James Smith critiques the oversized state's role in surveillance and mass incarceration while addressing listener questions on age of consent, arguing that sex under 15 is aggression but teen relations are nuanced. He dismisses divine state authority as a pretext for looting, predicts Democratic leadership changes due to Biden's decline, and highlights government failures that enriched banks at citizens' expense. Smith also debates the non-aggression principle versus practical governance, noting inconsistencies in lockdown logic where supermarkets remain open while non-essential work is banned, ultimately framing these crises as opportunities for populist libertarian messaging. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Hope Returns to Normalcy00:03:19
Fill her up!
You are listening to the Gas 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.
Hey, what's up, guys?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
The quarantine continues.
Hope everybody's doing well, as I always say when I record these things.
Hope you guys are getting through these weird and difficult times as best as you can.
And, you know, it looks like there might be some positive news.
It looks like quite possibly the number of reported hospitalizations seem to be going down, not just in New York, but around the country.
And hopefully, we're going to be getting back to normal or something that's more normal than this as soon as possible.
So anyway, I certainly hope that we can go back to being human beings in the near future.
Anyway, you know, I got a bunch of guests lined up for this week, so we'll have some good podcasts coming out for you guys.
But for today, it's just me, and I thought I would do another one of these AMA episodes where we would continue on with the great AMA.
I did start a new thread.
I know my original plan was to just go through that one thread that I had posted in the Part of the Problem inner circle.
But it's, you know, at this point, it's been weeks, and I was looking through the questions, and some of them were just kind of outdated.
And especially given everything we're going through, you know, a few weeks, you know, something's like a little over three weeks old.
It feels like it's a decade old right now because so many things have changed.
Anyway, hope you guys have been enjoying all the extra content that I've been putting out.
Been trying to get you guys a lot of podcasts.
And I know a lot of people have a little bit of extra free time on their hands.
So, you know, it's not bad to have a little bit more than you're used to.
Okay.
All right.
Let's jump into the questions.
I requested people start a new thread of questions in the Part of the Problem inner circle, which you can join if you go over to gasdigitalnetwork.com.
Use promo code P-O-T-P.
You get a monthly discount on membership.
You get the backlog, all of our episodes on demand, the entire archive of Part of the Problems, over 500 episodes.
Got a lot of stuff up there.
Of course, also Legion of Skanks and Believe You Me, Real Ass Podcast, whole bunch of other great shows.
So yeah, go over to that.
And of course, that helps support this show and keep us going.
So if you do that, you also can join the Part of the Problem Inner Circle, which is our private Facebook group.
And that's where I solicit these questions from.
So let's get into it.
All right.
Nuanced Age of Consent Rules00:13:37
Bruce asks, how do you approach the age of consent discussion with regards to the non-aggression principle and lack of a central authority?
I usually confine this to my household's rules.
Also, how do you reconcile a state under the authority of God?
In that case, would it cease to be a state as this is his kingdom?
Or is this semantics?
All right, of course, a libertarian group.
You ask for questions.
The first one's about age of consent.
All right.
So this is how I look at age of consent rules, right?
There.
It's not there.
It is somewhat arbitrary and you're never gonna get around that that.
But but you know what?
It's not that only libertarians can't get around that, it's that everybody can't get around that if you're gonna set an age somewhere like this is true whether you're a libertarian or a statist or whatever you are if we all kind of know that you know having sex with an eight-year-old cannot be legal and that you know having sex with a 40-year-old has to be legal, right?
And of course, in the extremes, you all know that one is obviously an act of aggression and one obviously isn't, assuming everybody's consenting involved.
And for children, obviously they have not developed the ability to consent.
I mean, I'm talking young children here, okay?
So it's ridiculous.
They're just not far along enough developed.
Now, where you draw that line is going to be somewhat arbitrary.
And that's true whether you have a state or not.
And in the current situation, you have different states have different rules.
I think some states it's 17, some states it's 18, maybe even 16.
I don't know.
Now, where should the line be?
I don't know.
You know, I don't know exactly.
But I don't actually think there is a legitimate answer.
This is one of these issues that you just have to kind of come to an agreement on.
And, you know, I know you could say like, oh, well, what if the agreement is eight years old or something like that?
And the truth is that if everybody in a community is that messed up that they think that's okay, you're going to have much bigger problems than whether where you draw the line for aggression.
But I think much like in our, you know, in the current situation with a government, you know, sometimes it's 17.
Sometimes, should it be 17?
Should it be 19?
Should it be 20?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think that reasonable people have to get together and draw a reasonable line.
And a lot of times with these issues, it's like libertarians have the most consistent philosophy.
And we usually do have these kind of like objective lines that we can draw.
And I know it's frustrating to us when things are arbitrary and they just have to be kind of applied within reason.
But I think that that's true for everybody.
And we're still, you know, more consistent than more objective than just about anybody else or than anybody else.
So I would say that it's like, yeah, like local communities will decide what the rules are for them.
And my guess is there would be a wide range.
Maybe not that wide, but there'd be different communities that live with different standards.
And yes, obviously now for me personally, what's you know, obviously, I think having sex with a child, let's say 15 or under, I would say is an act of aggression.
But then again, there's nuance in all of these things.
Like if two 14 year olds, you know, have consensual sex, as much as I might think that's, you know, horrible, I don't think that it's an act of aggression.
So there's like a lot of nuance to that conversation.
And perhaps you need a more nuanced law.
Like, you know, if you were to say, I don't know, for example, let's say you said 18 was the, you know, the age of consent or something like that.
This is how you say it's 18.
Now, if a 45-year-old were to have sex with a 17-year-old, I mean, I would, I would feel fine treating that person as someone who raped a child.
Like, I mean, I'd be okay with the death penalty for that.
I have no problem with that.
Now, if a 19-year-old consensually had sex with a 17-year-old, I have a tough time even calling that a crime.
So maybe the correct law is actually to have a more nuanced approach.
You know, I don't know.
But I think that as is the case with most things, if you deal with this in a decentralized manner, you're going to come up with much better solutions that serve those local communities.
So you'd probably have some libertine communities that were a little bit looser about laws and some Christian conservative communities where I'll be residing.
that that would be a little bit stricter.
I don't know.
And now to the second part of your question, you snuck in two questions there, Bruce.
Well done.
The question is, how do you reconcile a state under the authority of God?
In that case, would it cease to be a state as this is his kingdom?
Or is this semantics?
Well, I don't know if it's semantics, but I think that, you know, pretty much all states, at least most of them, act as if they have the authority of God.
I don't buy that any of them do.
You know, I mean, I just don't believe that any government is actually granted the authority by God.
And if they were, I think if they claim that, I think they're just claiming that in order to loot you.
So, no, to me, it doesn't really matter if someone's threatening you and taking your stuff, but they swear that God told them to do it.
That doesn't make it any more legitimate to me.
So I don't think there's anything to reconcile there.
Okay.
Mike asks, when you interview guys like Jimmy Dore and he says something wildly un-libertarian, how hard is it to not jump on it?
Pretty difficult in some ways.
It's a weird thing when you're having conversations like that.
You have to kind of go into it with an idea of what your goal is out of the conversation.
And for me, with the Jimmy Dore, when I was on his show and when I had him on my show, my goal out of it was to, number one, establish a relationship with Jimmy Dore, to focus on the areas that we have agreement on and to think about, you know, for us to each kind of present to some degree our view of populism in a sense.
His view of kind of left populism and my view of more libertarian populism, where both of us are basically saying that this kind of ruling elite class is ripping you off, even though we have slightly different understandings of exactly how and what the best solution would be.
But you kind of, it's like you get into these moments where in like a couple seconds, you have to make these kind of very quick decisions about what you're going to do.
And you always have to have in your mind what direction this is going to take the show in.
You know, okay, so if we start arguing over this point, then we're going to go off on a whole thing arguing this stuff.
Whereas if I focus on this point, now we're going to go in this direction.
And you try to do the best you can with it.
But, you know, it's never perfect.
But yes, there were a couple moments where I was like, oh, maybe I should have jumped on that and given him pushback on that.
But, you know, you go through it.
You do what you can.
And yeah, you make these decisions very quickly in the moment, and then you just have to go with it.
Okay.
Nick.
Do you think Trump versus Warren would have been a funnier matchup than Trump versus Biden?
Biden will be great, but I think it would get progressively funnier every time a sitting president would call a woman Pocahontas and fake Indian.
Yeah, I'd have to say I think Warren would have been funnier.
As funny as Biden is.
I mean, Biden is freaking hilarious.
Just, it's unbelievable.
Every freaking interview the guy has, he's got some new, just hilarious clip out there of him saying, you know, what was the last one?
The Sakes democracy thing.
I mean, it's just, they're all just so good.
So it's great.
But something about Elizabeth Warren, the fake Indian, and all of her, I just think that the dynamic with Trump and her would have been funnier.
So as a comedian, Warren, I think, would have been the way to go.
But this is still pretty good.
So, you know, hey, you got to take what you can get in life.
And this is, Joe, it's not as if Joe Biden isn't going to provide us with plenty of hilarious just senility.
All right.
Aaron writes, do you think the Democrats will dump Biden under the guise of mental health and put forth their own nominee at the convention?
I think it is very, very possible.
I really do.
I think it's still very possible that Biden doesn't make it to the election.
And who knows for sure?
But I've never seen anything like this with Joe Biden.
I mean, this isn't, there's been tons of flawed candidates.
I mean, pretty much nothing but flawed candidates.
And I remember, you know, we all thought it was insane that Hillary Clinton would have these coughing fits and fainting spells and things like that.
But no, this is a whole different level.
This guy is absolutely for anyone, anyone who's being honest with themselves to see, this guy is just not fit to serve.
And it's funny because this is the thing they used to say about Donald Trump, that, you know, that this was, oh, he's not mentally fit for the job.
And of course, in a way, right, like Donald Trump, Donald Trump is just a different human being than any other human being in the world.
He is his own thing from the way he, whatever crap he puts on his skin to whatever crap he puts in his hair to the way he talks, the way he acts, he's just different than everybody else.
But it would be hard to really make the argument that Trump has demonstrated that he's like losing his marbles.
Whereas Biden, I don't understand how you could deny it.
I genuinely don't understand how you could deny that Joe Biden is best case scenario, let's say, in decline.
He is not what he used to be, and he ain't getting better.
It's only going to get worse.
So I do think there's a real chance.
And I think I said this before on the podcast, but if I were some Democratic operative, if I were sitting in the smoke-filled rooms talking about what the move is here, what we're going to do, I mean, I would just be saying, how?
Just tell me how we get Cuomo as the nominee.
Just tell me what we need to do to make that happen.
Because Biden needs to be out and Cuomo needs to be in.
That's what I would be thinking.
Cuomo's been on TV every day.
He's riding high on this, like, you know, I was there during the emergency thing.
And I just think he's got a much better shot of winning.
And truthfully speaking, I think that Bernie Sanders, I think, would have had a real shot, a real, real shot at winning the nomination.
I mean, excuse me, at winning the presidency if he had gotten the nomination.
Again, as I've said many times before, I'm not going to go through the whole Bernie Sanders thing again, but the problem was always Bernie Sanders.
I questioned from the very beginning whether he really wanted to win this thing or not, because this was his race to win, and he blew it.
Of course, they all ganged up on him and they did everything they could to steal it from him.
But he could have won it if he had gone after it.
I have no doubt about that.
And, you know, whatever.
I questioned from the beginning whether he really wanted to win this thing.
But think about it now, right?
I mean, nobody really could have predicted that this is where we would be, but going into the fall.
I mean, look, I don't know exactly how much longer this fucking, these lockdowns are going to last, but already there's probably something in the neighborhood of 30 million people who have been put out of work by this.
It certainly will be at least 30 million by the end of all of this, probably more.
And so now you have a situation where, of course, because of the way government laws have structured this whole thing, a whole bunch of companies, you know, a bunch of people's healthcare is tied to their work.
So now you have people out of work with no health insurance in the middle of a pandemic, scared out of their minds, desperate.
They have nothing.
And here's going to here comes a guy and he's like, well, I've got a plan.
I'm going to give you something.
You have nothing right now.
I'm going to give you something.
Tax-Free Crypto Trading Strategies00:03:01
Don't worry.
You'll get healthcare and you'll get, you know, a bigger check than whatever the next guy is saying.
I mean, I think that's a message that could really resonate.
Could really resonate right now.
And, you know, anyway, I just, it's, he would have been, he would have had a real shot at winning this thing.
He would have pose a real danger to Trump, which I always thought from the beginning he was Trump's toughest competitor.
But he didn't get it and the DNC ain't giving it to Bernie Sanders.
So there's no fucking way.
So, but anyway, so I don't know.
But Biden, on the other hand, is not going to have much of a message for him.
And the optics of Biden are just terrible because he's a confused old man.
And if the Democrats are smart, they'd be trying anything they could to get him out of there.
And given that he's, you know, senile, a health excuse, some health issue could become the excuse.
It seems like there's a real chance of that to me.
Who the hell knows?
But I think there's a real chance.
And then my predictions about how he's not going to win the nomination would be true again.
Look at that.
All right, guys, let's take a quick moment.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is iTrust Capital.
If you guys don't know about iTrust Capital, you're going to love them.
With iTrust Capital, you can buy cryptocurrency and physical metals in an IRA, which means you can start trading your crypto tax-free.
I know how many of you guys are really into crypto.
I'm a big fan of owning physical gold.
We all know how much the Fed has been printing lately, just insane levels of money being injected into the financial markets.
The possibility of inflation is real, and the need to preserve your wealth is just as real.
Now, if you're playing the crypto game and Bitcoin goes through the roof, with iTrust Capital, you can trade tax-free and actually keep all of the gains.
And thus far, you haven't been investing in crypto.
iTrust Capital makes investing in crypto safe and easy.
You can log on to your account 24-7 and trade crypto at the push of a button.
No keys or confusion.
Crypto can be traded the same as any other asset.
Same thing for trading physical metals.
You can easily trade physical metals that are backed by actual physical metal.
iTrust Capital uses a blockchain technology with metals securely stored at the Royal Canadian Mint, making it easy for you to own your own actual physical metals while avoiding the fees of other IRAs.
iTrust Capital is IRS compliant and has worked out all the legal complexities of trading your crypto tax-free.
And the best part, iTrust Capital is 90% cheaper than their competitors.
They're fans of investing in crypto and physical metals and wanted to build a platform that would be accessible to everyone with transparent pricing.
So if you're looking for an IRA to trade crypto and gold tax-free, go to iTrustCapital.com.
And if you use the promo code P-O-T-P, your first month will be free.
One more time, iTrustCapital.com, promo code P-O-T-P for your first month free.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Real Communism vs Capitalism00:04:06
Okay, Bobby writes, that's not real communism verse, that's not real capitalism.
Okay, that's an interesting question.
So if I understand what you're getting at, a lot of times people on the right, broadly speaking, will criticize people who defend socialism or communism, because if you bring up any of the examples of communism, you will say, well, that wasn't real communism or that wasn't real socialism.
That was, you know, this is, you know, well, the Soviet Union, that was authoritative, authoritarian dictatorship, not real communism.
And that was, you know, China or Cuba or whoever, that's not real communism.
And they get mocked for that quite a bit, which is, I think, fair enough.
However, they could easily say, and some do throw this back at us, that if they go, oh, well, look at all the problems in this capitalist country, we'll say that's not real capitalism.
All right.
So the problem with equating these two things is that there's glaring differences.
Now, look, truthfully speaking, both claims are correct.
Okay.
Now, none of those countries, whether it's the Soviet Union or Mao's China or Fidel Castro's Cuba or whoever, none of them are real communism.
Okay?
I mean, real communism, from my understanding of reading Marx, is a stateless, classless society, you know, to each according, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, kind of, you know, the people own the means of production and all this shit, and there's no private property.
That doesn't exactly describe any of those countries.
So in a sense, there is literally truth to them saying that's not communism.
And if people say, you know, like, well, that's not really laissez-faire capitalism, that's, you know, look, they've got this big government, they've got intervention into the economy, they've got a big military or whatever, you know, the truth may be.
That is also technically true.
It's technically true.
Now, what people I think are knocking when somebody says, okay, of course, that's not real socialism or that's not real communism is that, you know, the idea is that, well, of course, but it's like if your goal is to achieve a stateless, classless society, but your method to getting there is to build up more and more state power, more and more state power all the time, power tends to corrupt.
And so, of course, you're going to be in this situation where, oh yeah, every single time it started corrupting again.
Oh, we're going to have a dictator of the proletariat, but then he'll step aside and the government will dissolve.
It's like, okay, well, dictatorship isn't going to lead to the government dissolving.
Dictatorship is going to lead toward dictatorship.
It's going to lead toward tyranny and totalitarianism.
So I think it's just mocking someone for saying that's not real socialism.
Well, it goes a little bit deeper than that.
The problem is that your method of getting there is completely flawed.
Whereas on the other side, if we're saying what we want is laissez-faire capitalism, and you're saying like, okay, well, for example, in America, it'd say, well, the government's going to spend God knows how much this year.
We might spend $6 trillion this year.
And you say like, well, that's not really laissez-faire because we've got this big, huge government.
And our method is let's get rid of the government.
Let's chop it down, shrink it as much as we can, and hopefully get rid of it all so that we have laissez-faire and completely decentralized capitalism.
To me, that doesn't seem nearly as ridiculous.
And, you know, truthfully speaking, even the not-real capitalism is a hell of a lot more successful than the not-real communism.
So I don't think it's fair to just equate them.
I think it makes for a good bumper sticker attack on libertarians.
Liberty, Abuse, and Government Size00:15:32
But if you unpack it a little bit, I just don't think there's actually that much of a valuable critique there.
So that would, I guess, be my answer.
All right, Jimmy says, I was watching big guy Ryan Dawson from Japan.
He said he go on again anytime and was wondering if you'd be down for round two.
Yeah, sure.
I'll have Ryan Dawson back on.
I'm down to have that guy back on.
Real smart dude.
Interesting guy.
Sure.
Okay.
Derek writes, if America goes to shit, well, more to shit, and you have to fly the coupe to keep your family safe, what country are you settling in?
Hmm.
That's a good question.
Maybe we'll take it over to Israel and I'll settle down and I'll refind, I'll rediscover my Judaism.
Maybe that's the best bet.
No, I don't know.
Probably not Israel.
I don't know.
I mean, maybe Canada out of laziness, but if we go to shit, Canada's probably gone to shit way before us, right?
I don't know.
I guess I got to give that some thought.
I'm still thinking about what state I'm going to find to settle in.
So I'm not up to leaving the country yet.
Really haven't given that a lot of thought.
Maybe I should.
All right.
Cole says, what's your favorite vape flavor?
Virginia tobacco.
And would you consider having Tim Moen on the show?
I don't think I know who that is.
So let me look into him.
Maybe I know and I'm just blanking.
I do that with names a lot, but I don't believe I know who that is.
Okay, Justin asks, do you think the rate of suicide, spousal abuse, drug abuse, child abuse, and such will rise or has risen during this corona thing?
I think undoubtedly yes, right?
I mean, I think there's no question about it.
I mean, if you have, you know, an abusive person in your home and you're stuck in the home more with them, I'd imagine that alone will, you know, lead to a rise in abuse.
And then, you know, throw into that, you know, this is like, this is what we're living through right now is like the worst recipe for mental health that you could imagine.
It's almost, look, if you, if you think about it, if you want to put on your conspiracy hat or something like that, if you were trying to drive people crazy, and you were just coming up with ideas, like, how do we drive people crazy?
You know, it's like, okay, we'll keep them scared all the time, scare the shit out of them, keep them isolated, don't let them get out much, and, you know, make them worried about losing their job or lose their job.
So if people are borderline abusive or already abusive, I have no doubt that this is going to lead to more of that.
And in terms of, you know, suicide and drug abuse, all that stuff falls right in there.
I think, no question.
When people are really, really scared and many people's lives are ruined.
I mean, there's a lot of people out there who put 10, 15, 20 years into saving to invest, into opening their own business, who have just lost everything, just like that.
And it's tragic.
It's just unbelievably tragic.
And for a lot of those people, Drug use, drug abuse, suicide, these are going to, you know, you create a lot of desperation and you end up getting, you know, these results.
So that would be my guess.
I mean, maybe we'll get some like good numbers on this after this whole thing's over, but I would think undoubtedly you're going to see more of all of those things in terms of suicide, spasmal abuse, child abuse, drug abuse.
I think you're going to see much more of those things than you otherwise would have.
That would be my guess.
All right, Jonathan.
If the numbers continue to be non-apocalyptic, how long do you think it'll be before people start to push back against their states to lift the shelter in place orders?
Our quote peak in PA is supposed to be April 16th.
Then we start to hit the bottom of the curve on May 1st.
I have to think the natives will begin to get restless here and demand the ability to go back to work and to non-essential businesses if the numbers continue to prove not to be as dire by then.
Yeah, you know, I guess I tend to think you're right, right?
Like that makes sense to me.
It makes sense that at some point the natives would get restless, as you put it.
But I got to say, I'm kind of blown away by how much the American people are willing to accept already.
You know, the idea that they'll just accept the government essentially saying, you know, just saying like we basically have whatever authority we decide we have.
If that means arresting, they arrested, I saw this the other day, they arrested some guy for having a catch in the park with his daughter.
And the guy claims that they were social distancing, that he was only with his daughter.
And the video that they have of it seems to back that up.
And then it turned out the guy was like a former trooper.
And so the police department came out and apologized and everything like that.
But it's only because he was a former cop.
That's why.
They're like, oh, sorry.
And they said something, I forget what their statement is, but they said that, yeah, they apologized and they said that it seemed like those cops may have been a bit excessive.
And it's like, you're arresting a guy for having a catch with his daughter.
Just think about that.
That's, I mean, it's so I get what you're saying.
And yeah, it does seem like there will have to be some point before people are going to go crazy and just demand that we have to go back to life.
But it's, it's, I can't believe that so much has been accepted so quickly.
It's really, it's quite striking to see that, you know, in America, it really only took a few weeks.
It only took a few weeks for everybody to just accept this type of government overreach.
And it's, it's sad.
But I, so anyway, I guess my answer to that is, yeah, I think you're right, but who the fuck knows?
All right, Stephen writes, how can we take advantage of this current situation to spread a message of liberty?
Well, that is the that is the million-dollar question right there.
And I've been doing my best to try to work that out in my head and to talk about it on the show.
But I think, and I think I've said this before on the podcast, I think that this is what we're living through right now is either the greatest moment for liberty in American history, or it's the death of libertarianism.
I think it's one of those two things.
And, you know, if the libertarian message right now is something like, you know, we're against welfare.
And if you, you know, like, you know, the government shouldn't be able to restrict you from going and having a party with your grandmother or something like that.
If that's what our messaging is, no matter how you feel about both of those issues, understand what I'm saying.
If that's our messaging, then I think we're going to be laughed at and dismissed.
And those people who say this is the death of libertarianism and all that, you know, they'll be right.
However, there's also the possibility that this is going to be a really, really great moment for us.
And so if you're asking, how do we spread the message of liberty?
Well, look, part of it depends on how this situation ends up going.
It looks right now.
The, what is it, the IHME just revised down their number to projecting something like 60,000 deaths.
If that's what comes out of all of this, basically a really bad flu season.
And that's what we get out of this, 60,000 deaths across America.
And then the virus is pretty much over, right?
Now, forget, just keep in mind what I'm saying here.
Whether or not you believe that all of these lockdowns and the social distancing are the reason why it's only 60,000 deaths, or if you think that had nothing to do with it, or whatever, whatever the reasoning is.
If that's what comes out of this, people are going to look around and they're going to be like, wow, the government just put tens of millions of people out of work for a bad flu season.
There's going to be a lot of people who feel that way.
Okay.
Again, whether or not they're right, there's going to be a lot of people who feel that way.
And what libertarians have to really point out is not only did the government fail to protect you against this virus and they messed up in every important way that they could mess up.
They have this complete control over our lives on the justification that when something like this happens, they'll be there to protect you.
And they did nothing.
They screwed it up.
So many of these deaths are on their hands.
And not only that, but in the moment when they put tens of millions of Americans out of work, when they ruined their lives, they took that opportunity to rob the American people to give the filthy, stinking rich bankers more money, just to get them more filthy, stinking rich.
That's what these sociopaths did to you in your hour of need.
When you were at your most desperate, they just said, how can we rip you off a little bit more?
How can we impoverish your children a little bit more than they already are?
You know, if you thought we already lived in the age of populism, wait till we come out of this thing.
We're really going to be in the age of populism.
And we can find a real populist libertarian message in all of that.
And I would suggest if you're trying to spread liberty, start with the broad, start with, this is always how I look at things, start with the big picture and then get into specifics after.
Because there obviously are a lot of great specifics.
But don't just start with like ventilator production or something like that.
Start with the fact that in your most desperate hour, which they created, by the way, you know, I mean, however you feel about the virus, the reason why people are out of work is because the government deemed them non-essential.
So as soon as the government decided that your life, your dreams, your ambitions weren't essential, and you were at your most desperate moment and turned to them for some type of help, what did they do?
They robbed you to give trillions to the big banks.
They bailed out the banks again.
That was their response.
I mean, if we don't see some type of populist message in that, I don't know.
You know, I don't know when we ever will.
So that's, to me, that's how I think we at least attempt to come out of this with something.
All right.
Jeffrey.
Jeffrey asks, why don't Bernie bros give up on him even when he endorses Biden, Hillary, and bails out the banks?
That is a very good and a very fair question.
It was one of the things that I thought was really great about having Jimmy Dore on the show.
It was nice to see somebody who essentially has.
That's one of the things I really appreciate about Jimmy Dore.
It's one of the reasons why I really respect that motherfucker because he will follow where his principles lead him.
And so he, like Jimmy Dore, you may disagree with him on some shit, but he believes in what he believes in.
And so if his guy, in quotes, you know, who he's supporting, goes against those principles, he's very quick to call them out.
And I don't know.
I don't know.
You know, obviously not all of the Bernie Bros are going to do that.
Too many people in politics in general, and I guess in life in general, they get into this cult of personality stuff and they just want to be on a certain team.
And it all boils down to tribal red shirt, blue shirt, bullshit.
But I got to think there'll be more people who see that this time.
And by the way, I think there were a lot of Bernie Bros who were upset that he did that with Hillary.
And I think there'll be a lot who are upset.
And I think it's going to be a tougher sell the second time around to actually get his supporters to go vote for Biden.
I think that's going to be very tough for them to pull off.
All right.
Zach writes, what are the chances Biden makes it to the debates?
If so, how many Fig Newtons do you think he'll have stuffed in his coat pockets?
I don't know.
I don't get the Fig Newton part.
You know, this goes to the thing I was saying before.
I really don't know.
But he will be, I mean, I'm pretty convinced he would be slaughtered in a debate with Donald Trump.
I mean, I just think Trump would slaughter him.
It would be a shit show.
And so I, you know, I wouldn't be surprised.
Like, nothing to me would surprise me at this point if Biden's team came up with excuses to not do the debates or if Biden just ends up, you know, not being the nominee.
All of that would be all of that would be quite understandable.
Okay, Daniel writes, how do we arrange your appearance on the actual anarchy podcast to talk about Tommy Boy from a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist perspective?
Yes, I'm sorry.
I remember you asked me this.
You asked me this before.
Okay.
Sure.
All right.
I guess I'd have to think about how Tommy Boy is what the Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist perspective is, but I'm down to do the show.
I guess the banks were leaning on the company, right?
And then they're salesmen or something like that.
Okay, I don't know.
I'll have to think about it a little bit, what my angle on that would be, but sure, I'm down to do it.
All right, Derek writes, what's your thoughts on the fact you'll be regarded someday as one of the great libertarian thinkers in line with people like Rothbard, Mises, and Hoppe?
I can't wait for the day I hear people saying I'm a Smithian libertarian.
Well, thank you.
What are my thoughts that I'll be regarded in line with Rothbard, Mises, and Hoppe?
Oh, how far we have fallen.
That would be my thoughts on that.
I appreciate that.
And we'll see what happens.
But those guys are legit geniuses, and I'm an idiot comedian.
So I'm not sure I should be regarded in that group.
But if I can fucking spread their work to as many people as possible, then I'll be very happy with what I've done with my career.
I don't know.
You know, it's sometimes to me when I think about kind of where I am in this liberty movement stuff, it's a little bit surreal and it's strange because I'm just a Ron Paul kid, you know, just 12 years later.
BlueChew Promo for Members00:02:16
So, but it's very flattering and kind of hard to believe.
I wish we had more people.
And I think there's got to be better people than me.
And then there are.
I mean, there's, you know, of course, the great Tom Woods and lots of people like that.
But that's nice.
And I don't know.
I try not to think too much about stuff like that because it's just kind of weird and trippy.
But I appreciate it.
It's a very nice thing to say.
Hey guys, let's take a quick second and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Blue Chew.
If you like sex, you're going to love Blue Chew.
Blue Chew offers men a performance enhancement for the bedroom.
And at BlueChew.com, you can get the first chewables with the same active ingredients as Viagra and Sialis.
Chewables can work faster than pills, up to twice as fast.
And the chewables from BlueChew.com can be taken on a full or empty stomach.
The online physician consultant is free, so it's cheaper than those other two.
And it only takes a few minutes to connect with a Blue Chew.com affiliated physician.
If you qualify, you get prescribed online quickly.
So there's no in-person doctor visit, no awkward conversation, no waiting in line at a pharmacy.
It ships directly to your door in discrete packaging.
The chewables from BlueChew.com are prescribed online by a doctor and made in the USA.
Blue Chew gives you the confidence in the bedroom every time.
You and your partner will love it.
And here's a great deal for you guys.
Visit bluechew.com and you can get your first order free when you use the promo code problem.
You just pay $5 shipping, but the order is free at B-L-U-E-C-H-E-W.com.
Promo code problem for your first order free.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right, RJ writes, how much farther would things have to go as far as with the removal of civil liberties for you to join a militia?
My state somehow seems to be enjoying an air of more freedom right now.
In Ohio, the DMV closed, police ain't coming if there isn't an injury or violent crime taking place.
Can get margs delivered from the local taco shop.
Honestly, oh, margaritas from the local taco shop spot.
Escalating War with China00:04:27
Is that what you meant?
Honestly, none of us are complaining.
But some, like Michigan, where I'm about to move, seem to be on a real lockdown state right now.
So yeah, how long and how much farther till Dave Smith says enough is enough?
Robbie, running low on bread, best backup sandwich base material.
Robbie's not here.
I apologize.
So I can't tell you that.
For me to join a militia, how far?
Hmm.
That's an interesting question.
I guess, you know, just if I really got to a situation where I thought my family's life was at risk or my family's well-being was at risk, I would do whatever I had to do.
So I don't know.
It's hard to say exactly what that would look like.
All right, Sam writes, if China intentionally released this virus on the world, what is an appropriate response to that?
Ooh, that's a really good, really interesting question.
So I'm not going to do the, you know, I'll play your hypothetical.
If China intentionally released the virus, so it comes out, we have conclusive proof that China did this to the world intentionally, that this was a biological, you know, warfare.
Well, I mean, certainly that is an act of war.
And to be honest, I mean, with the government's response to it, a really effective one, you know, they did something that, I mean, they really probably did worse to us than anyone since the British invaded in the War of 1812 have done.
So that is no question about it.
That's an act of war.
But what you do after that is a little bit tricky.
And it's tricky for a number of reasons.
You know, it's not just some like, oh, I'm a libertarian.
I can never support a war type thing.
It's like, look, there is number one, the libertarian moral dilemma of this, right?
Like, what are you going to, I mean, do you just bomb a bunch of Chinese people?
Like, what do you slaughter innocent Chinese people who have nothing to do with that and who didn't help out in it?
And who, you know, they don't even live in a fucking pretend democracy like we do.
They fucking just are, you know, they're the direct victims of their evil government.
So just slaughtering a bunch of them, I don't know, maybe make you feel better.
It's not going to actually do anything to help anyone.
And, you know, a whole bunch of innocent people die.
So you want to think about it before you do something like that.
And then, of course, just not the moral problem or maybe the moral problem, but also just a practical problem is like, you know, China's got H-bombs and shit.
So how exactly do we fight a war with those people?
So certainly that would be an egregious act of aggression that deserves a response.
But I think you just have to think and be really smart about what the response would be.
I mean, ultimately, excuse me, ultimately, you want to find a way to get back at the people who did this.
So if you found out that the government had done this intentionally, then I don't know.
I mean, I think something if you could, like, I don't know enough about, you know, military details to say, but if you could strategically assassinate, target government institutions, I think that would be justified.
If you could get, you know, to a point where you could try the Chinese government in some international court or something like that.
Even if they don't show up, try and convict them and just be like, okay, now there's a fucking, you know, there's a fucking bounty out on these individuals' heads or something like that.
I don't know.
But you'd want to do something that doesn't result in a nuclear war and something where the least amount of innocent people die is possible.
But I would agree, if they did this intentionally, that is a fucking act of war and we absolutely have the right to respond with force.
I just think, you know, you'd want to really think about it and make sure you do it in the smart way.
All right, Bart writes, there is one progressive socialist you can convert to full-blown ANCAP, but in order to persuade them, you have to blow them, fuck them, or let them fuck you.
Who do you convert and what sex do you do to achieve it?
Bart, that is a weird hypothetical.
I mean, I just don't understand why any of that would convert someone to being an anarcho-capitalist.
And if they convert just because I fuck them, you know, that doesn't, I don't know.
Blow them, fuck them, or let them fuck you.
Well, obviously it's not let them fuck you.
So that comes down to blow them or fuck them.
Converting Socialists Through Violence00:10:53
And I think I'm going to go with fuck them over.
Blow them.
Blowing them.
I mean, that's personal.
Maybe after a few times, but just the first time?
I'm no whore.
Who would the leftist socialist be?
Oh, geez.
I don't even know.
I'm so thrown by the first one.
Hmm.
Who's a good leftist to convert?
Geez, I really don't know.
I'm sorry.
I don't think I'm going to have a good answer for you.
I'll give you that it would be me fucking them, not letting them fuck me.
Fuck, who's a good leftist?
I'll go that old, maybe old Noam Chomsky or something like that.
I don't know.
You're a weirdo, Bart.
You know that?
You're a goddamn weirdo.
All right, Stephen, have you been in contact with Rogan to do another cast?
He likes topical stuff, and your take is a refreshing one that needs to be heard by a big audience right now.
Well, okay.
Yeah, no, you know what?
Maybe I'll reach out to him.
I haven't talked to Rogan.
I was texting with him like right around New Year's and we were supposed to do a podcast.
He invited me back on to do, you know, just me, not with the whole group, not with all the skanks, just me to go back on.
Um, and then I was going to be at, he was like, When are you in LA next time?
And I was out there on New Year's, and he was like, Okay, I'm not, I'm not sure, like, I might be going away with my family, so let me let you know.
And then he was like, Hey, so yeah, we're gonna end up going away for New Year's.
And I was like, No worries next time, I'm out there, we'll do it.
And uh, then I, you know, I was just meaning to, but it's just hard, a lot of shit going on.
Um, but uh, yeah, I haven't uh texted with him since then, but yeah, maybe I'll reach out to him.
It's not a bad idea.
I don't know.
Is he uh, I haven't been watching the last couple weeks, but has he been doing remote uh podcasts?
Because if he has, maybe I'd try to do that.
All right, uh, Shane, will you be taking out the word great or will you be taking out the word great of your uh vocabulary anytime soon?
Um, no, as soon as I stop having great guests on, that's of course the grain.
Uh, that's the grain.
That's the great Shane Scalp.
Uh, I'll be on his podcast, uh, I think in a couple days, or actually, I think tomorrow.
I don't know.
I got your podcast coming up soon, Shane.
I have to check my calendar.
I think I'm doing it tomorrow.
Um, but yeah, no, when people are great, I got to call them great.
That's it.
I show respect.
Game-recognized game.
Uh, Chris writes, What do you think of Jesus?
Would you ever take a serious look at Christianity?
I don't know about all that.
Jesus is cool.
I like Jesus.
Good guy.
I thought he got a bum rap.
Didn't deserve it.
But it all worked out a few days later.
It's a weird, by the way, it's Good Friday as I'm reading this question.
You know, I don't, I don't know.
Like, I really believe in God, and I think that, you know, you know, I don't know.
I believe in God.
I'm not really a big believer in any particular religion.
So that I just don't, I don't see it happening.
But who the hell knows?
I didn't see a lot of things about where I am and where the world is today happening.
So who knows?
All right, Derek.
Would you say someone supporting the government aggression upon you and others is inherently them violating the non-aggression principle?
Yeah, that's an interesting question.
I've had people ask me this before, and I guess I would say that in some way it is.
You know, I mean, you're kind of, you could argue inciting violence by asking politicians to initiate violence on other people.
But for a more practical purpose, it's better to think of it as not a violation of the non-aggression principle.
Because otherwise, you just get into this territory where you're like, okay, so everybody who's not an anarcho-capitalist is initiating violence.
Therefore, we have the right to defend ourselves with violence.
Therefore, we can be violent anarchists.
And if we jump on board with violence, the only people who are standing for non-violence, then there's no chance of ever achieving non-violence.
So I just think for practical reasons, if you want to see a world with less aggression in it, then you're going to have to have to try to persuade people and not look at them as aggressors.
However, theoretically, if we lived in an ANCAP society, I could see saying anybody that was trying to create a government that they would, in a sense, be, you know, that would be a call to violence, quite literally.
All right.
Eric writes, what's your favorite quarantine food?
I've been eating a lot, Eric, let me tell you.
You know, my wife made some fucking bomb ass chili the other night.
It was real good.
So I think that's probably my favorite thing I've had so much.
My wife makes real good chili.
So I'll go with that.
All right, Clint wrote placeholder and then couldn't come up with a question.
All right, Stephen, how do you interpret Ron Paul's most recent response, not only to the government response, but the virus itself?
He seems to view it as less of a threat than most.
Yeah, you know, I thought Ron Paul, they probably shouldn't have titled that article the coronavirus hoax.
Because if you read the article, it's not really what he was saying.
He wasn't saying it's a hoax.
The title leads you to believe something that the article wasn't really saying.
So maybe that was not the best way to go.
But I think, you know, the points that he were making were pretty spot on and was just like, look, the governments, you know, use these crisis, these crises to expand their power.
And that's exactly what's going on here.
So I thought Ron Paul was right on the money as usual.
All right, Sean, ketchup on the side with mac and cheese.
Yes or no?
No, no, God, no.
Oof, God, no.
Ketchup on mac and cheese?
Not for me.
But hey, if that's how you want to live your life, go ahead.
You got to do it.
Okay.
Okay.
Grisha, I know I mispronounced this name fucking last time and you told me how.
I'm sorry.
I don't exactly remember how.
But Grisha says, I'm a little disappointed in Dave and Scott on this COVID thing.
In my opinion, Scott basically strawmanned the anti-lockdown argument in the first minute of the last episode.
There are only six people on Twitter who think COVID is fake.
The argument is that you can basically let anyone under 40 go out and do whatever the fuck they want, get infected, become immune, and this category of young people will not overwhelm the medical system.
Oh, wait, hold on.
And then he wrote again, I'm a little disappointed in Dave and Scott on the COVID thing.
Now I love them.
I own Fool's Errand, and I recommend it to everyone.
I also obviously, I'm obviously a gas subscriber.
And if Dave and I were hanging out and things got quiet at the end of the night, I would probably give Dave a blowy if he asked me to.
In my opinion, Scott basically strawman.
Okay, so you just corrected what you say.
Okay.
So, right, I've heard a few people, honestly, this is like a little bit above my pay grade, but I've heard some people make the argument that, okay, what you'd want to do is just lock down the vulnerable, let herd immunity get up for everybody else.
But a whole lot of virologists and scientists and doctors have also argued that if you look at the projections of trying to do that, that the death rate would be outrageously high.
I really, at this point, don't know.
I really just don't know who to believe.
And it's hard for me to figure it out.
I get what you're saying.
I don't know if that's exactly what Scott was strawmanning.
I don't know if I specifically asked him about that.
But I get your argument.
And, you know, I don't know.
Scott's not here to answer that.
So I don't know what I don't know.
I don't know what his response to that would be, but I'm sure it would be something really smart and long-winded.
That's my guess.
But, you know, I don't think that, you know, perhaps it's possible.
Certainly, I would say that it seems to me like there's something about the fact that what seems really weird to me is like, okay, so it'd be one thing if theoretically you were saying everybody has to stay inside and they can't leave their home.
But that's not really what's happening.
What's happening is people are going to the supermarket.
And the supermarket seems to me like the worst place to possibly go for all of this stuff.
But somehow going to the supermarket is okay, but going to work isn't if you're deemed non-essential.
Now, I'll say that seems really fucking crazy to me.
Like, that doesn't make any sense at all.
You're going to go to the place where everybody in your neighborhood has gone and touched everything that's been handled by everyone else, and then you're going to get right up close to a whole bunch of other people, and you're going to be really close to the cashier checking you out, but you can't go to work.
I mean, maybe some jobs are more dangerous than that, like if you're the checkout person at a supermarket, but most jobs to me seem like they would not be, you know, you would be in less contact with other people, at least a lot of them.
So that, there's a whole bunch of craziness, of course, as always comes with these top-down governmental approaches.
And, you know, I don't know.
I don't know what the projections would be.
I don't know how many people would die if we did things differently, but I know the damage that this government response has caused.
And it's going to be just tens of millions of people's lives who have been, you know, shattered.
And it's going to be really tragic.
But we will do our best to come out of it.
And I guess that's where we'll wrap up for today.
And then maybe I'll try to do another AMA sooner rather than later.
Although I got a bunch of guests lined up in the next few days.
But I'll try to get to some more of these questions because I'm looking ahead and there's some really good ones in here.
All right.
Thank you guys all very much for the questions.
Thank you guys all very much for listening.
I'm recording another couple episodes tomorrow and then another couple episodes on Sunday.
So I'll get a whole bunch more content out for you guys this week.