Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 24, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:47:50

1839 Freedomain Radio - Live on Truth Transmission

The madness of Obama's State of the Union speech, Zetigeist: Moving Forward, the sociopathy of political power, the riots in Egypt and the death of statism.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, good evening, everybody, and welcome to Truth Transmission.
	I am your host, Jake Kettle.
	It's a pleasure to have all of you with us tonight, as always.
	Tonight's guest is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	He has been on the Alex Jones Show, and he's done several interviews.
	He also runs his own show, which is on Sunday nights, and you guys can go check him out at www.freedomainradio.com.
	And he has a YouTube channel.
	It's youtube.com forward slash StephBot.
	And there are loads and loads of great video on there.
	And I watched a lot of them, and I really enjoy them.
	So, Stefan, welcome to the program.
	Thank you very much, Jake.
	It's great to be here. So, I've watched a lot of your videos, and I think you make a lot of good points.
	And you describe yourself as an anarchist, is that correct?
	I describe myself as a philosopher.
	Anarchism is one of the principles or conclusions that I accept out of the rational application of consistent principles.
	I try not to define myself by my conclusions.
	Like a biologist doesn't say he's a Darwinist, he says, I'm a scientist, and Darwinism or evolution is one of the things that I accept out of my application of the scientific method.
	The application of rational philosophy leads one inexorably, and in my case, kicking and screaming, it leads one inexorably towards a state and society.
	It's the only consistent application of the non-aggression principle, so sorry for the long answer, but I'm sure you're used to those.
	Yeah, I have guests on to talk for three hours straight without taking a breath.
	Right. I inhaled through my ears.
	Well, I kind of want to get into my line of questioning now because I do have quite a few questions for you tonight and I just want to have a little dialogue.
	Obviously, the State of the Union was recently and Obama came out and he talked.
	I'm not his biggest fan.
	Which, you know, I don't think that you are either.
	So, what I'm trying to do here is I broke down the key points of the speech, and there are about four of them that I really want to get into.
	And I know that you're very familiar with these, and I know that you will be able to give a very good answer.
	So, the State of the Union address, overall, just in general, I mean, without even getting into the nuances of it, what is your opinion on the State of the Union?
	Well, it's a disaster.
	It is hanging by a thread above a chasm of fascism.
	It is an up-to-the-nose-in-frozen-water-Titanic moment for the Republic, and this Sputnik nonsense, Political language.
	Do you ever have this stuff?
	You go to a fair or something and you get candy floss.
	Do you ever have that? No, I haven't.
	It looks like a big cloud of pink sugar.
	Cotton candy.
	Cotton candy. Candy floss.
	It's really fascinating to watch it get made.
	You whisk it around this whisk and it comes out.
	It looks like food.
	It looks substantial almost.
	But you put it into your mouth, and after a little flash of sweet flavor, it evaporates.
	It's like it gets beamed up into the tooth decay of the Starship Enterprise or something.
	And that's what, I mean, Obama's a master of this kind of stuff.
	You got to hand it to him as far as like evil charismatic showmanship.
	He's got no equal in the known universe.
	So he comes up with these amazingly florid phrases that seem to have meaning.
	The American family, we're going to win the battle for tomorrow.
	It's like it reminds me of Clintons, we're going to build a bridge to the 21st century.
	It's like, I don't think We have to.
	I think it's going to arrive on its own.
	It's like there's a bus coming down the street and you say, I'm going to build a bridge to the bus.
	It's like, dude, wait, it'll come.
	We don't need to build a bridge to the 21st century.
	It's coming. Anyway, time marches on.
	It's on its way. So to me, it was just a wonderful exercise in cotton candy.
	And there is a place for optimism in this world.
	Being the President of the United States at the moment is not one of those places.
	It looks genuinely psychotic to me.
	But let's get into the four points and maybe we can flesh out some useful stuff.
	Alright, so the first thing is, I just want to start off by asking you about last year first, because I want to kind of lead up to the State of the Union.
	So last year, you know, there was the election.
	It was a big election. He was the first African-American, black, whatever words you want to use, president, right?
	So he's the first black president that the United States has ever seen.
	So... You know, that was a big milestone, and I think that's partially, in my opinion, one of the reasons that he won.
	Because, I mean, it was a big, big issue here in America.
	You know, a lot of people in certain parts of the country didn't want to have him because of his race, and others didn't want to have, you know, McCain.
	So what was your opinion on that election, just very briefly?
	Well, I mean, he is a...
	Truly sleek and well-groomed political animal.
	The man gives a speech.
	Which is incredibly seductive.
	I mean, it's like a reach around you can't even feel.
	You know, these velvet words roll down your chest and linger around your gizzards and next thing you know, you're waking up with a hooker's panties on your head with your wallet gone and you're, you know, missing your pants.
	So he is a passbuster of oratory, which is an incredibly dangerous skill to have.
	It's the art of making the worst argument, or in his case, no argument.
	So those weighty pauses, those significant looks, that brain-deadening confidence which is based on absolutely nothing.
	He is, the politicians are, you know those, I'm in the mood for metaphors tonight because it's a Friday night and I've had a coffee, but there's those anglerfish, you know, they're at the bottom of the ocean and what they do is they have this light that hangs over their jaws.
	Right? And it lures the little...
	Ooh, it's so pretty, you know?
	It lures... I've been watching Finding Nemo with my daughter about 12 million times, so it draws the fish in, and they go to this light as, oh, it's so pretty, and...
	You know, there's this horrible blood squirt and everything's gone.
	Well, oratory, or Obama, or politicians as a whole, they are the shiny light that draws you into the maw of the state.
	They appear to be well-groomed, they seem to be well-educated, they're very well-spoken, they project confidence, they're neat, they're, you know, they're...
	I mean, they are the distraction, right?
	There's two ways to steal from someone.
	You either stick a gun in their ribs and you take their wallet, or what you do is you have someone else bump up against them, and then you take their wallet when they go, hey, you bumped up.
	Politicians are the people who bump up against you, and you get distracted by them while the police and the military-industrial complex pick your wallet and your children's future clean.
	So, I mean, he's wonderful at this.
	I don't think race was as huge an issue as people think.
	There are some people who voted against him, because, I don't know, are you allowed to say mulatto history?
	He's not black. He's half black, half white.
	I mean, so you can sort of, calling him black is about as accurate as calling him white.
	There are some people who didn't vote for him because of his race, and there are other people who did vote for him because of his race, because, you know, they figured it was a progressive step to take.
	But he was by far the most competent candidate in the election, and I like to think that he won because of his political ability rather than because of his race, fundamentally.
	Now, as far as his policies, because, you know, he laid out policies last year, he's laying out more policies this year, and they're all big government policies, which obviously neither of us endorse.
	And his biggest, what the Democrats called a victory, this victory that they had was the health care bill.
	The victory of the health care bill, which I thought was a very sad point in American history to pass something like that...
	And what is your opinion on his policies, and especially that healthcare, because that was a really big thing last year.
	And that, in my opinion, I think the healthcare bill is going to contribute to the future of his administration and the future of the next election.
	Because people are going to look back on that and say, I liked it or I didn't like it.
	Yeah, I mean, look, the health care bill has nothing whatsoever to do with providing health care to the needy.
	I mean, to some degree, that at least is claimed to have been already done.
	Medicare and Medicaid should have taken care of that, as should have Social Security and or welfare and or an emergency room, which can't turn you away.
	But I mean, Medicare is a complete disaster.
	I mean, people who have cancer on Medicare have the same survival rates of people who have no insurance whatsoever.
	I mean, it's a complete disaster, wretched for the poor.
	And these entitlement programs trap the poor into this underworld of Squalid privilege, you know, where it's just no longer worth it to try and get out of it because you lose your entitlements.
	It is a soft, fluffy, evil net that lands on the poor and keeps them under the boots of society.
	So it's wretched that way. The healthcare bill was...
	About what government programs are always about, which is you need to be able to give people new goodies when you are the new administration.
	And for the right, it generally tends to be the military-industrial complex.
	And for the left, it tends to be the social programs.
	So you have to create big new programs when you come into power.
	Because you have to be able to, the king is the king because he hands out goodies.
	So you have to be able to give out new goodies when you get into power and that's partly what the healthcare bill was all about.
	There's no money for it.
	The states are all bankrupt.
	It is ridiculous that people have to pay for everything under the sun.
	When you have an insurance premium in the United States, when you have an insurance package for Medicare, sorry, for medical care, you should obviously be able to choose that which is appropriate for you.
	So if you're 20, what you want is, I broke my toe I'm pretending I'm not old at the moment.
	But that's what you want.
	You don't care about glaucoma and cancer.
	You probably don't, right? And you certainly don't care about fertility treatments.
	Well, I do. I mean, I smoke, so I care about the cancer.
	Yeah, but not at your age, right?
	No, not yet. So if you're going to get cancer, it's going to be in 30 or 40 years, at which point, you know, at some point before then, you're up your premiums.
	But everybody... Who has any kind of medical complaint wants to get their medical complaint written into a have-to for a medical insurance policy.
	So if you're a group of 40-year-old women, you desperately want to get the government to force everyone to buy insurance or treatments for infertility.
	Why? Because if you can get everyone to buy it, it's a hell of a lot cheaper for you.
	And so one of the main reasons that healthcare is so expensive in the US, other than the ridiculous monopoly of health services by doctors, like you really need somebody with 10 years of education to have you pee in a jar, run it through a machine, and give you some antibiotics.
	I mean, it's ridiculous. You could do that, like you just stick your junk into a vending machine and walk out with five pills and you're good to go.
	But then, of course, it's never going to happen the way it is.
	But every niche medical issue lobby has worked feverishly over the past couple of decades to get their little medical problems forced into.
	So if you buy insurance, you have to buy all of these ridiculous things that have nothing to do with you.
	And this is why people who are young don't want health insurance.
	I mean, the majority of people who don't have health insurance in the US don't have health insurance Because they don't want to pay for all this stupid stuff that happens to old people and happens to middle-aged people and doesn't happen to young people.
	I mean, there's six million reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the US, but those are some fundamental ones.
	This is not solved.
	This is only added to within the Obama bill.
	I mean, the Obama bill should have, of course, removed government controls and relinquished government power and returned things back to volunteerism, but they can't do that because the moment that any politician tries to touch an entitlement program, A great massive laser comes down from the lobbyist gods of the sky and vaporizes him until there's nothing left but some shiny capped teeth and a greasy hairdo.
	So there's just no conceivable way that they can touch.
	All they can ever do is expand.
	It's a cancer. So it had nothing to do with making people better, and that's not going to be the effect.
	All it's going to do is finally bankrupt the states, allowing the federal government to take over more and to try and get socialized medicine in 100%, which would be the next step.
	So, yeah, I mean, people think it's something to do with healthcare.
	The facts are simply that it's not.
	Let me just take one quick second.
	Actually, one of a good friend of mine and one of our viewers is in the room right now.
	You're from Canada, is that correct?
	I am. Well, Vancouver, British Columbia.
	We have someone from Vancouver, British Columbia in the room.
	And I have to say, he is a bleeding heart liberal.
	So you guys are totally opposite.
	A great guy, a really great guy.
	I like him a lot, but he is a bleeding heart liberal.
	So very different worldviews we have here.
	No, no. See, I don't think it is very different.
	And let me just take two seconds for the shout out to the fellow Canuck.
	I'm in the Canadian tax farm, too.
	I don't think it's separate worldviews at all.
	I think that your friend is doubtless enormously interested in making healthcare as cheap and as available and as effective as humanly possible in the world.
	There's no sane human being who's not neck deep in evil, who wants to find some way to keep healthcare away from the most needy.
	And so he and I and all reasonable people of goodwill are all on the same side.
	We all want healthcare and incomes and insurance and pensions to be as widely available, as sustainable as humanly possible.
	The question is, do we use violence to achieve that end or not?
	As somebody who wants to use violence, I do not consider moral.
	Most people, when they look at government programs, do not see the violence that is inherent within those government programs because there's a lot of propaganda around it and we're raised in public schools which never talk about it and so on.
	But violence is the essence of the state.
	And so if people think that violence can be used to solve social problems in a sustainable manner, violence can solve social problems in the short run in the same way that A gun to your ribs can solve someone else's income problem for the next day or two, but it cannot solve things effectively in the long run, which is why governments are running more and more heavily into debt.
	And what the hell is going to happen to all of these poor people who've set their entire life direction Upon the existence of the social programs and of healthcare that is cheap or free for them, when states can no longer pay those bills, what is going to happen to those poor people?
	That's the part that is always glossed over.
	Yeah, you can take a whole bunch of people's money and shovel it at doctors and get them to treat the poor, but so what?
	You can take heroin to be happy, but it doesn't mean that your happiness is going to be sustainable.
	Right. And I want to go into more of your actual hard, you know, the core philosophy a little later.
	But I kind of want to get back to, you know, and I agree with you on the healthcare, and I think that a lot of my viewers understand that.
	Some may disagree, but the next one that I want to go into...
	Let's just hit the State of the Union.
	I want to go because this is the present.
	We're in the present now. This is the State of the Union, and he just addressed us.
	We're going to do education, right?
	Oh, yeah. Absolutely, we are.
	Absolutely. And like I said, we have two hours here.
	You can take as long as you want or as little as you want.
	And I have that on the third page of my name.
	The first part is the freeze on domestic spending that he wants to put.
	And it's, you know, I was reading some notes on able to reduce deficit by 400 billion over the next decade is what he claims by putting a freeze on domestic.
	Sorry, I just I can't ever hear this stuff without it.
	Just sounding like something out of a Looney Tunes cartoon.
	You know what strikes me?
	It's like some guy runs full tilt, boogie, off a cliff, right?
	And he's hanging there like the Flintstones in midair, and then he says, freeze!
	As if that's going to do anything other than have him freeze in one particular outline down to the rocks below.
	400 billion dollars Over the next 10 years, only chipped off the deficit?
	I mean, I don't even know what to say.
	That's insane. That's so insane that you can only assume that Americans don't know the difference between a billion and a trillion.
	Like, all they do is they look at the numbers and say, well, our deficit is 13 trillion, and he's talking about 400.
	400 is bigger than 13, so I guess we're in the money!
	That's all I can think that people are thinking.
	They're not actually looking at the difference between the B and the TR, but it seems like quite a bit of a difference.
	There is a big difference.
	That was one of the points that I definitely wanted to throw out there.
	He does want to put a freeze on domestic spending.
	He wants to freeze it.
	He wants to cryogenically freeze domestic spending.
	But you can't cut it.
	I'm sorry. He's right.
	You can't cut it. You can't.
	So let's say that the government fires half its workers tomorrow.
	Well, what are they going to do? All they're going to do is apply for unemployment insurance.
	So they don't save any money.
	And then the unions stage all of these wildcat strikes and shut down the electricity grid and they drive trucks at 10 miles an hour along the highway and rush hour and the whole economic system.
	They can't cut. They can't cut.
	It's way too late for that.
	All right. Well, let's move on to the next one.
	And he said that he talked a little bit about the national deficit.
	And I think this is like beating a dead horse because the national debt is so high.
	I mean, what else are you going to do?
	I mean, where can we go other than getting rid of the state or minimizing the state?
	Well, they're just going to default.
	They're going to default to foreign lenders.
	And they're going to default on their obligations to the most vulnerable in society.
	There's no question of that. I mean, in all seriousness, it's going to be very bad.
	The government is not going to...
	The people at the top, the rulers, the elites, the ruling political classes, they're not going to let the system fail.
	It's far too lucrative for them.
	All they're going to do is they're going to cull the herd.
	They're going to say, holy crap, we have way too many dependents upon the government.
	And they're going to talk all kinds of stirring speeches about we need to pull together in this crisis and double up and you're going to have to learn to enjoy the taste of cat food because we're all in it together.
	And it's all madness.
	They're just going to cut all of these entitlement programs.
	They're going to... You know, risk all of that stuff and tell people basically to suck it up.
	They're going to declare a war on the deficit like they had a war on poverty and illiteracy and war on drugs.
	And they're going to try and get everyone to pull together like it's a second world war against imaginary fiat currency debt madness.
	And it's going to be completely brutal.
	And they're going to have to be very aggressive with the people who aren't happy with this.
	But this is, I mean, this is inevitable.
	It's happened before. Until we get over the addiction to statism, it's going to keep happening.
	And that's what we have. We have an addiction to statism.
	We become so, so dependent on the state.
	And there are some people who think that that's okay.
	That it's okay to be a slave to the state.
	And there was one comment, and this wasn't in the State of the Union, but it just came to me that he said a few months back that really got to me.
	I'm a big gun guy.
	I love guns. I own guns.
	I shoot guns. I hunt.
	All that stuff. I'm really into it.
	And he said, America's bitter clingers.
	And I didn't know how to interpret that statement when it came to the guns.
	He says bitter clingers?
	It's a reference to a speech that he made, I can't remember where, where he said that it wasn't a public speech, it was a private comment, I think, where he said that there are people in middle America and the South who cling to their guns and cling to their religion because there's not much else for them.
	That's what he's referring to.
	Yeah, and I didn't really like that too much.
	Because I'm not a religious person.
	I'm not a hardcore evangelical Christian, but I do like my guns.
	I think that's sort of a sad comment to make, I think, in a free and open society.
	Well, I mean, it's completely bizarre to me that a man who is the commander-in-chief of the largest, most violent, destructive, and powerful military force the world has ever seen is criticizing someone else for liking guns.
	When he's prosecuting two illegal wars, causing the murder or continuing the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, that he's concerned about a guy with a hunting rifle, that's the person he's criticizing?
	It's like, hey, Obama, you put down your guns and maybe we'll put down ours.
	And I completely agree.
	So let me go back to the State of the Union.
	He said there were deep cuts to excessive...
	Where did it go?
	Oh, here we go. Call out to all the millionaires, okay?
	He asked them to give up tax breaks and said that a permanent tax cut extension is out of the question budget-wise.
	So what is your take on that one?
	Well, I mean, this is standard populist stuff.
	It goes back to the Greeks and the Romans, which is there's this fantasy that you can pay all of the bills of a decadent society by attacking those who have a little bit more money.
	And this plays very well to the middle class and it plays very well to the poor.
	It plays very well to the cheapest demons of human nature, which is the sleazy desire to get something for nothing.
	It's like, hey, you go get that guy in a top hat and you give me his watch and we'll call it social justice.
	Well, I mean, it is just theft.
	I mean, whether it's from rich or poor, it doesn't matter.
	It's theft.
	It is also to be ridiculous and inevitable that the government says that the problem is it doesn't have enough monies.
	See, that's the problem.
	The government says it doesn't have enough money.
	I mean, if you look throughout history, governments had to do with one hundredth or one thousandth the amount of Money that the American government has.
	It's like they used to say about public school education, government education, we just need more money!
	But nobody really says that anymore because it's so ridiculous how much is spent.
	$15,000, $20,000 or more per student per year.
	And of course, test scores have declined, as is inevitable.
	You put more money into a corrupt system, you get worse outputs, not better.
	So test scores and so on have declined.
	Government efficiency has declined.
	So the idea that it's like, well, we have more money than any other government in history has ever had.
	And we have almost no defense obligations, because we have friendly neighbors to the north and south, and we have oceans to the east and west, and we have nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
	So we have more money than any government has ever had in history.
	We have almost no requirement for national defense.
	But the problem is, we just don't have enough money.
	Well, that's, I mean, it's ridiculous, but it can only be sold to people who are looking for believable lies to justify their own desire to get something at somebody else's expense.
	And before I just do my advert, I just want to read you a comment in the room.
	Somebody said that you should debate Noam Chomsky.
	Yeah, but I would be happy to debate Noam Chomsky, though I think I may have to speak up a little.
	No, I shouldn't say that. I really like Noam Chomsky as far as his analysis of foreign policy goes.
	I think he's just a stone-cold genius, and I think his ethics are fantastic, but I certainly have a problem with some of his anarchistic socialism.
	But anyway, that's neither here nor there.
	All right, well, let me just take a quick second here.
	Remember, guys, the show is sponsored by rightservers.com.
	That's www.rightservers.com.
	You can go there for all of your hosting needs.
	That is the server room from justin.tv actually runs that.
	So you guys should definitely check that out.
	The other one is make sure you guys watch The Truesdale Show.
	You can find them on Justin as well.
	That's www.justin.tv forward slash truesdale.tv.
	I think it's show at the end, yeah.
	And it's Derek Truesdale, and he does a show Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
	So definitely check him out as well.
	And remember, our guest is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	And you can go to his website, www.freedomainradio.com, and check out his YouTube channel.
	He has tons of great videos on there.
	I think I've watched them all.
	Sorry, let me just... I've got a better name for it.
	for it it's youtube.com forward slash free domain radio oh and i also want to mention my show is uh probably maybe it's sunday night where you are it's it's 2 p.m eastern standard time but people can just jump into the chat room to to talk philosophy uh either by skype or by phone or they can just type questions into the chat room all right sounds good so i make sure you go there and uh you know uh make a donation or give some support to uh stefan and uh it's great to have Like I said, I'm a big fan and I've been waiting to have you on for quite some time now.
	Well, I'm very glad to be here.
	So let's go to the last part of the State of the Union that I want to talk about, which is invest.
	Oh, education, please!
	It's not education. No, no.
	Education I'm getting to in the section where we're really going to go into your philosophy, because that's the big thing that I want to get in tonight, is your philosophy.
	So the first...
	Or the last thing I want to get into is invest.
	He's telling people to invest.
	He told people that innovation, education, and infrastructure are three big things that you need to invest on, and he asked Congress to lower the tax burden on corporations.
	So he's saying, you know, invest in innovation and education, and he's telling people to invest when they have no money, which is...
	Which I find sort of ironic.
	You don't have a dollar in your pocket, but I want you to invest anyway.
	What am I going to invest on a loan that I borrowed from the bank, which only puts us further in the hole?
	So what is your take on that one?
	Well, I mean, look, the...
	The reality is that it would be completely ridiculous for me to run for the head of the NAACP people with really big hair association because I'm really, really white, especially given that it's January in Canada.
	And I'm really, really bald.
	And the reality is that Obama has no clue what the economy is or how it runs.
	Neither do his advisors and neither do his economists.
	I mean, let's just look at the last couple of presidents.
	Obama, was he ever an entrepreneur in the free market?
	Did he ever actually create a single job in his lifetime?
	No. George Bush, the senior, no.
	I mean, the guy fell ass backwards into money.
	He was born on third base and thought he hit a home run.
	Bill Clinton, did he ever actually found a company and build jobs and work in the free market?
	No, of course not.
	So all of this stuff is complete madness.
	You can just keep going back.
	And Ross Perot, you know, he actually did do some of that, although he got a lot of government contracts.
	But Ronald Reagan, I mean, none of these people ever created a single job in their lifetime.
	And here they are, wielding around the massive bats and lightning rods of government power, thinking that they know how to create a job, a single job.
	And so, to me, it's just ridiculous.
	Running a complex economy, which is completely impossible, but let's say it was possible.
	Imagine if you applied to get the job as CEO of the American economy, which is the ultimate, quote, business job, and people say, okay, well, what's your resume?
	I was a community organizer, and I've written some papers on constitutional law.
	It's like, people would be like, what?!
	What are you talking about? You might as well get a guy selling pencils on the corner to apply to be chief of thoracic surgery and elsewhere.
	I mean, it's insane what people pass off as experience and knowledge and competence.
	Now, a sane human being would look at the job description called...
	Hold on one second, Steph. We're having a little technical difficulty here.
	I don't know what happened. Okay, guys.
	We're back here on Truth Transmission.
	I really, really apologize for that.
	I don't know what happened.
	I really screwed up this time.
	I do have an idea that what has happened before when I'm on shows is that there's too much spittle that's coming out as I'm ranting, and it can even short-circuit things from a significant distance.
	It's TCPIP spittle, which has quite a radius on the web, so that may have crashed to everything you've got.
	I was unaware of.
	It's an unknown ability, a little-known ability that I bring to the table, so sorry about that.
	Well, I'm happy. Whatever you bring to the table is perfect for me.
	Let me just make sure that all my systems are up again, and then we'll be ready to get back rolling, and they are.
	So, welcome back to the program.
	Again, this is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	For those of you who are just joining us, and I think that the government shut me down.
	They're not that competent.
	They end up crashing their own servers, I think.
	Yeah, right? So moving back to what I was talking about before, we were in the middle of talking about something and now I've… Oh, it was just about how these people have no business experience.
	Like if I would apply to be a doctor, the first people would say is, you know, have you been trained as a doctor?
	Do you have license? Do you have experience?
	Do you know what it means to cut into people?
	Or are you just really good at a butter knife and have played fruit ninja on your iPhone?
	Yeah. But somebody who applies to run an entire economy using the vast power of law and regulation and enforcement and imprisonment and taxes and tariffs and subsidies and foreign policy and currency controls and Federal Reserve fiat currency spewing, you'd say, well, do you have experience In any kind of economic growth engine.
	And of course none of these people do.
	Economists don't. Economists have spent their whole lives looking at books rather than actually being out in the free market.
	I mean look, I spent, and I don't mean to create an ethic that looks good on me, but I spent 15 years I just watched this Zeitgeist movie, the Moving Forward movie, and it's like, oh, dudes, come on, can you get one person in the film who's actually ever had a real job?
	If you're going to talk about the economy and the free market and capitalism, Zeitgeist, Moving Forward, is like a film about homosexuality that is entirely peopled by right-wing Christian homophobes.
	And they think that if the film is about being gay...
	Maybe you should have a gay person on it.
	I'm just saying. Maybe.
	Just one. You know, it's like having a film about the black experience filled with nothing but white cracker bread honkies.
	I mean, it's crazy.
	They're trying to talk about the free market and all they have on is professors who've never had a job in the free market and are protected from the free market by government subsidies and high barriers to entry through their unions.
	They have pundits who've never had a real...
	There's not one business person talking about the free market in a film that is all about the economy and the free market.
	I mean, it takes a special kind of delusion to not process that.
	If we're going to make a film about the free market, maybe we should have someone in who's actually spent some time in the free market.
	You know, I just think that's a reasonable thing to do.
	To expect. Anyway. Yeah.
	All right. So let's move into your philosophy because this is – no, no, no.
	Education. Oh, please, please, please.
	Just two seconds on education.
	All right. Two seconds, I promise.
	Okay. So Obama was all about, you know, we've got to get people into college.
	We've got to get people into college. Sorry, he doesn't sound quite like that.
	I can't do a good Obama because I still have my soul in my body.
	But he's all about we've got to get, you know, people into college because if we get into college, you see, it's going to be really, really, really good for the economy.
	Right? Right. Well, my only question is, who fracked up the entire economy?
	Like, who were the bond traders?
	Who were the executives in charge of things?
	Who were the economists?
	Who were the mathematical wizards who came up with all of these derivative, cluster fracked, kaleidoscopic, soul-sucking...
	You know, instruments of financial catastrophe.
	I mean, the people who completely steered the economy off a cliff were all incredibly educated people.
	I don't think a lack of education is the problem.
	I think a lack of morals, I think a lack of values is the problem and that's the natural result of government education because you can't ever have values, philosophy, ethics, virtue.
	You can't ever have that taught in a government school.
	Why? Because if you teach Rational, secular, scientific, skeptical, philosophical atheism, you drive all of the Christians and the Muslims and the Jews insane, right?
	And if you teach a Christian fundamentalist eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, nature red and tooth and claw, and God blows up the whole world and drowns everyone, then you really annoy all of the secularists.
	So whatever you do in the government, and this is why government education is so fundamentally boring, its greatest crime is not misinformation but being boring, because that means That learning becomes boring.
	80% of American households did not buy a book last year.
	46% of college graduates never ever pick up a book after they have graduated.
	The Lincoln debates from the 19th century, the Lincoln debates for presidency, were at a grade 11 and grade 12 level.
	George Bush Sr. spoke at a grade 6 level.
	Are you serious? This comes from Empire Evolution.
	It's a book that a listener sent to me.
	Can I read you that short passage?
	Yeah, it's well worth looking at.
	Let me just get this here.
	Okay. The Princeton Review analyzed the transcripts of the Gore-Bush debates of 2000, the Clinton-Bush-Perot debates of 92, Kennedy-Nixon debates, Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, before public government education when there was an over 95% literacy rate in the US. Literacy rate in the US now is completely insane.
	There are 7 million illiterate Americans.
	Another 27 million are unable to read well enough to complete a job application, and 30 million Americans can't read a single sentence.
	There are some 50 million who read at a 4th or 5th grade level.
	Nearly a third of the nation's population is illiterate or barely literate.
	A figure that is growing by more than 2 million every year.
	A third of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.
	So in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln spoke at the educational level of an 11th grader.
	Douglas addressed the crowd using a vocabulary suitable For a high school graduate.
	In the Kennedy-Nixon debates, the candidates spoke in a language accessible to 10th graders.
	In the 92 debates, Clinton spoke at a 7th grade level, while Bush spoke at a 6th grade level, as did Perot.
	During the 2000 debates, Bush spoke at a 6th grade level, and Gore at a high 7th grade level.
	Government education has resulted in a collapse of American literacy.
	So the idea that we need more government education is just a way of saying, let's take more of the nail guns of irrelevancy and boredom and shoot them straight into the skulls of the tender kids of the future.
	Nothing angers me more than people talking about the virtues of government education or the very idea that somehow the poor will be denied education if we don't force them into these indoctrination camps.
	It's just a crime. It is just a crime.
	I couldn't agree with you more. So let's get into your philosophy, and we'll go back to education.
	Oh, I'm so sorry to interrupt you.
	Just an annoying correction.
	I really, really hope it's not my philosophy.
	I hope it's just philosophy.
	Like, there's no such thing as Carl Sagan's science.
	There's either just science or not.
	So it's either good philosophy or it's not good philosophy, but I sure hope it's not mine.
	It's good philosophy. I think it is.
	So let's get into the current issues.
	I want to get your take on a couple of current issues, and then I want to go into the philosophy that you advocate.
	I think that's a better way to put it.
	So, the current issues.
	Let's talk about—first, I want to get into the military, because the military is a big thing that people talk about.
	I am against both wars.
	I think they're illegal.
	I think that—I'm one of those 9-11 truth guys, you know?
	Whether or not you agree with that, I don't know, but— Well, sorry, 9-11 is a spectrum from the official story, which I certainly don't believe because it's the official story.
	It's automatically not believable.
	All the way through to space aliens, beamed up the captains or something like that.
	So I'm sure that you and I would be pretty far away from the official version.
	But where we would end up along the continuum may be different, but I'm certainly completely skeptical of the official version.
	Well, all right. But anyway, let's not get pulled off into 9-11, if we don't mind.
	I just wanted to sort of mention that for people, because I get asked that quite a bit.
	But it's not a philosophical question.
	It's a question of engineering, and it's a question of evidence, and eventually, hopefully, it will be a question of jurisprudence.
	But it's not a philosophical question in terms of, like, the abstract ethics or something like that.
	So this – the war in Iraq I believe was unconstitutional.
	I think it was illegal. I think it was simply ridiculous.
	The same goes for the war in Afghanistan.
	I think that what we're doing in both of these countries is we're trying to nation-build, and that sort of ties into our foreign policy.
	I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy.
	We don't go into your country and topple your government, and you don't come over to our country and topple our government, but if we try to, we will defend our nation.
	Now, what is your take on our current foreign policy and the wars that are costing us so much money and that are killing many, many, many American soldiers who, in my opinion, are dying in vain?
	Well, I mean, they are immoral beyond words.
	They are evil beyond words, and the future will look upon...
	America's invasion of other countries.
	And of course, remember, America's kind of founded on invasion, right?
	It was an invasion upon the Native Americans.
	There was massive land grabs from Mexico and France and other places.
	So, you know, America's sort of carved out of domination.
	And I mean, that's true of all countries.
	I'm not trying to pick on America for that, but I don't think that's been particularly well processed.
	People look back upon the glorious days of the old republic as if there weren't slaves and women and children and Native Americans who weren't exactly having as much fun as everybody else.
	But it's stone evil beyond words, but it is absolutely inevitable that these kinds of misadventures are going to occur in a state of society.
	People mistake what happens in a status society for something to do with human nature and it's not.
	What happens is government is free evil.
	Government is you get to lobby and cajole and bribe people with campaign donations and then a mysterious magic, a devil dark magic happens somewhere over the horizon And then all of this money magically shows up in your bank account.
	You don't have to go out and take the money by force from people.
	You don't have to look into children's eyes as you sell off their future to foreigners.
	You don't have to do anything.
	It's all abstract. It's all removed.
	It's free evil. And because of that, people will just do it.
	Like, most people would never steal.
	They wouldn't take a gun and go and steal or rob from a store.
	But if a Brinks truck explodes and there are $100 bills floating all the way through the sky, How many of us are going to say, well, I can't take any of those because that would be wrong when everyone else is grabbing it because it's just a weird occurrence.
	So these kinds of wars, these kinds of predations, these kinds of invasions will happen because the people who start them and the people who profit for them are not responsible for their costs.
	It's all profit and no loss for them.
	And those kinds of imbalanced incentives are always going to hit the pedal to the metal on the fuel of evil from here to eternity until we get rid of this system.
	Alright, so now you believe that pure capitalism and no state is a solution and is a viable solution.
	Sorry to be annoying, just to be particularly precise.
	The word capitalism is like the word anarchy.
	It's sort of a loaded term and people think that what we have now is capitalism.
	But it's not. No, of course not.
	I mean what we have now is fascism feasting on the dying remnants of freedom.
	And what I would say is that I am for two principles which are inescapable philosophically.
	The first principle is the non-aggression principle.
	Thou shalt not initiate force against others.
	And the second is the respect for self-ownership.
	And the results of self-ownership are inevitably property rights, in that we are responsible for the effects of our actions, be they good or evil or material.
	And so property rights, self-ownership property rights, and the non-initiation of force These are the only philosophical virtues that are necessary for a free and functional society and a peaceful and prosperous society, a society without war, with almost no poverty, with almost no crime.
	And these are the only consistent, logical, moral positions that you can hold.
	And this is how we all live in our own personal lives, right?
	You didn't hold me hostage in order to get me on the show.
	I didn't hold you hostage in order to get...
	I don't think that you have hooded SWAT teams going in through people's windows and getting them to your website.
	It's all voluntary. This is how we live, how you and I live, how all the listeners live, how we go and get a job.
	We don't go and kidnap the guy's kids and say, you give me the job or they're...
	I mean, you don't do any of this kind of stuff.
	You deal with people in your life on a peaceful and voluntary basis.
	So what's good for you and me and everybody listening is good for everyone.
	All we have to do is take the personal ethics that we live by and say, hey, what if this was just everyone, everything?
	Then there's no governments, there's no guards, there's no tyrannies.
	We're all using peace and there will be occasional crazy violent people for sure, but at least we're not going to give them armies and nuclear weapons.
	Right, exactly. So there are a lot of concerns with that, and obviously a lot of people are fighting a philosophical war against globalization.
	I know I am.
	I know somebody like Alex Jones is and David Icke.
	I don't know if you know David Icke or any of his works.
	It's not Icky? No, I guess I wouldn't go by Icky either.
	So yeah, Ike. It's Ike.
	He's the guy who talks about the lizard people from the center of the earth and all that sort of stuff.
	You may not want to lead off with that as somebody that you're thinking.
	Anyway, it doesn't matter. I know very little about him.
	I think I saw him in a Richard Dawkins video once.
	That's about it. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	He has been in several films with Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.
	But anyway, a lot of people have a concern with this – with pure capitalism, which is for lack of a better term.
	Because they say, well, if we allow pure capitalism to rule our society, what's going to happen is that we're going to have monopolies and corporations are going to take over.
	Defense companies are going to screw us over.
	They're going to hold us hostage for our food and all these different things.
	I mean these corporations are going to hold us hostage for our food, and that is a big, big thing.
	issue for a lot of people when it comes down to talking about something like this.
	So what is your response to somebody who is afraid that monopolies will dominate the market as opposed, you know, because they think that they need the government.
	They need the government to say, you can't have a monopoly.
	What is your...
	Well, I mean, look, I mean, there's a lot of propaganda about this, and I try not to get impatient with people because, you know, you've got to ease people out of the matrix a little bit.
	But the reality is, of course, it only takes a moment of thought.
	A moment's thought to say, well if monopoly is a bad thing, what is government?
	Government is a complete monopoly.
	Government is a monopoly such as Microsoft could never dream of.
	Government is a pure, coercive, violent, oligarchical, hierarchical, throw people in jail, indoctrinate kids, start wars, torture and deny services to people they don't like and call for the execution of people like Julian Assange.
	It is a complete and total monopoly, the kind of monopoly that the mafia couldn't even dream about because they still have competing people going in and out of their territory.
	So if monopoly is bad, the first thing we need to look at is, okay, what's the largest, most violent, most dangerous monopoly in the world at the moment?
	Individual governments. So to me, the idea that we need to create a vast, powerful, like, omnipotent, relative to any individual, the government is completely omnipotent, that we need to create some massive, omnipotent, violent monopoly populated by seriously mentally disturbed people, give it all the weapons in the world, and we solve the problem called monopoly.
	I mean, Let's say that there isn't, but let's say there was some possibility that you get rid of the government and then in a couple of generations maybe there's some other company that tries to become a new government or whatever.
	Well, those people will be smart.
	They'll figure it out. They'll see.
	But even if it did work, so we get a couple of generations free.
	I mean, that's like people saying, well, you know, I do have a tumor and I went to the doctor and the doctor said, well, you know, we can operate and we can get rid of this tumor like right away.
	But unfortunately, in 30 or 40 years, there's a risk that the tumor might come back.
	Maybe. And maybe we can treat it then, I don't know, because it's 30 or 40 years from now.
	Would people actually say, no, don't operate on the tumor because I will be healthy for 30 or 40 years, but then there's a small chance that the tumor might come back.
	No, no, no, no. We all would say, get the damn thing out of me.
	I'll take my chances 30 or 40 years from now.
	What I want is for the tumor not to kill me tomorrow.
	Right? So, and the other thing I would say, and it's a big topic, and if people want, there's a free book that I've written called Practical Anarchy, which is available at freedomainradio.com forward slash free.
	The last thing I'll say is, look, people who think that some defense agency of the future will just suddenly produce all of these magical black helicopters and caterpillars with laser beams or whatever they imagine, they've never run a company.
	They've never run a company. Look, I'm no business genius, but I was a chief technology officer.
	I was a chief marketing officer.
	I've sat on boards. I've sat and presented to investors.
	I've advised people. The reality is that you can't do it if you're a corporation.
	Because the moment that you start building up an army, you've got to pay for it somehow.
	And the only way you can pay for it is either go to people and borrow a bunch of money, which dilutes your existing shareholders.
	They're going to get pissed and say, well, what the hell are you doing?
	Why do you need all this extra money for?
	Oh, because I want to build a robot army of laser mice and take over the world.
	People will say, well, you know, we may be going to adjust your meds, but we're not going to give you these loans, right?
	Or you have to go to your customers and say, hey, guess what?
	Your bills for my defense services are going up 300%.
	And people will say, well, why?
	It's like, uh...
	I can't tell you, but don't worry, it's nothing bad.
	People are going to say, well, thank you.
	No, I think I'll go to your competitor down the road for my protection because I just don't want to pay your rates.
	So then all their customers leave and the company goes out of business.
	I mean, when people are free to choose their provider, the provider...
	Can't just magically wheel into existence a massive army of a million people and take over a well-armed population.
	It would be so obvious to everyone because the price signals would be so clear or the dilution of the shares would be so clear that everybody would immediately know that some crazy shite was going on and would immediately stop doing business with the company.
	There's all these checks and balances and volunteerism that we can't understand very easily because we're just in a state system the whole time.
	Let me – before I start taking some callers, which I am going to do in about five, ten minutes, I want to go into a few more things here.
	You put this idea forth called human farming, and I've watched a video on it, and I really, really like the way you explain that.
	Could you sort of give my viewers an overview of your opinion on that human farming and how the state really works?
	And I think that's important for them to understand.
	Sure, sure. Well, I mean, I'm actually working on a book at the moment called Human Farming, a Handbook for Political Masters, which is a sort of tongue-in-cheek introduction to the concept for people going into politics.
	But very briefly, right, you know, human beings should really be viewed as resources.
	For the ruling class.
	If you want to understand where you live, you think of a map of the world.
	You've got all these countries in different colors.
	They're just farms. And they're farms where you breed your livestock and you do that by encouraging them to get married and all these romantic comedy films and everybody should be having sex and having babies and oh, they're so cute and so on.
	And so you encourage your livestock to breed and then you take the children as soon as you can from the parents and you do that by forcing both parents to work through high taxation which is great because you get to tax both people and you get to raise their kids in government-run daycares or government-controlled daycares and then that gives you the chance to propagandize them.
	And then you get them in government schools where you propagandize them further because this is the domestication.
	Human beings, like Rousseau said, are born free but everywhere they're in chains.
	Enslaving a human being is a long and slow and difficult process because we so naturally and inevitably want to be free.
	My two-year-old daughter is going through her no phrase and phase and I can tell you that freedom is number one on her mind.
	And so you get kids out of school then and What happens in democracies, which is different from feudalism and is different from slavery, right?
	So in slavery, you directly own the human being and he goes and builds pyramids and he goes and plants crops for you and he cleans your floors and so on.
	And you get control over his body, but you don't get the creative fertility of his brain, right?
	So you can own a slave and you can tell him to do stuff, but he's not going to go out and invent an iPad for you.
	And then under the feudal model, you gave the slave sort of nominal ownership of land.
	And you taxed him or you charged him for grinding his grain or whatever.
	And that wasn't very productive either.
	It was more productive than slavery, but it was less productive than what came afterwards.
	In the Industrial Revolution and so on, what happened was some unnamed political master genius came up with the idea and said, okay, well, if we let the human livestock choose their own occupations, then we overcome the problem of motivation, right? Slaves have no motivation to improve things.
	Serfs or feudal vassals They have some motivation but not a huge amount.
	But if we let people be free, if we free their bodies and free their minds and we tax the effects, which is sort of wage and capital, then we'll get much more productive cattle.
	And so what happens is you give some relatively free property rights and human rights to people and you get this huge burst of economic growth and productivity in the 19th and early 20th century.
	And people become enormously profitable.
	And then you can use the future productivity of your livestock, of your citizens, to borrow.
	And you use that to enrich yourself and you use that to enrich your friends and so on.
	But the system always fails.
	Because when you give people freedom, they become more productive, right?
	So a cattle farmer He won't have all his cattle in a big pile because they'll just die, right?
	So he'll give them some room. And there's an optimal amount of room that you can give to your chickens and to your cows and your pigs and your whatever, right?
	And so they've given us more room.
	And because of that, we've become more productive.
	But because we've become so productive, like if you found some way as a chicken farmer to get 10 times the amount of eggs, you wouldn't set 9 tenths of your chickens free.
	You just build a big mansion and, I don't know, invite PDD over for hookers and blow parties.
	I don't know, right? But you would use that wealth for your own benefit.
	And so as the tax livestock have become more productive because of certain aspects of the free market that have been opened up to them, governments have gotten bigger and bigger and bigger and have sold off more and more of the future of these livestock.
	And now, of course, because intelligent human beings don't breed very well in captivity, you have a huge problem of your livestock just aren't breeding, right?
	So in all of the Western countries, I think except for the U.S. and maybe one or two others, you're far below reproduction rates or sustainability rates for the population.
	And then you have all these problems.
	Then you've got to bring in all these foreigners.
	You've got to bring in all these immigrants to replace the cows that aren't breeding.
	And that causes a lot of cultural tension and people get suspicious and hostile.
	And so it's really hard to manage the human farm and it's never sustainable.
	So that's the general way, I think, of accurately looking at the world as it is.
	I really like that worldview.
	I really do. I like the way that you described that.
	And I'm going to start taking a couple of callers here, I think.
	Let me... Usually I don't get callers immediately.
	It takes them a few minutes to get up and ready.
	But if you want to call into the show, you can call in on our number here.
	That's 716-608-3007.
	That's 716-608-3007.
	If you are on my Skype list, that means Paulie, Walt, anybody who wants to call in, let me know, send me a message, I'll pop you into the call.
	I'm happy to take questions if people want to type them in the chatroom.
	I just wanted to say thanks so much to the people who are listening in.
	I know that philosophy is not always the most exciting of topics, but I really do want to appreciate people's time for listening in.
	Well, hey, a lot of people are enjoying this.
	If you don't feel comfortable calling in, you can always type a question in the chatroom.
	If it's for me or for Stefan or whoever it's for, we'll be more than happy to answer it.
	You know, we can do it that way.
	And Silk Chocolate says that you are a fantastic guest.
	No, thank you very much. I appreciate that.
	Why don't you call in? You have my Skype.
	You're a friend of mine.
	One more question for you while we're waiting for some call-ins.
	Now, is it possible to run a society through anarcho-capitalism on such a large scale, like a society like the U.S.? Tell me what you mean.
	My anarchist ears prick up at this idea of running society.
	What do you mean by that? I don't know that society should or could be run, but maybe I misunderstand what you mean.
	To sustain society. What do you mean by running society?
	What does that mean? I don't mean to be – I'm not being critical.
	I just really want to make sure I understand what you mean by the phrase running society because that's something the communists say, and I'm not saying obviously that you mean that.
	I just want to make sure I understand what you mean.
	Is it possible for a society to sustain itself on a large scale like the US? Is it possible for that economy to continue to run?
	What happens during an economic depression?
	Does everything just collapse or – Well – I would certainly say that the way it's running now is not sustainable.
	People do criticize me sometimes because I put out this stuff and people think that I don't have a solution.
	Of course I don't have a solution because there is no solution to the question of human life.
	There's no big blueprint that you can look up and say, this is exactly what I should be doing.
	This is free choice.
	And risk and ambition and failure, these are all parts of the human souffle that we have to taste.
	So I don't think that there's a solution to human society as a whole that can be imposed or can be willed other than in a destructive way.
	But I will say that it is only sustainable in a state of freedom.
	The limited resources that we have On the planet and they're much less limited than people think because it will never run out of oil, will never run out of water because as they become harder and harder to find the price will go up to the point where they're no longer economically viable and some alternative will be found.
	This is the way things work in the free market and it's inevitable.
	So given that we have scarce resources, given that we have a very large population, What we need is the greatest amount of freedom to innovate and to trade and to figure things out in a way that doesn't rely on a social hierarchy that was invented 5,000 to 10,000 years ago.
	I mean, just think about that.
	That we are running an internet-based, post-technological, Buck Rogers 21st century society.
	We're trying to run it Using the tools of jackboots and thugs and prisons and violence and abusive laws and the initiation of aggression and guns and clubs.
	We're trying to run this incredibly complex, subtle machinery called millions of people.
	Right. Like eons ago, in late tribal society, 6,000 years ago, whenever you want to say that the foundation of human society was in its modern form, the Egyptian state or whatever, we're trying to run this.
	This is incredible. I mean, we don't use anything else from 6,000 years ago.
	I mean, what else do we use from 6,000 years ago?
	I mean, do people still into leeches when they get a headache?
	No. Are they into fertility dances?
	Are they into making it rain dances?
	I mean, they don't do any of that stuff.
	We don't get pyramids built anymore and stuff people full of formaldehyde to have them sit around for 6000 years and end up in a museum somewhere.
	We don't use any technology.
	From 6,000 years ago, except, except, except the one that is the most dangerous and the most powerful, which is the state.
	That is the one thing that has survived, because the state itself has never been subject to market forces, so it has never fundamentally evolved.
	Alright, so now I have a few questions from the chat room.
	And remember, guys, if you want to call in, don't be shy.
	Neither of us bite. At least I don't bite.
	The call-in number again is 716-608-3007.
	And if you're on my Skype list, just send me a message.
	I know some of you have questions for him, which you told me earlier today, so call in and ask.
	Yeah, I have people who tell me at 3 o'clock, oh, I've got a lot of questions for them.
	I want to call in. And now it's time to call in, and they're all back, hiding behind their...
	No, you know, the same thing happens at my show.
	It's like, hey, we have 19 callers on the line.
	Who wants to go first? And I'm sorry about that.
	I mean, look, I mean, this just comes from years of habits of government education, where to ask a question is either to be a keener and get beaten up after class or to be embarrassed by the teacher for getting it wrong.
	So, you know, people are hesitant.
	So I have four questions here for you so far.
	Oh, and we have a caller.
	Let's add him in. So let's add the caller.
	Okay, and caller, you are on the air.
	Hello. Hi.
	Hi, Stefan. My question is, if Stefan could be a fly in a boardroom in any backdoor kind of meeting or underground kind of meeting, whose meeting would he visit and watch?
	That's a brilliant question.
	What a great question. Sort of like if I were an arachnocapitalist.
	Oh, that is such a specialized joke, I can't even tell you.
	That's a great question.
	I think that there's two that pop into my mind.
	Three, three that pop into my mind.
	The first would be, I would love to have been a fly on the wall when government education was being proposed in the 1860s, 1870s.
	It went in at a bunch of different places.
	Because, I mean, according to the actual history of government education, it had nothing to do with the fact that the poor weren't being educated and everything to do with social control over the masses who were beginning to resist the old capitalist or I'd love to have been in there where they openly would have talked about their hatred of the underclass and of the Catholics who were coming over and so on and the need to impose social control through government education.
	I think that would have been fascinating.
	It would be very illuminating. The second would be the foundation of the Federal Reserve or of the other central banks.
	Because, I mean, 90% of the evils of the state are enabled through manipulations of the currency because politicians do not get punished for inflation because inflation shows up 18 to 24 months after the explosion of fiat currency production printing money.
	So I would be absolutely fascinated because I'm sure that there were just massive debates going on at the very highest and most secretive levels about why These Federal Reserve agencies were being put in around the world.
	I think that would be fascinating. More recently, I think it would have been really interesting to have been in on the meetings where the heads of Wall Street confronted the government with, you know, the results of government policies over the past decade or two and basically said, bail us out or the whole rotten ship goes down.
	I think that would have been a fascinating thugs meeting to be at.
	It would have been like that scene from...
	The Godfather, you know, where Marlon Brando is pacing back and forth and saying, well, you know, drugs, they're not such a bad, they're a bad thing relative to, you know, other vices that people accept, you know, like drinking and gambling.
	Like, I think it would have been really fascinating to see those mafia heads, budding heads in this way.
	This stuff, I'm sure, is entirely secret.
	But those are the three I think that would be the most interesting.
	But that's a really, really great question.
	I don't know that it would actually illuminate anyone because people can just wish away.
	Bad information because they just live in this magical world of propaganda.
	But it would be very interesting, at least for me, to hear more about that.
	Thank you very much.
	All right. Well, thank you for calling in, caller.
	And if you're not a fan of the channel, favorite it now.
	Alright, so that was our first caller for the evening.
	And Stefan, I'm going to take a quick, quick question from the chat room, and then I'm going to get to our Skype caller.
	Oh, did you lose me? Am I still on?
	Yeah, you're, yeah. Oh, okay, I just, let me just put my video back on.
	Oh, yeah, because it's the chat room, right?
	Okay, sorry, go on. Yeah, let me, I have to reframe you every time you do that, so hold on one moment.
	If you don't mind, I'm just going to stick it there, and then every time you turn it back on and off, we'll have it.
	Okay, I'm incognito. You're incognito.
	At least right now you are.
	I have to recapture you, so hold on one moment while I do that, and then I'll take the question here.
	And there you are again.
	All right, cool. So we're going to trans back to there, and good.
	They can see you again. Oh, good.
	Okay. I'm just being incognito again.
	Hiding my identity.
	So, the question is, in your world, what things ought government to do versus the freedom responsibility it should get out of?
	Well, the government doesn't do anything.
	There is no such thing as the government.
	I think it's really important to be precise in your language.
	There's an old saying that says the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names.
	So there's no such thing as the government.
	The government doesn't act. The government is an entity, is a concept, is an idea in our mind.
	So, you know, like the Holy Wars, everybody said, well, I'm doing God's will.
	And, of course, there was no God telling them what to do.
	What happened was some people chopped off other people's heads.
	And so when you say, what should the government do, it's important to break that down to what's really being said.
	And I don't mean to be condescending in any way, because it's hard to escape.
	You know, the greatest government program is language.
	Everything else follows from that.
	But when you say, what should the government do, what you're really saying is, how much violence should a small monopoly of violence Very fallible human beings, particularly human beings who want control of that violent monopoly.
	How much violence should we allow a small group of sociopaths to wield in society to make it better?
	I mean, the moment you break it down to what's actually going on, the question answers itself.
	I hope that's clear. Alright, cool stuff.
	And I'm trying to get this one viewer I have.
	He's a very liberal viewer and he hates me.
	He hates me! And he hates everything I say and he thinks that I'm this psychologically screwed up Because I tend to go towards the UFO thing.
	I agree with some of the visitations.
	And he just thinks that I'm totally off my rocker.
	And that I do this show because I am disgruntled about my life.
	Because I'm not a millionaire.
	Ah, there's nothing better than cheap psychologizing to advance an argument, right?
	I'm not going to address the substance of your argument.
	I'm going to make up a theory about why you're saying it and call myself a competent debater.
	But yeah, bring him on. I'd be happy to chat with him.
	I want GWF to come on and I want him to debate with you or Ross.
	I would love to have the Bleeding Heart Liberal on with me.
	I think that's called leading the witness, the Bleeding Heart Liberal.
	But anyway. No, listen.
	I have a huge respect for people who Are interested in bettering the human condition.
	I mean, this is why the Zeitgeist films drive me a little bit batty, but I absolutely applaud them for questioning the basis of the system that we have.
	I mean, in that, we are brothers and sisters.
	So, yeah, bring it on. And, Caller, you're on the air.
	Hey, what's going on, man?
	Hey, how are you? What is your question?
	I'm just calling, actually, to ask, do you prefer...
	I forgot what I was going to say.
	It's okay. It's live. We've got time.
	Take your time. Hey, let's play a little cast of nets.
	So what's up? What's going on, Jake?
	Do you know who this is? Yeah, this is James.
	How are you doing, James? He's a friend of mine, by the way.
	Good, good. You've really helped prepare.
	I'm late for the show.
	What are we talking about, exactly?
	Life without a government.
	No government. No, Stefan, I had your video, by the way.
	I'm sorry? Because that video was still working.
	All right. Maybe you want to turn it back on if you can.
	Do you have a question?
	Because if not, I have somebody else who wants to call in, James.
	I just want to know for that McDonald's.
	Okay. You know what, man?
	I love you, but I can't deal with that tonight.
	Sorry about that, Stefan. Should have never let him through.
	Alright, we're going to add another Skype caller.
	We have a Skype caller here, Paul.
	So we're going to add him into the lineup here.
	And he said he wanted to...
	See, I love it. Paul, are you there?
	Paul. Good evening, Jake, and good evening, Stefan.
	It's a pleasure to be on the phone with both of you.
	Welcome to the program. I'm going to decline the video for this call just as a precaution, all things considered.
	You know, probably safer...
	Don't identify me on JTV. But that having been said, I have a few questions for Stefan, just to kind of get an idea of some of the things that, you know, whether or not he's touched base on in his research and whatnot.
	Stefan, I was wondering if you've ever read a book called The Lies My Teacher Told Me.
	Oh. You know, I... I think so.
	It's not the newest book around, right?
	I think it was recommended to me some years back.
	Yeah, it's definitely not one of the newer books.
	It's probably about six or seven years old, but it basically details a bit of American history that you touched on when speaking about how it's glazed over in our current educational system.
	Yeah, sorry, just to make sure I've got the right book, there was an article in it which talked about the myth of the Wild West, that There really wasn't much violence out there in the frontier, that the violence was all really much clustered around the cities, but the frontier was full of people who were trying to farm and hunt and weren't particularly interested in being criminals.
	Oh, absolutely. Also, some of the finer points, or at least as it was presented to me, is that the book details a lot of what was done to this continent's indigenous people on behalf of the burgeoning American government and so forth.
	But what I found interesting in this book is that it also details how In the very beginning of the 20th century or so, publishing houses, in particular, publishing houses and printing presses, as far as newspapers and so forth, were being bought wholesale by the ex-robber baron families, the Morgans, the Rothschilds, and so on and so forth.
	They distributed the wealth that they were no longer able to monopolize on steel and oil.
	And so forth on media influence in education and on the printed word.
	And that, you know, this dumbening down of the United States that you've, you know, and to be honest, it's really all of Western education in general, is rather deliberate in that if you're trying to maintain a population of people, you know, who are enslaved to an insurmountable debt That they have no hopes of ever paying off.
	You want to maintain a population that isn't exactly smart enough to think their way out of your trap.
	No, I completely agree with you.
	I have a slightly different take on who you referred to as the robber barons.
	I think that there's a lot of economic evidence that shows that to the average citizen, the economic effects of Carnegie and the other people that you mentioned was actually quite beneficial.
	That if you look at, say, the price of oil that we used, whale lamp oil and other kinds of oils that were used to light homes and so on, that the price considerably went down.
	And what happens in a state-run system or a status system, which is every system pretty much, What happens is someone is successful and they begin to dominate the market through improved techniques of manufacturing or some sort of other efficiencies or distribution networks or whatever and they become so successful that they begin to crowd out the competition and the competition gets really upset and the competition then faces the choice.
	They say okay well we can either try and compete With this company that is doing so very well, Or we can go to the government and we can get the government to try and break them up and shut them down.
	Unfortunately, because it's such a cheap solution relative to trying to innovate and compete with somebody who's a business genius, most people will go to the government and they will complain that it's unfair, that it's a monopoly, that there's insider trading, that they'll just stir up all of this stuff.
	Same thing happened to IBM. Same thing happened to, obviously, the oil companies.
	Esso, the reason it's called Esso is it's Standard Oil.
	It's the initials for Standard Oil.
	It was broken up under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
	Same thing happened to a wide variety of companies.
	And I'm sure the same thing's going to happen to Apple and same thing's going to happen to Google.
	And so I think what happens is people who start out wanting to innovate and create in business, they are very successful if they're very good at what they do.
	And then what happens is they get into the laser target sites aimed at them by their competitors through the power of the state.
	And then what they say is, damn, I mean, if I don't play politics, I'm toast.
	You know, like there's I've just been working and building my business and trying to provide good service to my customers, and in that process, I've grown to be a very big company.
	But now, it's like the beginning of Toy Story 2.
	There's like six million lasers on Buzz Lightyear on the planet Zerg.
	And that's what happens.
	So they say, oh, man.
	So this is what happens if I don't play politics.
	Everybody else starts to play politics, and then I... Get the lasers of the state on me.
	And so what happens is they then shift their attention to politics.
	They become much more political.
	And I think though it's...
	Certainly they did get involved in the media and so on, but I think what's much more important, the media is in effect.
	Advertising is in effect.
	Everything that goes on for adults is in effect.
	The cause of the dysfunction within the citizens' thinking is the 15,000 hours of indoctrination and miseducation and missed education that they get in the government schools, where there's no compulsory courses on logic.
	On logic! The simplest and easiest thing to teach to children is logic.
	There's no courses on law.
	There's no courses on entrepreneurship.
	There's no courses on economics.
	Economics! You're supposed to vote for people with economic proposals, and there is no required courses on economics in any government education that I've ever been aware of.
	I mean, you can sometimes get them.
	None of these courses were available to me.
	What you get is value-free technical skills, like some science and some math and so on.
	And you get your English and literature, maybe some reading and writing and so on.
	But you don't get critical thinking, you don't get law, you don't get entrepreneurship, you don't get economics, you don't get how to break down an argument.
	Because, I mean, what politician would want to do a speech where someone could break it down and say, wait, what the hell are you actually talking about?
	Let's get rid of all these $20 words and tell me basically what you mean.
	Or where people could hear Obama talk about the word investment and just understand that he meant theft, debt, and enslavement.
	People focus a lot on the media and advertising and all these media techniques that came out in the 20s and so on.
	Forget all of that. By the time someone's an adult, their brain has already been short-circuited by bad miseducation for 15,000 hours.
	It's all about the government education.
	That's the only place I think we really need to focus our energy.
	Sorry for that completely long-winded answer, but that's what I was thinking about when you were talking.
	Well, no, that's good. I had a long-winded question.
	I kind of expected a long-winded answer, and that was really just a yes.
	I'm going to move on in a minute, if that's alright with you.
	Sorry about that. Yeah, that is fine.
	I think, yeah, can we do one more because of the length of my answer?
	I'll keep my next answer short. I'm sorry.
	Yeah, you can do one more, Paul, and then we'll go on to some room questions, and I have a couple more callers queued up that want to call in.
	You know what, actually, Jake?
	I can't think of a second question.
	It's actually been more fun to listen than to try and think to talk on this particular episode.
	But I appreciate very much having, you know, taking my call.
	And Stephanie, it was great listening to you as well.
	I'm going to go back to the calf now.
	Great questions. Thank you.
	This is a high-quality audience.
	I have to put my thinking cap on, so I appreciate that.
	All right, well, Paul, that was great to have you on, and I appreciate you coming in.
	To do that, let me just fix your video very quickly, Steph.
	There we go.
	All right, so our next question I'm going to take from the chat room, and then I want to take a caller.
	One of you liberals, please call it.
	I'm Diane Ross, GWF, any of you.
	Yeah, set me straight. Set me straight.
	You know, if you convince me, I promise I will put it on air on my show, and You know, I'm happy to correct myself if I've made mistakes in reasoning or evidence.
	I am a slave to the method.
	I don't have any ego investment in this, so if I've made mistakes, come correct me.
	I'm absolutely happy to hear.
	Alright, let's see. I think I got a text message.
	Oh, sorry about that.
	You got sexted. No, no, no.
	Because some of my viewers or my friends have my cell phone number, and I just got a text from the UK. I thought it was a question.
	It was a social message. Sorry about that.
	What are you wearing, Bigfoot?
	Oh, geez, Steph. Woo!
	Yeah, it's going to be a little hot and sweaty in here with a Geordie.
	That's right. Dave, he's a great guy.
	Anyway, moving on to the next chatroom question.
	Yeah. It says here, you only wore it once on the video that you did on drugs.
	Steph, are you going to wear that bandana again?
	But before we get to that question, I'm going to take a call.
	Caller, you're on the air.
	Caller? Hi there.
	Hey. I'm on the air?
	Okay. Anyway, do you want me to go ahead and ask you a question?
	Go ahead and ask you a question, caller.
	Okay, fantastic. Hey, so I have a friend that's like a follower of the Zeitgeist Movement.
	He's all about it. And one of the things he constantly references is the concept of automation, like how technology is going to continue to progress until robots are manufacturing everything.
	And on a much larger scale, they are taking jobs from humans, leading to drastically higher unemployment and such.
	As technology progresses, and we really do get into this system, do you see this having like challenging typical economic norms, I guess?
	No, I don't.
	Let me sort of take you on a journey back in time, time, time.
	Let's go back to the turn of the 20th century, right?
	So this is esoteric, ridiculous knowledge to have, but I have it anyway, right?
	So at the turn of the century, depending on how you count it, 70 to 80% of Americans were farmers or involved in farming, right?
	Now, that's down to like 2 or 3%, right?
	And the reason for that is machinery, right?
	So we think that machinery displacing human beings is something new.
	It's way old.
	Now, if you wanted to get 100% employment back in this country, I say this country because it's the world or whatever, because I'm Canadian, but if you wanted to get 100% employment back in the United States, you could do it tomorrow.
	You just ban all farm machinery.
	And then everyone's got to go back, grubbing around in the dirt like it's the Middle Ages.
	You get to get horses instead of combine harvesters.
	You've got no factory farming.
	You've got just guys grubbing around in the dirt.
	They would be full employment.
	But do you think that would be a good idea?
	No. Absolutely not.
	Why not? Because it's not productive, and it's not raising anybody's standards of living, which is our end goal of economic progress.
	Well, economics doesn't have an end goal.
	Economics doesn't say things have to be more efficient.
	It simply tells you the causes and effects and costs and benefits of various things.
	So what I'm saying is that you could...
	Okay, so you say, well, these farm machines, they took the jobs away from people who used to be farmers.
	But those people didn't stay unemployed.
	What they did was they said, great, now food is one-tenth the price it used to be.
	So there is all of these people going into the cities and they're now factories and so on, and then they get a job on the factory line.
	Instead of on the farm, which is better for them economically and they don't have to be knee-deep in pig crap all day, which I think is any day that you're not knee-deep in pig crap is a pretty good day.
	So the idea that machines are taking away the jobs of human beings is not true.
	What is true is that a person who has a job that gets replaced by a machine has to go and get a new job.
	But if The economy is free.
	The excess wealth that is created by the efficiency of machines creates new industries, creates new opportunities, creates new jobs that will actually pay better than the ones he had before because all of the additional wealth that is in his job that is now being created by the machine in a semi-automated way is being added to the economy.
	Now, for him to retrain or to come to some new job is an economic hit, and I'm not going to pretend.
	There's no magic sauce here, right?
	There is an economic hit. So if you've been somebody who's been, you know, making a sawing motion on a factory, and then somebody comes in with a saw robot, right, and does that job for you, then you lose the pretty small amount of human capital you have invested in making a saw motion in a factory.
	And so you have to go out and find a job, and that's going to be somewhat costly, and it may take a while for you to do as well or better than you used to do, but everybody else gets the benefits almost immediately.
	So when you automate cars, assuming you don't have all of these ridiculous government-protected unions, but instead private unions, which is how it should be, the price of cars goes down by half.
	So what happens is people say, great, a car is now only $10,000 rather than $20,000.
	So what am I going to do with that extra $10,000?
	Well, I'm going to put it in the bank.
	Well, what does that do? Well, it means that the bank has more money to lend to people who are starting out businesses.
	The bank has more money to invest in whatever, right?
	Which means more businesses are starting out, more jobs are being created or so on.
	Or they say, okay, I got $10,000, so I'm going to go out and buy X, Y, and Z, which creates additional demand In those industries, which draws workers to those industries and so on.
	Now, that's how it works in the free market in a very sort of simplified way.
	It doesn't work that way in a government system.
	It doesn't work that way in a government system because if you save somebody $10,000 in making a car, then they take that $10,000, they put it in the bank.
	The government then uses that money To build additional debt into the system by using that as collateral to borrow money from overseas.
	So efficiency in a status system leads to debt enslavement.
	Efficiency in a free market system leads to economic growth.
	Efficiency in a free market system It's fueling the cancer of the state.
	And that's one thing that people get confused about.
	They really, really mix up what's happening in the free market with what happens in a state society.
	Wherever you have the state, you do not have the free market.
	And the degree to which you have the state, you do not have the free market.
	And this is something that the zeitgeisters, I think, don't quite get.
	Because they talk about All of this free market stuff, and then they talk about something like healthcare in the United States as some sort of capitalist nirvana when more than 50 cents of every dollar in the US is spent by the government in healthcare.
	And government regulations covering healthcare run into the hundreds of thousands.
	This is not a free market.
	But people get confused about that.
	I hope that makes some sense.
	Oh, that makes excellent sense, and I definitely appreciate your insight.
	Thank you. All right, well, thanks for calling in.
	I have a quick comment in the chat room that I have to have you address.
	Good thing the state – you can turn your video back on, by the way.
	Good thing the state doesn't do anything important like field police, force, army, etc.
	Oh, wait, they do. What is your response to that?
	Because that's something I get a lot, and that really grinds my gears.
	Well, look, I completely understand where people like that are coming from, because there's this thing that we're taught, which, again, when you see it, it's blindingly obvious, but it's hard to see because we're so propagandized.
	And the argument is this.
	The government provides X. If the government doesn't provide X, X will not be provided.
	Therefore, we have to have the government provide X. The government provides roads.
	If there's no government, there are no roads.
	And therefore we have to have a government.
	The government provides protection for persons and property.
	If there's no government, it's a wild war of all against all.
	People have mohawks and napalm and cherry bombs and harsh graffiti and they just do all these terrible things to each other.
	But that's not true.
	Historically it's not true. Roads existed in the US long before governments took them over.
	Education for the poor.
	Insurance for the poor.
	These friendly societies that existed where poor people got together and pooled all their resources to help each other through difficult times.
	These things all existed.
	Before the government came along.
	Historically it's just not true. The government takes something over and then we assume that only the government can provide it.
	So let me sort of give you a very short mental exercise so that you can see what this is.
	So if the government arranged everyone's marriage, right?
	So you turn 18 and your name goes in a lottery and you bribe someone to get you someone cute or whatever and then you get married, right?
	So the government provides marriage.
	Now, if you said, well, look, I think that that's immoral.
	I think this is institutionalized rape.
	I think it's a violation of people's choice and it's a violation of romance and so on.
	And then you say, well, the government should not order people to get married.
	Then most people would say, according to this logic that's being proposed, well, then people wouldn't get married.
	There'd be no such thing as marriage.
	There'd be no children and And therefore we'd all die out in a generation.
	Is that what you want? No. What would happen is there would be dating sites and there would be singles bars and there would be sports mixers and there would be tequila shots on people's bellies.
	I don't know how the hell people date anymore because I'm an old married guy.
	But the fallacy is that because the government provides these things, if the government doesn't, Then there's no way these things will be provided.
	That is not true historically.
	It's not true rationally.
	It's not true empirically.
	It's like saying there's a big rock in a river that all the water flows around.
	And if we take that rock out, you're going to get this massive hole that stays in the river.
	No. All that happens is things change.
	If the government doesn't, quote, provide protection, of persons and property which it doesn't do.
	The government can arrest you arbitrarily at will because there are so many laws, so many tax laws, so many things that are illegal that no single human being knows any of them or even a tenth or a hundredth of a percent of any of them and you can't protect someone's property by taxing it almost 50% at source to begin with.
	I mean you can't protect someone from theft by stealing half their money to begin with.
	That doesn't make any sense at all logically.
	So if you are concerned about the protection of persons and property which I think every rational human being should be Then you have to sort of at least open your mind to the possibility that just because the government forces these quote solutions on you now, it doesn't mean that only the government can ever do it.
	And if the government didn't do it, nobody would step in to provide these services in a voluntary, peaceful, effective, positive way.
	Okay, I have a quick thing.
	Where was it? Sorry, I have to go back a little bit.
	Okay, I have a question from the chat room.
	Tell us historically when this experiment has been performed.
	Which experiment? The state of society.
	The stateless society. You don't have to look into history.
	You just have to look into the mirror.
	You don't have to look into it.
	Look, I guarantee you that none of these listeners are criminals.
	Or politicians, but I repeat myself.
	Look, you live your life peacefully.
	You live your life without the initiation of force.
	You respect your property.
	You respect your self-ownership.
	You respect other people's property.
	You don't go over for a dinner party and try and leave with the Ottoman.
	And so this is how you live.
	This is how I live. This is how everybody lives.
	There are some examples of societies that have lived without governments.
	Iceland did it for several hundred years.
	Ireland did it for almost a thousand years.
	And unfortunately, Ireland was taken down by Christianity.
	I don't know what the heck happened to Iceland.
	There was a colony in Pennsylvania that lived for quite some years without any kind of government whatsoever.
	And the government actually had to come in and impose itself on that colony.
	So yeah, there are tons of examples of societies.
	People bring up, of course, Somalia, like it's some sort of disaster story.
	And I've got a video on my YouTube channel, too, actually, about this.
	Somalia has better records for infant mortality and better and improved records for infant mortality, for telecommunications, for longevity.
	It is doing much better than it was when it had a government now that it has no government or at least much less of a government.
	So there are lots of examples of ways in which peace and freedom and nonviolence work.
	I assume we don't have any rapists in the audience that you go out and buy some chocolates and tell some lies and attempt to get what you want.
	But it's voluntary. It's peaceful.
	So we all know that it can work because it's an experiment we are all living.
	So it's like somebody says to me in English, Steph, how do you know that English is comprehensible?
	Well, because you just used it.
	So the fact that someone is asking me a rational question and accepting, at least I hope, a somewhat rational answer means that they believe that reason and voluntarism is the way to go and is the way that civilized human beings interact with each other.
	And so that's how it's working between myself and the questioner.
	And I would just invite the questioner to expand that, to look at his life and the lives of those around him.
	And it already does work.
	I would really, really...
	Okay, hold on. People are getting timed out here and I'm not sure why.
	Because I'm talking too much?
	No, no. It's because my moderate...
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Anarchy. Listen, if people keep getting timed out, I'm going to unmod everybody except for Walt Disney's Ghost and Ross.
	Sorry, I have to discipline my moderators.
	It's like their children. That was a pretty surreal sentence.
	I just tell you, that just took me on a mental journey.
	Why did it? I don't know why.
	Walt Ghost's journey and Walt Disney's Ghost or something like that.
	I guess it's his name in the chat room, right?
	I'm just like, what kind of freaky seance do you have going on?
	Walt's... Walt's our producer, one of the producers.
	Audio is not failing, thank you.
	I have my mods. I have all the things checked.
	And they want to screw with me and say, audio is messed up.
	If you want to call into the show and contribute something intelligent, please do so.
	716-608-3007.
	Listen. GWF, you have 15 minutes.
	I want you to call in.
	Ross, I want one of you two to call in.
	I want one of you two to talk to this brilliant man over here.
	Brilliant. We're talking, this is Einstein.
	I have Einstein on the line here.
	And... Wait, I assume Einstein's ghost, right?
	You're not talking about me, right? This is more seancing freaky stuff that you've got going on down there, right?
	Listen, I do a lot of... Oh, it's the guy who asked about my bandana.
	It's a good thing this isn't a full video, a full-body video, because you would see that I am wearing my bandana.
	You are? Yes, but you just can't see it.
	And I'm telling you, you really don't want to.
	Oh, Jesus. It has been repurposed to be an absolutely snug banana hammock.
	Anyway, let's move on with the callers before we drive everybody away with mental images.
	Hey, I'll tell you, everybody is loving the show, you know...
	We're very high on the page ranking here for the website that I'm broadcasting on.
	Ross, if you're going to call in, please do.
	If not, I'm going to move on to a question while I'm waiting for one of my liberal-minded viewers to call in.
	And the question for you is, what are your thoughts on the Egyptian riots?
	What are your thoughts on the Egyptian riots?
	And actually, the Lebanese government, I believe part of it was overthrown by Hezbollah as well.
	But what are your thoughts on the riots in Egypt?
	I am afraid I'm not too much caught up to date.
	I've just read a little bit about it, and I'm certainly no expert on that region.
	I will say though that, and I said this years ago, statism is dead.
	Statism as a philosophy is dead and buried.
	You know, Nietzsche said it of God in the 19th century, long before everybody got it.
	I have gone on record for many years saying that statism is dead as a philosophy.
	There is momentum.
	And that's okay. I mean, that happens, right?
	A body falling down a cliff where the guy can die halfway down, but he still keeps bouncing until he hits the bottom.
	Statism as a philosophy is dead.
	What has happened is that, you know, there's that old saying that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, right?
	So if all you have is a state, violence is the only way that you can think of to solve problems.
	And the relinquishing of violence is incomprehensible to you and impractical and impossible within the system as a whole.
	But across the world, the matrix is breaking.
	The matrix is breaking down.
	The reality is reaching its grubby green growing fingers through the fog of propaganda.
	And people are recognizing that the governments are not there to serve them.
	People are recognizing that it is not government by and for the people.
	People are recognizing that democracy, and I'm not accusing Egypt of an overinvestment in democracy, but people are recognizing that democracy is a falsehood, that you only get to, quote, choose people who've already been bought and paid for at your expense.
	And choosing who gets to beat you up is not the same as living in a peaceful world.
	So this is happening all over the world.
	It happened in Tunisia.
	There are indications of it.
	People are fleeing Ireland by thousands every week.
	Because of what's happening there.
	There is a mass stampede of the livestock either against the farmers or trying to get off the farm desperately.
	It's starting to happen in the US. Doug Casey, an eminent economist and a best-selling New York Times author, was on my show last week talking about how he doesn't think the US has much more than a year before significant changes occur in the economy to say the least.
	The philosophy is dead and the system is in its death throes.
	This is one of the reasons I try to put so much energy and effort out into talking to people about The crossroads we're at, for God's sake, let's not go back down into fascism, let's not go back down into 20th century totalitarianism, because with our technology and weaponry, we might never come back out.
	So we really absolutely have to put down the gun Put down the state.
	Put down the laws.
	Put down the prisons. Put down the wars.
	And start dealing with each other like peaceful and reasonable human beings.
	And even if we have to fake it, that's enough.
	Even if we have to grit our teeth and pretend that we can reason with each other, that will be enough.
	But the system as a whole is absolutely on its last legs.
	And let's just give it a push and move on.
	Alright, so here's the next question.
	What do you think about quantum thinking or quantum consciousness?
	I don't know, because I don't know what the term means.
	I think that quantum physics is a very interesting branch of modern physics.
	It has nothing to do with ethics, it has nothing to do with philosophy, it has nothing to do with anything that we perceive.
	There is some indeterminacy in quantum phenomena deep down in the guts of the atoms, but at least according to the very eminent scientists that I've read up on, all quantum fluctuations disappear long before anything is visible to the unaided human eye.
	So everything that occurs in the world that has any kind of variance of variability or indeterminacy has nothing to do with how we actually interact with the world as moral agents as human beings.
	So I think it's an interesting area of physics, but it doesn't have anything to do with philosophy fundamentally, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with morality.
	So a lot of people say, well, everything's relativistic because there's indeterminacy of quantum physics.
	I mean, I don't know if that shows more ignorance of philosophy or more ignorance of physics.
	It's hard to say, but the two have nothing to do with each other at that level.
	Alright, next question. In Stefan's questionable utopian view, who deals with crime?
	Who deals with the disputes?
	Well, my question is, well, who do you want to deal with crime at disputes?
	You're the customer, right?
	I mean, I try to turn this up.
	People pepper me with these questions, right?
	So I say, Well, you could have defense agencies protect you.
	And they say, well, what if the defense agency wants to build an army?
	I say, well, that's kind of impossible.
	Well, what if they want to do this? I say, turn it around.
	You know, be a skeptical, like try and sell me, right?
	So this is in the chat room, but I would say to someone like this and say, okay, well, let's say that you're an entrepreneur hungry to sell me your dispute resolution services.
	Fantastic. Sell me, baby.
	Sell me. Come on. Show me some leg.
	Swing that purse. Sell me something, right?
	And so it forces them, or it encourages them, I guess, to think creatively and say, What do people want from dispute resolution?
	Well, obviously they want a number of things.
	They want prevention, not cure.
	Everybody wants to avoid getting into a conflict rather than try and deal with the aftermath of the conflict.
	Everybody wants good behavior to be rewarded and bad behavior to be punished.
	So if you continue to break your contracts, then the cost of insuring a contract would be that much higher.
	If you are good and always fulfill your contracts, then the cost of insuring your contract would be that much cheaper.
	There are some people who won't want any contract What I mean by insuring contracts, so if you and I get into a contract for $100,000 trade or whatever, Maybe it'll cost us $1,000 to have insurance.
	So if you bail, then I just get the $100,000.
	And if I bail, you get the $100,000.
	And then I get marked down significantly if I do that.
	And if you don't do it, then you don't.
	So people will just insure.
	They will insure what it is that they're doing if they want.
	And if they don't, they'll take their lumps.
	But there's lots of people who are providing services to make sure people fulfill their contracts.
	There are lots of people who provide protection services, but remember, criminals are bred by the state.
	Criminals come out of broken homes, which are fueled by state education programs and are fueled by welfare programs, and the state produces a lot of criminals through the police and through the military, whether they stay in those organizations or not.
	And when we have, you know, peaceful, stay-at-home, invested parenting, biologically you would just get far fewer people with impulse control problems and aggression.
	So, you know, if crime is cut by 90 to 95 percent, do you really care who polices you?
	It really isn't going to be a big issue in the future.
	Sorry, we had a call. Oh, you're on the air.
	Hello. I'd like to ask the bald guy, does he wipe his bum twice when he takes a poo?
	It's so funny that people call in.
	I turned your camera back on, by the way, and just ask these questions.
	Wait, I'm just wiping my ass.
	Let me turn it off for a sec, because I thought that was a commandment, not a question.
	Oh, my lord. Oh, my lord.
	I'm sorry about that, Stephan.
	Hey, it's not for you to apologize, man.
	These people pop up everywhere.
	Don't worry about it. And it's so funny.
	Some of the calls that I get on this program are ridiculous, are ridiculous.
	They ask me questions about why are you fat and why are you this and why are you that.
	I mean, it's totally, totally ridiculous.
	And I apologize for that.
	No problem at all.
	He has a question.
	Who runs this utopia?
	You see, that's a matrix question, right?
	Nobody runs it. Who runs dating?
	Nobody runs dating. People provide services to allow people to date, like online services, or we talked about some of these before.
	Nobody runs dating.
	Who runs who gets a job in the free market?
	Nobody. This is the thing that, again, not to pick on the zeitgeist, because I like a lot of what they say, They say, well, let's pretend we start with a new planet.
	I can see why they're into robotic automation because I've heard their narrator.
	But anyway, let's pretend we're starting with a new planet.
	How are we going to organize this world?
	It's like, no, no, no, no, no. Let's stop you right there.
	Because you're really asking the wrong question right there.
	I don't want my life to be organized.
	I don't want my life to be run by some third party.
	I don't want to beg a supercomputer for my porridge.
	I just want people...
	To not initiate force against me.
	In return, I'm absolutely overjoyed to not initiate force against them.
	Let's let people hang out with who they want and ignore everybody that they don't care about or don't like if they don't want to.
	Let's just have a world with the non-initiation of force and the respect for property.
	I don't care who runs anything because I don't want to run anybody else's life.
	I don't want anybody else to run my life.
	I want us to approach each other as equals.
	Not as people in a pyramid saying, well, who's in charge and who's running things and who's doing this and who's submitting and who's making the laws and who's making the rules and who's obeying and who's commanding.
	Forget that. That is history.
	That is the past. That is 5,000 years of dead technology that always collapses in on itself.
	Forget all of that. We just approach each other as equals.
	Nobody needs to run anything.
	And we have a caller. Caller, you're on the air.
	Hello, I wonder if you think in a utopian world it's better to sit down when you're taking a shit or just...
	I don't know who these people are!
	This is ridiculous! Well, I would imagine that it's somebody who did not get a lot of attention as a child.
	Oh, is it? Yeah, if you want to put it on for the last couple of minutes of the show.
	Sure. Just because I have two more questions for you, and then I want to...
	Oh, we have a real caller.
	Hold on. Caller, you're on the air!
	Yeah, I was listening in and I came in a little late and it was really interesting what your guest was talking about and it seemed to me like he had a lot of things in common with what the Venus Project was talking about and what I kind of see is that his ideas,
	you know, so far of what I've heard is that it's more of a A jump start to what the Venus Project could be, because that's way more advanced from where we're at, and I want to hear his comments about that.
	Stefan, just to let you know, we have five minutes, so if you can put it in there, that would be great.
	I'll keep it short. Did we have anyone else, any other questions?
	You had one or two, right? Yeah, yeah.
	Look, I love the Venus Project.
	I think it is a fantastic and innovative and creative approach to solving problems.
	problems.
	I think that they woefully mischaracterize to the point of slander the free market, which they really don't understand at all, which is understandable because there's a lot of propaganda about it.
	I think that if they want to build a city in concentric donut rings and have a supercomputer hand out goodies to people who fill out forms, I think that's great.
	I don't want to live there because I don't want to beg a supercomputer for my I want to earn and trade and deal with people as equals.
	I don't want to be dependent upon...
	I worked in software for many years.
	I do not want to be dependent on software because there's no magic software that can't be influenced by human beings or slanted or controlled or used.
	I think it's way too much power to give any individual or group of individuals the right to control and run this computer that handles all of the goods in the world.
	The Venus Project don't solve the problem of resource allocation.
	Because the only thing that can solve that is price, the price mechanism which requires currency.
	It requires not currency as we understand it now, which is just government paper, but a real currency based on real value.
	So there's lots of economic problems with it, but I'm absolutely happy.
	If they want to have one of those cities, fantastic.
	I just don't want to be forced into their system.
	They say in the movie, there will be no money in this free society.
	Why not? I'm not allowed to use money?
	What happens if I use money? Do I go to the Venus Jail?
	I mean, I don't know. I mean, if they want to do it, fantastic.
	I just have no initiation of force.
	If I could just respond really quickly, I sympathize with what you're saying there, but what I'm really thinking about is we have a finite amount of resources, and eventually it's going to have to come to a point where we're going to have to scientifically calculate and allocate those resources, you know? And if we're thinking that the human race is going to jump beyond just, you know, I agree with that.
	We already have a mechanism to do that.
	It's called price, which is when a resource becomes more scarce, its price goes up to the point where it's no longer economically viable.
	That sometimes doesn't happen in the current system because of subsidies.
	Because people get subsidies from the government like over here in Canada, 400 years they kept the card fishery going, no problem whatsoever.
	The government steps in and starts to subsidize and set quotas and within 10 or 15 years the card have gone completely and are never coming back.
	So sometimes resources get exhausted but that's not because of the free market, that's because the government is coming in and doing something unholy with their guns and stolen money and arbitrary rules.
	So we already have a perfect mechanism for dealing with scarcity and resources.
	It's called price and supply and demand.
	We don't need a supercomputer.
	We already have a supercomputer called the free market allocation through price and supply and demand.
	So I think it's layering in a very dangerous over-complexity, which is very prone to corruption, over a mechanism which we already know works perfectly well, which is supply and demand and price.
	So I'm not saying I'm going to convince you on that very brief statement.
	That's not really an argument, just a statement, but that's my approach.
	That makes sense, but it seems to me that the supply and demand mechanism doesn't exactly address the numerical value of certain resources we have and stuff, where that's like hard science, whereas supply and demand is more of like an arbitrary kind of entrivent.
	All right, well, listen, caller, I have to move on.
	Thanks for calling in. Caller, you're on the air.
	Hey, I just want to say that I just shaved.
	Okay, we're not going to have him on.
	Caller, you're on the air. Wait, what did he say?
	Get him back. All right.
	All right. Done with Collins. Thank you.
	Sorry about that, Stefan. Hey, Stefan.
	No problem. If you can do me a favor while I end the show, I want you to stand in line because I do want to talk to you after our program is finished.
	All right, but keep it quick. I gotta get to bed.
	I'm an old guy. I got up early with my daughter this morning.
	All right, well, just give me a few minutes just to play the outro, and then I'll get back to you in just a moment.
	All right, guys, you have been watching Truth Transmission.
	I am your host, Jake Kettle, and we've had Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio on.
	Thank you, Stefan, so much for coming on.
	And like I said, just stay with me for the end of the show.
	Remember, guys, you can add me on Facebook.
	That's facebook.com forward slash truth transmission.
	And make sure you check out Stefan's website.
	That's www.freedomainradio.com, which will be posted in the chat.
	And also, please... Go to his YouTube channel, youtube.com forward slash freedomainradio.
	Remember, our show is sponsored by rightservers.com, so make sure you go check out them, www.rightservers.com.
	And like I said, guys, thanks again for coming, and I'll see you guys next week, Friday night, 9 p.m.
	Eastern Standard Time.
	All right, Steph, stay with me, and thank you very much for coming.

▲