, I mean, just think about all the jobs you've had, where you've been paid the wage that you agreed upon, all of the transactions you've made.
Maybe you've ever sold something on YouTube, on eBay, on any of, you know what I mean?
Like if you've ever done any of that, how often have you called in a cop or gone to court?
How often is the state actually involved in these things?
People get ripped off on eBay, rarely, but it does happen.
And there's just their own system.
You get negative feedback on your profile, you know?
I'm sure people have gotten Airbnbs where it wasn't exactly what they described it at.
They get negative feedback.
There's a whole internal system.
So the idea that contracts can exist without the state is clearly demonstrably false.
Now, if you were to say, I don't think they'd exist as well without the state, again, that's an argument.
But it doesn't make anarcho-capitalism a contradiction.
There's a difference between saying, I don't think something would work, and saying they're contradictory thoughts.
The idea of free markets in the absence of a state is not contradictory.
You can argue that it's a pipe dream.
You can argue that I, like what you were saying earlier, I want to see this system tested before I said that I completely understand.
I get that argument.
And we could talk about that.
But to say it's a contradiction in terms, okay, we're all agreeing, at least Ayn Rand was, and I think Ben Shapiro mentioned it.
I think Jaron Brooke would say he is a fan of the non-aggression principle.
So if one group, anarcho-capitalists, are saying, hey, I believe in the non-aggression principle, we shouldn't institutionalize aggression.
And the other group is saying, I believe in the non-aggression principle, but we have to institutionalize impression for these three areas because I chose them.
Because I chose police, courts, and military.
Okay.
Who's contradicting themselves here?
It's certainly not the ANCAPs.
Like, I don't know what to say.
The idea of objective law, the idea, here's a fucking contradiction, is saying the state exists to remove coercion.
That's a fucking contradiction.
Believing that the state is fundamentally coercion, and if you're against coercion, you should remove it is the look, man.
I know a lot of people will challenge ANCAPs and say, oh, this is pie in the sky, or it's never been tested, or it only works in theory.
Whatever.
I've dealt with those critiques before, and I'm sure I'll deal with them more in the future.
Fine.
Have at it with all that shit.
But the idea that it's not consistent really fucking bugs me.
It is not a contradiction.
There is no contradiction there.
If I'm missing something, Yaron Brooke, please come explain to me what I'm missing.
But the, look, maybe you can define the state in some way that doesn't involve coercion.
And the funny thing is that us ANCAPs are always accused of living in the theoretical and the hypothetical kind of in these abstractions, whereas the objectivists are like, we just deal with objective reality and we're empiricists.
It's like, okay, so you point to me to a state that's ever existed that wasn't founded on coercion, where the rules warrant some type of violation of the non-aggression principle.
Even if you had a voluntary tax system, if you're not allowed to leave, that would be a violation of the non-aggression principle.
So anyway, all right, let's just play a little bit more, see if there's any more that he said about this.
This might be the end of it.
Social institutions.
So Rand is very big, obviously, on individualism, individual rights, individual will, the ability to come up with a rational system by which to live.
But where is man as communal being?
So one of the acknowledgements that I think must be made to Mark is that he does recognize that man does have a side of him that wants to be part of a society and part of a community.
He then takes that to the ultimate extreme in the exact wrong way, obviously.
But what is the balance between the need to be part of a community and the sort of individualism that's inherent in Randian thought?
But of course, Rand acknowledges that completely.
And she says, I mean, there are passages where she says, you know, individualism doesn't mean living on a desert island because it's not in your self-interest to live on a desert island.
Other human beings are an immense value to you, whether from an economic perspective because of the division of labor, the ability to trade, and the ability to specialize, which is massively beneficial.
You don't want to be a Robertson Caruso.
You don't want to have to do everything.
You want to be able to specialize and pursue the thing that you love and are good at rather than having to do everything.
So there's a massive economic benefit to living in a social context, but there's a spiritual benefit too.
Friendship, love, the benefit of having other people to interact with, to talk to, to engage in, to go to the movies with, to listen to music with.
All of that is a massive spiritual benefit that other people provide to you.
So it's in your self-interest as an individualist to pursue people who are true values to you, whether in terms of economic relationships or whether in terms of social relationships.
So friendship to her is at the pinnacle of kind of human relationship.
The only thing above that is romantic love is a love relationship.
But friendship is incredibly valuable, in a sense, more valuable than family, excluding kids who you chose to have, but you don't choose your rest of your family.
Friends you choose.
That's why friendship is so important.
It's so valuable.
I guess that's over the point that I wanted to make.
I would ask this question, and I did on Twitter, but didn't get a response from it.
And this is, maybe I'm being a dick and asking this, but I would ask, is there anything you disagree with Ayn Rand on?
I always try to ask this of people who are followers of Randians or objectivists, because I always feel like they're, look, I know maybe I'm being unfair, but a lot of people have used the C word about Ayn Rand.
Both of them, actually.
But cult is the one I was thinking of.
Ooh.
You got me?
It's like, it's a weird, it's like this weird thing where like everyone's just God of, it's like she, they're such hardcore atheists, but almost like all atheists, something else rushes in to fill that vacuum.
And she's treated as a god.
It's like, well, this is how we interpret her thought on this or her thought on that.
Whereas in the Rothbardian camp, I've never seen that.
I've never, I mean, people are like, oh, this guy was a genius.
But very quickly, it'd be like, oh, yeah, I think he was wrong about this or wrong about that or whatever.
You know, I mean, like, I don't know.
I've never felt any need to be like, well, I must conform to every point that Rothbard made.
Rothbard was pro-choice and he was a Jew.
I'm pro-life Christian conservative.
Cigarettes and Coercion00:10:53
All right.
Okay.
Here's the next topic that I wanted to talk about that I thought I thought was interesting.
And speaking of, here's this is it builds nicely off of the difference maybe between the anarcho-capitalist and the objectivist point of view.
We're referring to the government monopoly on police.
So, which by the way, the government doesn't even have a monopoly on police in the sense that the state governments kind of have a monopoly, right?
Like there are different states.
In the same way that we're saying competing police forces could work, I mean, there are competing police forces in different states.
Like there's different laws in different states.
There's different like age of consent laws, right?
Until the Feds show up and go, this is our case now.
Then they bring down the Great Epstein.
Yeah.
But, you know, there'll be some states where like, you know, it's 17.
You have to fuck the kids.
And at some states where it's like 18 or 19 or whatever.
I don't actually know, but I'm pretty sure that's.
It's all farmable land out here.
If you can't fuck your sister's cousin.
Well, yeah.
You're going to end up putting your dick in a sheep.
So we got you.
But isn't it like, you know, and there's all these, it was Rand's thing more or less where she was like, well, what if Defense Agency A and Defense Agency B disagree?
Then they have to go to war.
It's like, well, I don't know.
They could probably just work something out.
That would probably be more cost effective.
But anyway.
But so this was an interesting story that caught my eye.
So the NYPD is threatening another slowdown.
Now, I read a couple of articles where there were people from the police department who were like, it's not going to happen.
But the police union basically threatened another slowdown because of this guy, Pentelio.
Maybe I'm saying his name wrong.
Pentellalio.
The guy who choked out Eric Gardner was fired from the NYPD.
If you don't know the story of Eric Gardner, it...
And it's not like he fucked up, made the newspaper, and right away they said, well, listen, you kind of fucked up.
We got to let you go from your job.
It's more like he was able to collect a salary for about four years until a court system outside of the NYPD, I guess, found him not guilty, but put enough pressure or said that he needed to be fired, or the mayor's department came along and said, wow, I can't believe that that was the decision by this court, but we can't have that guy working here.
Yeah, look, there is like.
So this was a fire in the making.
It's not like they really took their sweet ass time making that decision.
And you got to say, look, man, I've heard people make arguments on both sides.
Can I make an argument on the fire side?
It's as simple as in any other job in the entire world.
When you fuck up really bad and you make the newspaper for fucking up, you just get fired.
But when it comes to being a police officer and you fuck up really bad, they go, well, he's on Team Blue.
And when you take the argument of, hey, he's on Team Blue, you're telling us that cops are above the law, that they got their own thing going on, and that they're not like any of us, and that's a human issue.
Well, I'll tell you what really, what bugs me about it, and I think that this example really does demonstrate.
It's on tape.
But it's the religion of the state.
This is what drives me crazy.
And this is, you know, I know I go after the left all the time on this show, and I go after him more than I go after the right.
And I think that's well deserved.
But this is one of the things on the right wing that really just fucking bugs me.
That's always bugged me.
It's this kind of like religious worship of the cops in the military.
And it's, it's, you, you know, and you know this.
If you know any of your like your Fox News watching fucking uncle or father or grandfather or whatever, they, it's like if you criticize the cops or the police, they'll be very quick to tell you you've committed blasphemy.
Those are our men and women and they protect the brave men and women, the finest, the whatever, you know, like it's if you had any other group, if this was any private organization where this happened, you'd be like, whoa, you guys got to find a new way to deal with this situation.
Are you fucking crazy?
Are you crazy that you go, you know, like if you if you were like in some type of like mall and security, you know, like the private mall security force was like, I don't know, like, you know, I want you to get down on your knees right now.
And you're like, no, I'm not getting down on my knees.
They wouldn't be like, got to follow orders, bro.
Can't resist.
They'd be like, no, who the fuck is this guy to tell you to get down on your knees?
And he could ask you to leave or tell you to stay, but he can't fucking be like, get down on your knees.
I'm taking you into a cage downstairs.
You're like, no, fuck you.
But when it's the cops, it's like, well, you know, these are the brave men and women.
So here's the brave men and women.
Here's what happened, okay?
Eric Gardner got accused of selling Lucy cigarettes outside of Bodega.
Now, the reason why this is a problem, the reason why this whole industry exists to begin with is because the state enforces these crazy taxes on cigarettes.
So it creates a black market, as always happens with these things.
And people sell Lucy cigarettes.
So this is a well-known thing in the hood, as it's known, but in lower economic areas, Lucy cigarettes are a big thing where they'll sell a cigarette at a time because people don't want to spend the whatever.
It's probably close to 20 bucks in New York for a pack of cigarettes at this point.
And so this is like a thing that happens.
Now, he had gotten in trouble for selling Lucy cigarettes before.
Now, forget the fact that this is purely a situation where people want cigarettes for cheaper.
Somebody buys cigarettes for cheaper.
You know, they get a carton and they sell them.
So he's been caught selling cigarettes without the stamp on him before.
He's accused of being out there to sell cigarettes or whatever.
They didn't find any on him after they killed him.
So it's not even clear at all that he was.
In fact, it seems like he wasn't selling Lucy cigarettes when he ultimately died.
So there's this situation.
They tell him they're arresting him.
He's kind of refusing to go.
I mean, I guess you could call that resisting arrest.
Um, they, they, one cop goes up from behind him, jumps him, throws him in a chokehold.
They throw him on the ground, they all get on top of him.
He's screaming, I can't breathe.
He ends up dying.
Now, to be fair, it is a little bit of a freak thing that he ended up dying.
He was a very overweight guy.
You know, 99 times out of 100, the cops just throw someone on the ground and fucking, you know, put him in a chokehold and whatever.
They kidnap him for the night, throw him in a cage.
He gets out the next day.
They don't die over it.
So it's not, you know, a lot of people have used the term murder.
I wouldn't say they murdered this guy, but manslaughter?
Yeah, that seems like a fairly accurate term.
Now, I know a lot of people, more right-wing people, will be like, hey, man, follow orders.
None of this will happen.
If he had just complied, it wouldn't have happened.
It's like, okay, my problem with that is that I'm not a slave and I don't have a slave mentality and I don't think of the government as our rulers.
So, whereas, by the way, don't get me wrong, I would follow orders.
If a cop told me he's arresting me, I'm not going to fucking get, you know, I'm not going to fucking fight the cops.
But there's a difference between saying what is a, you know, smart thing to do and what's right and wrong.
So you could easily just say literally to a slave on a plantation and he's like, I'm going to fucking run away from here.
And you'd be like, yeah, I wouldn't do that if I were you because like they'll fucking shoot you or beat the shit out of you and bring you back.
And then he does it and gets the shit beaten out of him and brought back and go, yeah, I told you.
Well, that's the practical.
But if you're talking about who's right or wrong and you don't have a fucking slave mentality, you might go, yeah, they had no fucking right to do that.
And there's another part of it that's a little bit unfair to me is that perhaps you can make the argument of, hey, we need, like, imagine it was an opt-in model for a police force and they go, all right, everyone's got to comply.
And then if they're wrong, we'll sort it out.
But it's very important that initially you comply with these people.
The problem with our current police force is not very good at correcting mistakes to the point that sometimes you get arrested and they get thrown out and they never leave your permanent record.
And all of a sudden, you apply for a job and you never told them that you were arrested and you're not, you can't get that job.
Like they are not.
And I'm talking about when it was 100% their fault.
They accidentally arrest you.
A judge said, oh, that was a mistake.
We got to throw that out.
And then you keep writing them, hey, are you going to expunge this?
You're going to expunge this.
And they just never do and you're fucked.
So it's not even like you can say, hey, listen, they're cops.
The initial thing is you comply and then you show up and, you know, they actually, they give you a nice meal.
You sit down in a thing, they work it out, you go home and it costs you a couple hours of your life.
No big deal.
It doesn't go that way.
Yeah.
You know, whatever the fuck they do, you know, you get pulled in.
You got to sit in the cell for a while, eat shitty meals.
You got to be afraid of the other people in your cell.
Dude, my sister, and I know this is just a small example.
My sister got a ticket on her car when she was up in New York.
She got out of state plates because she lives out of state.
My sister got a ticket on her car.
They ticket her.
She was on the right side at the right time of the car.
So my sister goes out.
My sister goes out.
She takes pictures of the now.
The information is right there on the ticket.
And they're like, and she goes, she takes pictures of the, or she has the ticket.
She takes pictures of the car with the sign right above it.
And then she prints out the own like New York State like parking rules page and has it and sends it all into the judge.
And it's like, then they make her come in and she took off from work, just like out of principle.
Like she's lost more money taking off work, but just goes in.
Just be like, no, no, no.
Listen, this day it's legal to park on this car.
Here's the sign with the street sign in view with the street sign and the no parking sign showing the time that and the time of the ticket, the time on the ticket is the time that you're allowed to be there.
They go, insufficient evidence and just said she had to pay it.
Now that's on the smallest little level thing, but the fact that they'll do that shit, this is what monopoly breeds.
And Mr. Objectivist should understand that.
This is why it's insane that you'd be like, well, the government has to have a monopoly on police, because I say so.
Because that's protecting your rights.
Even though it's founded on violating your rights, we all they need to protect your rights.
Therapy for Modern Slavery00:02:10
Now, look, I'm sorry, but I would suggest that you have a touch of this statist religion in you.
If you look at a situation where a guy was accused of exchanging cigarettes to people who wanted them outside of a store where you force someone to pay the taxes at the threat of violence.
And you go, yeah, we surrounded him with men with guns, threw him in a chokehold, threw him down on the ground.
And as he pleaded for his life, we let him die.
If you don't look at that and go, God damn, there's got to be a better way.
God damn, we should have a fucking better system than this.
And you just go, you got to follow orders.
I think you got a little bit of a slave mentality.
A little bit of a fucking of this statist religion in you, which I would suggest you examine.
That's my thought on that.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Talkspace.
Talkspace is online therapy.
It's therapy for today's day and age.
We all need someone to talk to, a person who can support us through rough patches or everyday ups and downs in life.
That's where Talkspace comes in.
Life can be stressful between work, family, everything in between.
It's not always easy to find time for yourself.
No matter what you're going through, you're not alone.
Join the more than 1 million people who feel happier with Talkspace.
Finding the right therapist doesn't have to be stressful.
The Talkspace matching process takes your unique preferences into account to find someone whose style and expertise matches your needs.
And if you want to switch therapists, you can do so at any time at no extra cost.
So it's super convenient, easy to use, it's affordable.
And Talkspace has more than 5,000 licensed therapists who are experienced in addressing the challenges we all face.
To match with your perfect therapist for a fraction of the price of traditional therapy, go to talkspace.com.
Make sure you use the promo code problem.
That'll get you $65 off your first month.
Also show some support to the show.
So it's talkspace.com.
The promo code is problem.
Go check them out today.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Violent Crime and Arrests00:15:13
Anyway, so this sparked a lot of controversy.
Now, shortly after this happened, there was...
And now the cops are rallying that you should be allowed to accidentally kill people at work.
Well, right, right.
Well, and on top of that, the NYPD, it should be known, has been working under what's known as the broken windows, broken window policing since like Giuliani, since the 90s.
And the idea was, this is a theory.
And the theory is that if you're really hard on minor crimes.
So if you really bust people for smoking weed in the street or jumping a turnstile or whatever, you're really harsh on the small crimes.
You will create an atmosphere of following the law.
And therefore, the major crimes, the real bad crimes will come down as well.
Now, under Giuliani, they started this policy.
That is why New York City always was like leading the country in like marijuana arrests and arrests for like small possession and things like that.
And they were very, very harsh on that stuff.
So, of course, what you're ignoring in that philosophy is how many lives were affected, damaged, ruined because of those enforcing of crimes.
Many crimes, which we don't really think human beings should be thrown in a cage for.
You know, you catch a guy smoking weed outside.
You know, I don't know.
I know there's like this old stereotype that whoever's smoking weed, I mean, they're not doing anything with their lives.
You know, a lot of those people have jobs, have things to do the next day, have to pick up their kids.
How many jobs were lost because someone had to spend a night in jail for weed?
How many families were damaged because someone wasn't there to pick up their kid?
How many, you know, just you really can't even measure these things, but I'm sure it was a lot because we're talking about tens and tens of thousands of people who just like, you know, were arrested, like you said, had something on their record, all of this stuff.
It's, it's, the damage really is hard to calculate.
But this was their philosophy for a long time and still is to this day.
And the more recent version of it was what they call the Ferguson effect, which is basically the same thing, which is that after Ferguson, these blacks were so angry at the cops that the cops didn't want to cop so much anymore.
These police just didn't want to police so much anymore.
And then you saw violent crimes go up.
Now, by the way, it was never a drastic increase in violent crimes.
They really didn't prove their point, but that was their take.
So for all of you people out there who go, listen, these cops, they do a dangerous job.
They do the best they can.
Team Blue were good people.
What happened was some crazy maniac from Baltimore came up to New York.
This was right at the height of like Black Lives Matter starting and the anti-comp cop sentiment really going crazy.
So this crazy black dude from Baltimore came up and murdered two cops.
It was in Brooklyn, I believe it was.
Just fucking execution style.
Fucking murdered two cops as they were sitting in their car.
It was sad.
You know, the cops, families, and shit like that.
Just, you know, like a fucking terrible thing.
And came up and murdered these fucking two cops.
And then this department, these brave warriors, this was in late 2014, going into 2015.
So just about 10 years, five years ago, excuse me.
So these brave warriors who do a dangerous job and fucking these heroes, New York City's finest, right?
They decided to stop policing.
This was their response.
You know, these same people who believe that violent crime will go up if they don't have this broken windows Ferguson effect bullshit, they just decided to stop because they're so brave that as soon as a couple of them got killed, they go, we're not going to do it anymore.
This was an official, unofficial NYPD slowdown.
The head of the police union said, and I quote, he said, this was back in 2014.
It was like November, December.
He goes, we will only be making arrests when absolutely necessary, which is just an amazing quote.
Because, you know, shouldn't that be what arrests are to begin with?
When absolutely necessary?
It's just arresting people for sport.
But anyway, by their own logic, by their own bullshit philosophy, they go, Yeah, we'll just let more people be harmed.
That's how committed we are to keeping the streets clean.
We're mad.
We don't feel appreciated.
So we'll just let you guys deal with the consequences.
Only the problem was none of it was true.
None of it was true.
This whole idea that we have to crack down on non-violent people and then violent people will stop being violent, which is so obviously absurd.
No, it didn't happen at all.
So they had this slowdown and crime rates from all accounts went down.
I mean, I've seen it disputed a little bit where people say, like, you know, violent crime was about the same, maybe a little bit lower than you, but certainly wasn't any uptick.
All that happened was they stopped, and it was drastic.
It was like, because this was at a time before, like nowadays in New York, they kind of just let people smoke weed on the street.
They don't really fuck with you.
Back then, five years ago, anyone who lives in New York who smokes weed, ask them.
There's been a drastic change.
It used to be like if you smoked weed on the street, you were risking going to jail that night.
That was like a thing you had to be worried about.
Everybody I know who smokes weed in New York City knows what I'm talking about.
And they just stopped.
It was like all of a sudden, you just didn't have to worry about that shit.
And did nothing.
And it was like non-violent arrest rates fell by like 80%.
It was really high.
And had no effect.
Everyone was just happy with it.
They were thrilled.
The police threatened us with a good time.
And we were like, okay, we'll deal with that.
And it was no problem at all.
And these motherfuckers are so dense that they're threatening it again because this guy got fired.
And back to your original point.
I mean, this is really like you're not saying, hey, this guy should go to jail for a long time.
Like, I love the, and this is what I mean by the slave mentality and the religion of the state.
If you a security guard, just say like you're a security guard at a venue and you choke somebody and then they end up being murdered and you think you're going to keep that job.
Well, that's well, look, here's my thing.
You don't think there's going to be an investigate.
Like, if you go, if you, this is what I mean by slave mentality.
If a cop grabs your arm, let's just say he grabs your arm the wrong way.
I've had this happen before to me, like cops do shit like that, like grab you, put their nightstick up on you, like real weird thing just to be like a fucking alpha, just to be a dick.
Cause, you know, human beings don't do well with authority and impunity.
So a lot of them are fucking pricks.
Some of them are nice guys.
I've met some cops who are nice guys before who are cool, but a lot of times they're dicks more often than not.
And if you, if a cop came up and just grabbed your arm, let's say you're completely innocent of a crime, a cop just grabbed your arm and you slapped the arm down.
You're going in for assaulting a police officer.
Yet if they incorrectly just tackle you and throw you to the ground, it's like, oh, wrong guy.
That's the slave mentality that I'm talking about.
That you just believe that's your ruler and you're their subject.
And you justify it with all this other religious bullshit.
But that's the bottom line is you believe they're your ruler and you're their fucking property.
And that I just don't sign up for.
I don't fucking believe that shit.
Like, I don't know.
But so, yeah.
Like you said, the idea that like, you're not even saying this guy's going to jail.
He's not being charged with anyone.
But they go, yeah, you got to find new work.
You know, a guy's dead because you choked a guy and threw him on the ground in a situation that nobody...
This isn't a situation.
I mean, come on, like, be reasonable.
This wasn't a guy holding people hostage.
This isn't a violent threat.
He was talking.
It's like, yeah, okay, he wasn't following orders.
He was not, as you were trying to grab his arm and put it behind his back.
He wasn't letting you.
Like, oh, okay.
To me, the moral of that story is like, God damn, you should only move in with that type of force when absolutely necessary.
So anyway, yeah, the guy got fired.
Like you would get fired from any other job.
You make the newspaper for fucking up big enough.
And the company, the first thing they do to save face is go, we're sorry that that happened.
We're obviously letting that employee go.
Only the cops go, nope, he's one of us.
And since he's one of us, you know, we would, it's insanity.
What's his name?
My boy, Mance Raider, Pete Raymond, wrote a piece for this over at Libertarian Institute, which I thought was a really good piece.
But he was talking about when we were at Mises University, he was quoting Will Gregg, but who was writing about this guy, and this has happened lots of times before, but this guy who was arrested for resisting arrest.
And that was his only charge.
His only charge.
Like he wasn't charged with anything else.
Was no like underlying crime is just charged with resisting arrest.
So, more or less they went to go try to arrest him for the wrong reasons and he resisted.
So, you still get charged for that.
For just a risk, for just resisting.
And did he end up getting in trouble for that?
Yeah, got convicted.
It's like, this is the type of shit where, like, that's where I go, like, it's like, no, and this is why the state can't have a monopoly for resisting arrests.
In the same way that anytime you deal with the state, right?
Yeah.
Here's the bottom line.
And this is what the joke that I did on Libertas was like kind of getting at.
And this is what a lot of shit that I talk about is.
But the state, if it wasn't for, then this is why I always say the thing, like, the state is like the mafia pretending to be the human rights organization.
I almost wish we could just remove the pretending to be the human rights organization and just deal with the mafia.
Because once you recognize them as the mafia, look, you might be like, there might be another, you know, the state are not the only ones who initiate violence on people.
There's people like robbers and muggers and, you know, like people who are thieves or whatever.
But if you work at a store and there's like, oh, there's a whole bunch of people like who break in at night and have been stealing lately.
I don't have to do a lot of work to convince you that what they're doing is wrong.
You know what I mean?
It's like we get it.
The only question is, how do we deal with this?
How do we stop them from doing this, right?
So this is the dynamic that's that's unique with the state is that you have to actually get people to realize that that's what's happening to them here.
Okay.
But the dynamic with the state is that you work for them.
They've got it in your mind that they work for you.
I've heard people actually shout this at police officers before as they're getting fucked up.
You know, you guys work for us.
I know my rights.
And then he tases that guy and he's on the ground like, oh yeah, do you?
Do you know your rights?
I can't hear you because you're wiggling around on the ground.
You got the right to piss yourself off.
Yeah, right.
It's like, but it's think about the dynamic there that there's this human being screaming at someone else.
I know what I was told about something that was written down on a piece of paper as they yell at a guy with a gun who's just jacking them.
It's like, okay, that's a nice idea you have.
Here's reality.
The dude with the gun who's not following that fucking thing that was written down on a paper.
Turns out paper is not magical potions.
It's not a spell.
It's just what's written down, right?
So, okay, you think that here's the reality of the situation.
You work for the state quite literally.
Quite literally.
You go to work, produce, get compensated for that production, and then turn over part of what you've made to the state.
You work for them in the most literal sense of the word.
Everybody else who you meet in the market, they work for you.
You go to the Apple store, they work for you.
They work, they produce a phone, you buy it from them.
Here's your money for what you've worked for, for me.
You work for me.
The state is the boss.
You work for them.
And this is, and we all, this is like the slave mentality, the religion of the state.
This is what everybody knows.
Any situation where you're dealing with the state, whether you're going to the IRS, the DMV, the TSA, it doesn't matter.
You work for them.
Are you ever greeted with a, hi, welcome to the TSA?
How can we help you today?
It's like, no.
Through the scan, forward, back.
Computers out.
You work for them.
Go down to the DMV.
Wrong line.
That line.
We need the other paper.
You work for them.
What are you going to do?
Oh, you don't like it?
You don't like that you have to take your shoes off and your belt off and someone's going to grab your balls?
Okay, go.
You're out.
Then you can't fly.
Oh, you want to go on another airline?
We're there too.
We're the monopoly, only game in town.
Or the DMV.
Oh, you want a license?
You want to fucking drive a car and not get thrown in a cage any random time we decide to pull you over?
Okay, then you'll be here.
You want to go to the other DMV?
There is none.
So deal with it.
The IRS, that's it.
Your money's mine.
You fucked up.
I'll ruin your goddamn life.
That's all of them.
That's the state.
Any other situation, in a business situation, you're the boss.
Go walk into a coffee shop.
Hi, can I help you?
Actually, you put too much milk in this.
No problem.
We'll get you another one.
They work for you.
You know the difference.
Yet somehow you just take it from the state.
We're fucking such snobs in every other way.
You go into a fucking coffee.
I mean, if you go into a coffee shop and they bring you the wrong drink, you're like this fucking dickhead like monarch all of a sudden.
Excuse me.
I ordered the this is wrong.
Have someone punished and correct this immediately.
You know, like that's, but all of us have that mentality.
And somewhat justifiably.
We're like, I'm the fucking boss here.
I'm paying you.
I'm paying you for a service.
So get the service right.
You know?
Or a little fucking, you know, there's a little something off in your order.
You fucking send it back.
You deal with it.
You know, like it's, and you don't feel bad about doing it.
And then you walk in and let some fucking TSA agent fucking grope your kids in front of you.
And you go, well, you know, they do what they can to protect us.
I mean, yeah, you gotta follow the rules.
Hey, get the fuck out of here with this shit, man.
This guy's got fired.
But just think it through from here.
It says that.
These brave noble warriors, the cops, are threatening now because they don't like that they have to play by the rules that everyone else would have to play by, except far, far worse.
Trump Poll Controversy00:15:55
Believe me, far worse.
If you owned a business and somebody, there was an unnecessary death that one of your employees was responsible for, you'd be fucking paying hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum.
You'd be going through it.
It's like, oh my God, did your friend get fired because he killed a guy?
Oh, so now you don't want to do your job anymore?
These are supposed to be the heroes.
These guys fucking, by the way, their job isn't even that dangerous.
Job isn't even that fucking dangerous and you voluntarily signed up for it.
Deal with it.
You get solid pay, the best fucking medical benefits and a pension.
Who the fuck else gets that?
Crime a river.
Any other situation, I'd be like, do your fucking job.
But in this situation, I'm like, actually, please don't.
Actually, please don't.
Just fucking do the slowdown thing again.
It's fucking great.
Believe me, we'll be fine with it.
All right.
So two more things I want to get to real quick.
With the remaining time we have left.
The remaining time.
So number one.
Let's just do this one first because this is somewhat interesting.
I don't want to make more out of this than should be made out of it.
I also want to pull it up so I have the information right in front of me.
Oh, good.
I had this on my phone before.
Let's hope I can get it here.
Okay.
So did I really?
That's pretty funny.
I went to realclearpolitics.com.
You know, they have like all the polls up there.
And I got a fucking, what's his name?
Fuck, what's the guy's name?
I literally just clicked out of it and now I can't remember, but the Tim Ryan for president ad click up in front of me and it's like, dude, I don't even think you registered on any of these polls.
This is probably not.
Not the best place to advertise.
Probably not the best place to be advertising.
Go, we're doing really well.
We're doing really well.
Not so much in any of these polls.
Okay, so the newest poll for the Democratic presidential nomination.
It's been getting a little bit of attention because it seems like some things have changed.
So the last poll I had seen before this, Biden was getting around 32% of the vote.
I believe that was the real clear politics average last month.
Biden was getting about 32% of the vote.
Now, this is just one poll, so, you know, take it with a grain of salt.
I'm not saying anything, but he was at 32%.
Biden came in at 19% in this poll.
This is the post-recent dumb shit poll.
Yes, I think so.
The poll was, it says Monday, August 26th.
Well, okay, that's.
You know, if Obama got shot.
Well, right.
Yeah.
I mean, between Obama getting shot, you know, if Obama got shot just like JFK did in 1979.
I would have been in charge.
So like, practically, you guys are already used to the idea of me being in charge.
You might as well just put me in charge again.
So there was that.
I mean, just it's it's kind of gaff after gaff.
And I think just in general, him being very, you know, not impressive.
But first place was Bernie Sanders with 20%.
Elizabeth Warren and Biden down with 19% right after that.
Neck and neck.
Yeah.
So all of a sudden, you've got not Joe Biden the frontrider, but a frontrunner, but a three-way race.
Now, this is just one poll.
You'd still have to call Joe Biden the frontrunner at this point because there's been other polls where he's been out ahead.
But it does seem to, you know, say something interesting.
And I got to say, this to me seems to be more in line with the reality that I'm observing than the reality that the mainstream media has been observing.
Number one, I've been saying for a while, I don't think Joe Biden gets out of here as the nominee.
I just don't see it happening.
I don't think he's in line with the party.
He's not impressive.
He's not running on anything.
He's got no reason to be there.
There's all this, well, Charlottesville, and I'm going to save the soul and I can defeat Trump.
This is nothing.
You have nothing.
Yeah, everyone wants to defeat Trump.
Charlottesville is a non-issue.
And what the fuck are you saving the soul?
Are you a religious leader?
This doesn't make any sense.
And if you just buy the Democratic base, I think there's a lot more energy for someone with the politics of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for that matter.
So it's interesting that those two are rising.
Here's the other thing that's interesting about this poll.
You got Bernie Sanders at 20, Joe Biden and Warren at 19.
Harris up next at 8.
8%.
Remember, Kamala Harris, everybody on network television, all the major media, the major newspapers, they all told you she's the frontrunner now, right?
She destroyed Biden at that first one.
Blah, Nothing.
Nothing.
She's doing nothing.
After that, Budijeg.
Mayor Pete Butstuff, four.
Four percent.
Remember, he was the future.
He was the guy they all told you was going to be the guy.
You know, Rora Creed must be way up there.
They already said he was the guy.
Two.
Ooh, okay.
Two percent.
I like how they're going down exactly by half.
Yeah.
And after that, it's a whole bunch of, you know, I mean, Gabbard came in at 1%, unfortunately.
It looks like she may not make that next.
Dude, they're crazy.
Yeah, well, they sure are.
And it does say something.
You know, it's like, look, I don't know.
I'm somewhere in between.
I'm not somebody who puts too much faith in any of these polls.
I'm also not a guy who just goes like the polls are all lies.
You know, like there's some information that's gained from these guys.
But they're selecting the polls.
Although, as Thomas Sowell once said, he goes, I, like everyone else, has never met a poll star.
That's true.
So you don't actually know who the hell these people are.
But there is something that's just kind of, let's just say, I won't go out and say the system's rigged against Tulsi.
I would say they certainly have been doing everything they can to not get her voice up there.
And they certainly don't seem interested in that.
You would think, right, if this wasn't, if the world wasn't the way me and you see it, and this wasn't on a system, you would think they would go, oh, wow, here's a woman, a woman of color, who's a veteran, who's done two tours in Iraq and is still active duty with the National Guard, who's saying something different than all the other candidates, has a real passionate perspective, opposes wars.
She was the most Googled candidate after both the debates.
She won several online polls, was like, oh, we should try to get her a platform.
But of course, it's the exact opposite.
But anyway, that's the situation.
I don't know what to say.
I hope she hangs in there.
Even if she misses this debate, maybe she comes back later.
I don't know.
However, it's interesting that this latest mammoth poll seems to be a real dagger in all of the media-approved moderates.
And instead, we're looking more at the progressives and the socialists with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
I don't know.
Something interesting to keep your eyes on.
Of course, it just makes more sense to me that by today's Democratic party, Bernie and Warren would be the ones who they'd want at the top.
Of course, there's a big problem.
Bernie Sanders is not running for president.
He's running to sell a book.
And Elizabeth Warren pretended to be an Indian.
And Donald Trump will literally just mock her into submission every day.
So those two being up there, it makes me really start to think that the Democratic nominee is not yet in the field.
And I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But I'd be interested to see who else could maybe make an entrance.
But this is going to be really interesting to see how it happens.
I'll tell you, I know for a fact the DNC would much prefer Warren than Bernie Sanders.
The mainstream media would much.
I like Kenny Anner.
Is there a way for it?
Because then you can bypass a lot of debates, I guess, if you're popular.
Oh, yeah, you can enter.
I mean, I think you could technically, I think you can enter anytime before the convention, but you could enter after Iowa.
Now, that's rare, I think, but you could enter after there's been a primary.
Who are the big names?
Hillary's still out there.
I don't think it's happening, but Hillary's out there.
Who else are some big names that could say, fuck it, I'm getting in there?
The Rock?
Well, right.
You could go down the celebrity list.
Big one, I would think, O-Dog.
Who's O-Dog?
Oprah.
You think Oprah might run?
You think you can enter?
I'm throwing it out.
You were asking who are the others who could run?
You could see.
Oprah, you gave her some good speech right now.
I mean, I would say Michael Bloomberg.
No, Mike Tyson is probably not going to be the guy.
Michael Bloomberg, but he's just a little bit more.
We haven't heard from Bloomberg.
Gay and Jewish.
I don't know.
Mark Cuban.
Yeah, that's the people.
I think he's the most delightful.
That's the guy who's not going to be able to do that.
There's other people out there who could...
I don't know.
And maybe there's someone I'm just not thinking of, but I do.
I think like...
Without a single policy ever stated out of his mouth, Cuban's just got that thing where like part of my is like, I'd vote for Cuban.
Yeah.
No, I know what you mean.
He's got that thing where it's like, I feel like he's competent and he's my kind of a dude and I just kind of like him.
He's pretty cool on Shark Tank.
Yeah.
All right.
Anyway, that's so that's the story with the Democratic race as well.
Of course, we're going to keep talking about that over the next few episodes, but I did before we get out of here, I just couldn't.
I could not play.
There was just this great segment on CNN, the cable news network, where me and you get all of our information from.
So before we leave, let's check in with our favorite show hosted by our favorite little piggy.
Here's reliable sources on CNN.
Well, I think that medicalizing politics has three very dire consequences.
The first is that it stigmatizes the mentally ill.
I've known thousands of patients, almost all of them have been well-behaved, well-mannered, good people.
Trump is none of these.
Lumping the mentally ill with Trump is a terrible insult to the mentally ill, and they have enough problems and stigma as it is.
My eyes look like that.
The second issue is that calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we're crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist.
Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century.
He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were.
He needs to be contained, but he needs to be contained by attacking his policies, not his person.
It's crazy for us to be destroying the climate our children will live in.
It's crazy to be giving tax cuts to the rich that will add trillions of dollars to the debt our children will have to pay.
It's crazy to be destroying our democracy by claiming that the press and the courts are the enemy of the people.
We have to face these policies, not Trump's person.
Now, it's absolutely impossible to bet that's not.
Brian's fat face is like, what am I supposed to do?
Lizard, man, I don't even know where to start with this.
So I'm not even going to start with the obvious one.
Yeah.
Okay.
With the Hitler-Stalin Mao thing.
We'll deal with that in a second.
But my favorite thing is just Brian Stelter's taking this seriously, face.
Like, if you're bashing Trump, no one will call you out for going.
It reminds me of what we were saying the last episode.
Like, if you're for, if you're on the same page with the climate change agenda, you can say whatever you want to say.
Just whatever.
There's no limit.
Climate change is going to kill everything that's alive.
Nothing else will live.
And they go, wow, she's really serious about climate change.
Like, no one's even kind of like, hey, you might have taken it a little bit too far there.
We're just the bash Trump network.
So you say whatever you want to.
And he'll just go, hmm, very serious.
Oh, that's a really profound statement you're making there.
The funniest part of all of this to me is that while he's saying it's wrong, he goes, it's wrong to call Donald Trump crazy because that's an insult to crazy people, which is kind of, if you're a shrink, a little bit of an emotional statement to make.
You know, maybe you'd want to like take a look in the mirror yourself.
But so then he calls everything else crazy.
So he violates his own rule right away.
He goes, he goes, hey, you can't call Trump crazy because that's an insult to crazy people.
And you know, Trump's not crazy.
We're crazy.
The policies are crazy.
This is crazy.
Destroying the environment is crazy.
He goes, but didn't you just say you sh anyway?
How could, listen, I've talked to some actually very good psychologists about this before.
I have psychoanalysts in my family.
I know a little bit about this.
The idea that anyone would claim that they can diagnose someone or speak on somebody's mental state without having ever met them is like, I mean, you should lose your license over that shit.
You're an embarrassment to your field.
But of course, if you're on there talking about how someone's a horrible person, what you would think any psychiatrist as this guy is would have like the like you would have enough introspection and enough self-reflection to go, hey, what's going on with me here?
Like I'm really angry right now.
Maybe I need to think about what's going on.
But then of course, the best part, as I alluded to at the beginning, is that he's going to, he'll probably, when it's all said and done, have killed many more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
It's a lot of people Trump's got to kill.
He's going to get started.
Trump has to be.
He's got to really start killing people at a faster rate.
If you're telling me not only one of the three, but he's going to take out all of them.
All right, Trump, you might want to invest in some five-hour energy drinks.
You want to start waking up real early in the morning.
You got a lot of work to get to.
A lot.
Yeah, they had to design those concentration camps.
You couldn't just kill Jews like that overnight.
You had to lay down railroads.
Here's the beginning of the place.
Well, yeah.
You don't just fucking turn on the gas, man.
You got to fucking build the chamber.
It's like my pop always told me.
Listen, here's the best part of all of it.
And we'll wrap on this.
So Brian Stelter has been getting abused online for this.
And I mean, Brian Stelter always gets abused online, but he's been getting particularly abused online for this one.
So he's still my face takes up most of the screen, so it's like not even that big.
Because I've asked him to shrink down my face, the screen size.
No, he said that they were having technical difficulties, and he didn't hear it.
Bullshit?
And that's why he didn't interrupt.
He goes, you're right.
I probably should have interjected after that statement.
Yeah, maybe.
But there was the most convenient technical difficulties of all time.
So he didn't hear this guy say that not only, here's the funny thing, right?
A lot of people say like, Trump is Hitler or Trump's worse than Hitler.
But I've never actually heard anyone say, Donald Trump is going to kill more people than Adolf Hitler.
Not only that, but more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.
You threw in Mao.
You know how many fucking numbers that guy put up?
Do you know that's fucking, yeah, really?
You're going to score more points than Jordan, too?
Get the fuck out of here, Mao.
Do you think somewhere in hell, Mao was a little bit happy that he got a little bit of recognition?
He got a shout out.
Yeah.
They're like, these guys keep calling him Hitler.
Go, finally, a nice fucking Mao reference.
All right, we got to get out of here.
Catch me at the Soho Forum on September 10th.
Go to thesohoeforum.org, debating the future of the Libertarian Party.
Bitcoin Standard Discussion00:00:42
Don't forget to check out Run Your Mouth podcast.
Follow Rob Bernstein at Robbie the Fire.
And go check him out.
He was just on the Lions of Liberty.
You got Bitcoin talk on the show.
Yeah, on Run Your Mouth.
I had the Fad Cast guys on.
I read the Bitcoin standard.
We did a whole episode on it.
So check it out.
And where do the fags stand on Bitcoin?
They're big investors.
Those guys are loaded up on Bitcoin.
Holy shit.
Those guys got money?
That's why they sent us the book and tried to get it on air.
It's a pump and dump.
The fad cast guys, they're trying to get the...
Are these guys fucking millionaires?
No, I don't think so.
Maybe.
They're cool if they are.
Well, I'm going to give those guys a call pretty soon.