All Episodes
Previous Next
July 21, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
18:46
1701 Throwing Your Lot in with the Gun

These days, a lot of people seem to be backing away from statism...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It is an old and wise saying that success has many parents, but failure is an orphan.
And we can see this happening these days with statism, and I think it's something very important to keep your eyes peeled for, because a lot of slimy backing away from a former supposed hero, the hero of the state, is currently occurring.
So one of the countries whose financial disasters is significantly underreported is France, which has catastrophes that are very similar to all of the other, the pigs, and whose deficit is crazy and whose deficit is crazy and whose average length of retirement is like 24 years as opposed to 18 for the EU as a whole.
And can I just say, by the by, that not that anybody's happy about the economic disasters in the EU, but at least it's shut people up for a while about European-style socialism being the third way, the answer between communism and capitalism.
At least people are not talking about that crap anymore.
And of course, they're not admitting that they're ever at fault for talking about it.
That would be impossible to conceive of.
But at least people aren't talking about, hey, we need to replace the U.S. model with European-style socialism or European-style social democracy because that works so beautifully.
Now that it is revealed to not work at all beautifully, or at least not in the long run, and not for those on the giving end of the bang stick, at least people are not talking about it for a while.
But in France, Sarkozy, who was the premier, I think he's the premier.
I mean, I know he's the head.
I think he's called the premier. And he is not taking on any limitations to public sector union pensions, which is understandable because there's no entitlement quite like the public sector.
Of a semi-socialist country, and he does not want to have flames, riots, and rubber bullets in the streets, which is what is going to happen if he touches these people's ill-gotten gains.
But the head of the French Public Secretary Union, I can't remember which one, it doesn't really matter, he said...
Why should the public sector union members take a hit?
They are not responsible for the recession.
They are not responsible for the recession, he says.
That's a very interesting question.
So his argument, I'm sure, runs along something like this.
It's like, well, those Wall Street banksters, which obviously are union members, the workers had no control over what was going on in the derivatives market around the world, and they had no clue or no sense.
Of what was going on in the housing market and the Fed rates.
Particularly if all of this happened in the U.S. and spread elsewhere, to say that French workers are responsible for what goes on in the highest, most rarefied financial hosiery.
The echelons of U.S. finance is ridiculous.
They're clearly not to blame.
Some janitor in a public school in France is not responsible for the decisions made at the top level of Goldman Sachs and other companies.
So since the workers are not responsible for the recession, then you can't ask them to pay for the loss of government income as a result of the recession.
It's not the workers' fault. They shouldn't be expected to pay.
So it's something like that. And that is a really remarkable statement.
It's a really, really remarkable statement.
So, for instance, if you were to go to the average Worker in the public sector or the private sector, but let's just say the public sector within France.
And you were to say, Madame or Monsieur, do you think that the government should regulate the business world?
They would say, mais oui, but yes, of course.
And now let me get back to blackening my insides with this guitar.
And... They would say, yeah, government, of course, public sector unions are all about the government running things, the government having control and all of that, right?
And that to me is pretty significant.
So if you throw your lot in with the government, then you kind of throw your lot in with the government.
It doesn't really matter who you vote for.
Whoever you're voting for, you're still saying the government is the solution.
Even if you're voting for somebody who wants to reduce the size and power of government, you're saying that it is the role of government to reduce the size and power of the government.
You're still looking to the government for a solution to social problems.
And so it's hard for me to understand why somebody who throws their lot in with the government as the solution to social problems, and certainly if you're in the public sector, whether you're in France or anywhere, you're throwing your lot in with the government as the monopoly service provider for whatever you're in, right? Whatever, you know, if you're in...
Police or firefighters or teachers, public sector teachers, you're looking at the government as the monopoly provider for your service.
So you've thrown your lot in with the government.
You're in with the government.
If you vote, if you are heavily involved in politics, if you volunteer, if you donate, you're saying the government is the solution to the problem.
Not I, and I hope, at least after this many podcasts, less likely you, I say that the solution to social problems is to raise children peacefully and reasonably and rationally and without aggression.
And that is how we end up with a free society.
I've thrown my lot in with parenting, and I've thrown my lot in with being a relatively staunch advocate for adult victims of child abuse and reminding them that adult relations are voluntary and...
You should attempt to repair things with an abusive family, but you're free to walk if it doesn't work out, if that's what you prefer.
So I've thrown my lot in with volunteerism in the personal sphere, and I have completely abandoned the idea I got some emails recently about, hey, Steph, what are you going to do about the G20 summit?
What are you going to protest? No, not even a little.
But if you've thrown your lot in, even if you're a Ron Paul Toten libertarian, you've thrown your lot in that it is not parenting and peace in personal relationships that builds a better world.
It is the government that needs to pass laws to unpass laws that should not have been passed according to your view of the Constitution.
So, you're saying the government is the solution.
So, to my mind...
If you've thrown your lot in, at whatever level, with the statement, the government is the solution.
The government is the solution to the provision of dispute resolution services or courts or prisons or roads or welfare or retirement benefits or whatever.
If you've thrown your lot in with the government as a solution, I don't really get to see how you get to pick and choose all of that stuff.
I mean, if you've thrown your lot in with the government as a solution, then you've thrown your lot in with the government as a solution to the problems of the finance industry.
Pick and choose, right?
You can't pick and choose. I mean, you can, but it just looks ridiculous if you do it, right?
And so if you said, well, the government is a solution for me as a janitor or whatever in France, the government is a solution...
To the problems of job security, to my retirement, to my benefits, to my health care, to my children's education, to the roads, to the water supply, to whatever.
I don't really get to see how you say, well, when the government does something that I don't agree with, or the government does something that I agreed with but failed, but which failed, I don't get to see how you get to say, well, it's got nothing to do with me now.
Nothing to do with me.
Nothing to do with me now.
Yeah, okay, so I approved of the solution the government should regulate.
The financial industry.
Oh, yes, and I also approved of the solution.
The government should have a monopoly over finance.
And oh, yes, I approved of the solution that the government should regulate interest rates.
And even if you'd never thought of this consciously, everybody knows what people would have said, particularly French goddamn public sector workers would have said if we'd have said, hey, let's privatize currency.
Hey, let's privatize interest rates.
Hey, let's privatize banks.
Hey, let's privatize...
They would have said, no! Or, no!
And so you threw your lot in with the government.
And so if the government fucks everything up, and you threw your lot in with the government, of course it's your fault!
Of course it's your fault!
Because you threw your lot in with the government.
And if the government can't pay What it promised you, and if the government is heading towards bankruptcy, and if the government can't supply what it said it was going to supply, well, you said that the government was the solution, and you vociferously and violently and probably repetitively rejected every other solution that could be conceived of, every peaceful and voluntary solution.
So you threw your lot in with the gun!
And if you throw your lot in with the gun, and the gun, no worky, it's your fault!
It's your fault. It's your fault.
So, yeah. French public sector workers are responsible for the recession because they relied upon the government for their income, for their healthcare, for the education of their children, for their retirement packages, for their benefits, for all of these wonderful things.
And they said the government should control the currency and the interest rates and the financial markets and, and, and.
And then it completely fucked it up.
So, yeah. You don't just get to bet on red 22 and only pick up your winnings when it comes up plus.
You also have to take your losses when it comes up nothing or loss.
So yeah, of course it's your fault.
Now, I will say that there's one exception to that rule, which we can talk about now.
So these people may say, well, you see, I'm not responsible for the losses, but I am responsible for the gains in my dealings with the state.
So these are public sector workers whose unions have lobbied heavily and extensively and aggressively for benefits taken from the public purse over and above what they have paid in.
So, they have steadfastly refused to demand that the government set up bank accounts for them, take a portion of their salary, invest it in conservative investments, and give them the amount of money that that produces when they retire.
An ironclad locked-in savings plan.
They've steadfastly refused that.
Why? Because any idiot could do that, right?
Any idiot can sign a piece of paper with his bank saying, slice off this amount of money invested in conservative investments or even just keep it in the bank at a couple of points of interest.
To have the government do that would be to introduce a vast political overhead to a very simple process of saving for your own goddamn retirement.
But they don't want to do that.
They don't like that. Why?
Because that's not theft.
So of course they're not going to like it.
What would be the point of paying yourself with the government as overhead, right?
That makes no sense at all.
That's just a net loss. So the whole reason that the public sector scams in California is going to hit like a freaking tsunami of Damascus, these overextended pension plans...
The whole reason to get the government involved is to steal from other people.
Of course, it's not simply savings of yours that you're paying for.
It's not simply deferred salary.
It's theft. Now, they must say that they are responsible for their money, because they lobbied hard to achieve it, they accepted it, they view themselves as owed it, as entitled to it, and therefore, they have responsibility for the gains.
And that's what they're clinging to.
And if anybody tries to cut back on those gains, it's like, no, no, no, those are ours, that's ours.
Ours, mine, is that which I have responsibility for because I've earned or traded or created or something.
It's my responsibility, therefore it's mine.
My arm is my responsibility, which is why if I stab someone with a dagger held in my hand, I don't get to say, put my hand in jail, I walk free, right?
Because I am responsible for my hand.
It is mine and I'm responsible for it.
So ownership is responsibility.
So they can't say, you owe us these pensions, we're responsible for these pensions.
We have, we own, we are entitled to these pensions.
But then, when the entity that is used to thief from others runs out of money, as all thieving entities eventually do, to say, we have no responsibility in this matter is ridiculous.
It's embarrassing. It's retarded.
And, of course, it's very smart, right, in terms of manipulating the gullible.
But it's exactly the same as a gambler saying, hey, I have responsibility.
I own what I win.
I just don't have any responsibility when I come up snake eyes, when I lose.
Well, that's the whole point, right?
The whole point is that responsibility goes both ways.
Responsibility is responsibility.
For a gambler to say, I have responsibility when I win, I get to keep what I win, and others must pay what I lose, is ridiculous.
It would be a ridiculous thing to hear a gambler say.
It's like a drunk saying, I am responsible for my driving when I am sober, but I am not responsible for my driving when I am drunk.
Well, try that if you get pulled over with more than the permitted blood alcohol in your system.
Now, they could say, well, I like that the government does this, i.e.
pays me more than I could possibly have put in myself, but I don't like that the government does that, i.e.
refuse to honor commitments that were mathematically and statistically impossible from the get-go for the long run.
The math is very simple.
There's no conceivable way that the government was going to be able to pay off its obligations.
But that's ridiculous. It's exactly like the gambler saying, I like it when I win, I don't like it when I lose.
Well, of course you like it when you win, and of course you don't like it when you lose.
Of course you don't. But gambling is gambling is gambling.
If you roll the dice, you walk into the casino, you slap your chips down on the table, you roll your dice, you take your freaking chances.
That's the way the game works.
You throw in with the state, you throw in with the gun, you throw in with the laws, you throw in with the politicians, you throw in with the fiat currency, you throw in with the managed economy, with the socialism, with the national debt, with the manipulation of currency, with the manipulation of interest rates, with the manipulation of the money supply, and with the supposed control of financial institutions and the manipulation of the housing market.
You throw in with that whole thing, you're just rolling your dice on the table.
And for people to say, well, I'm not responsible when it comes up snake eyes, when the theft no longer works, that's ridiculous.
I mean, picture this, right?
Picture one of these. It's funny, but it's not, right?
Picture one of these. The idea just struck me.
Picture one of these public sector unions in France or anywhere.
One of these guys, the head of the public sector union, right?
Let's say he's got some injury insurance, right?
And he, I don't know, he breaks an arm and he's supposed to get $5,000 for breaking his arm.
He's got some injury insurance. And he breaks his arm and he calls this injury insurance company and they say, oh, we're not going to pay you now.
Because we only like it when you don't get injured.
We only like it when you pay the premiums and don't get injured.
We don't like it. When you break your arm or get injured and want your payment.
No, we're not responsible for that.
We're responsible for the money that you pay us.
We'll take the money. We own the money that you pay us for this insurance, but we're not responsible for paying it out.
Can you imagine what this guy would say?
He would fulminate. He would go on a mad tirade.
He would blog till his fingers fell off.
Well, I guess on one arm while he could type.
But he would consider this a gross injustice, a miscarriage of vile capitalism, because the company would only take responsibility for being paid.
It would not take responsibility for paying out.
Which meant that the whole thing was a scam and it was unjust and why have I been paying and blah, blah, blah.
But that's exactly the same principle when they say, well, we're not responsible for the government failing to pay the money that it promised us.
Well, you threw your lot in with an excess of money being paid to you by a thieving and aggressive and violent government.
So when the government comes up snake eyes, how can you conceivably, rationally say that you're not responsible?
I mean, that's a ridiculous thing to say.
Last example. They're crowding out my brain and I want to dump a few just before I get home.
It's just before the Sunday show.
Public school teacher says, I'm not responsible when the government can't pay me the huge amount of money that I was bribed with in order to get my vote.
I'm not responsible for that.
that.
I have to get paid, no matter what.
I was responsible, and I took action and supported my union when they wanted to get me all this unjust coin, but when the government fails to pay it out, I'm not responsible, and I'm owed everything.
Well, that's like a student saying, I will take all the A's and B's, but none of the C's and D's get counted on my marks.
This is Because that's the way you're operating, right?
I want all the benefits of the good stuff, but I'm going to take zero responsibility for any negative effects of the general policies I'm pursuing.
And if the student is then caught to be cheating, the metaphor becomes complete, because public sector salaries and benefits are a cheat, right?
They're a cancerous, vampiric theft off the private sector.
And so the student cheats, right?
And he gets all these A's, and then he gets caught cheating.
And he says, well, clearly I'm not responsible for the cheating, and I'm not going to take any bad grades, and you certainly as hell better keep giving me the good grades that I was expecting to get through my cheating, even though I've been caught, because I'm not responsible for the bad grades I've got coming up.
Because I wasn't the one who caught me.
I'm not responsible for being caught because I didn't want to get caught.
Somebody else is responsible for catching me, so penalize them, not me.
Well, of course, they've all been caught by reality.
Back to life.
Back to reality.
So, it's not going to make a damn bit of difference, because this is all ex post facto justification for kind of a theft, but it is interesting to see the ridiculous logic that is put forward by these guys in order to hang on to their unjust benefits.
▲
Export Selection