Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - The Time has Come... Twitter/X Space

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 27, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:41:56

The Time has Come... Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right, we're back.
	Sorry about that.
	A little bit of a technical hiccup, but I forwent my usual greeting this evening and said, I actually I hope you're not doing well.
	I hope that you are having a bad time of it at the moment.
	The news out of the UK, of course, is completely appalling.
	Not just the news, but these appalling visuals of this poor 12-year-old girl who was being protected by her 14-year-old sister who was wielding a knife and an axe in a medieval fashion in a medieval style.
	And of course, you don't have to have a daughter as I do to just realize and recognize the desperation.
	How terrifying and appalling and how completely fucked up this situation is, almost beyond the capacity of the language to encapsulate.
	And I hope that you're not doing well.
	I hope you're not doing well if you're in Scotland, where this poor girl is from.
	I hope you're not doing well in Europe as a whole, in the UK as a whole.
	This is appalling, terrible, wretched, sadistic beyond words.
	This grooming stuff, to put it as nicely as humanly possible, has been going on.
	I mean, there are reports of it back in the postwar period, post-World War period, in the 50s., certainly in the 60s, when I left England in the 70s and I'd heard tell of this kind of stuff, and really for more than half a century, half a century, These completely fucked up authorities have refused to deal with this issue.
	In fact, arguably, given what happened with Jimmy Saville and other scions of British establishmentarianism, they, uh...
	like it, they prefer it, they inflict it, they indulge in it, they want it in some manner.
	It's, again, it's almost impossible to conceive of that there are
	So I hope that this is a line in the sand in people's hearts to remind them of some very foundational truths.
	Number one, feminism is bullshit.
	Absolute, complete, total, horrendous, demonic bullshit.
	Because the feminists, of course, should be out in arms about this aggressive patriarchy that's hitting these poor largely defenseless.
	In fact, the poor 14-year-old girl has been arrested.
	They are largely helpless and disarmed against this, these men.
	And if there's ever a cause that feminists should get behind, it should be that.
	So I hope that this puts, at least in any reasonable thinking person's mind, I hope that this puts a nail, the final nail, in the metaphorical coffin that is discrediting modern feminism.
	Modern feminists should be taking to the streets and, protecting these poor girls, doing whatever it took to make the Emerald Isle and England as a whole safe, safer, safe, safe at all for a lot of these girls.
	And there are horrendous stories of these girls being kidnapped and fathers attempting to rescue them and the police arresting the fathers.
	You know.
	So I hope that anytime anybody claims to be a feminist, you can just do a quick little run through their posting social media history and say, did you talk about these issues?
	Did you come to the defense of these?
	defenseless little girls?
	If not, then shut the hell up about anything to do with women's issues.
	If this is not a woman's issue, there is no such thing as women's issues.
	If the protection of little girls is not paramount in the minds of feminists, then feminism is complete bullshit.
	And so I hope that this is just one of those situations where anybody and JK Rowling were looking for you as well, right?
	Brave about some issues.
	So I hope that this is something where people say, if you didn't raise your voice at this point, you have no voice.
	You're a hack.
	You're a sophist.
	You're a liar.
	You're both pathetic, ridiculous, and an aider and a better of some of the greatest evils the world can conceive of.
	And of course, in any kind of free market scenario, all of the feminist departments in universities would be defunded, shut down, and people would be shamed and hounded out of polite society until hopefully they had to live in tents in the woods.
	Nothing violent, just ostracism, just ostracism, nothing violent.
	Number one, number two, you know, For those of you who are relatively new to what I do, I first gained prominence, such as it was, back in 2005 when I published an article called A Stateless Society.
	The state, a stateless society, the examination of alternatives or an examination of alternatives.
	And I had been a small government guy, a libertarian, an objectivist, a small government guy, a government that does national defense, law courts, maybe some prisons, police and so on, right?
	But that was it.
	And it never sat particularly well with me.
	And it always seemed like, always seemed, and it's easy to say this in hindsight, but it not that you particularly care about my emotional journey, of course, but it always seemed like a bit of a cop out which is like well enforcing the law national defense is kind of hard to conceive of without a centralized authoritarian state government and then while having an argument with someone at work oddly enough i came up with an idea about how environmental protection and
	roads dispute resolution national defense police law courts prisons and so on could all be handled in a voluntary free market environment and situation.
	And then I wrote a series of books.
	I wrote a whole series of articles.
	And then I wrote two major books, Everyday Anarchy and Prac practical anarchy about how society runs in the absence of a state.
	And I know it's, you know, it's hard to conceive of, oh my gosh, how could we possibly have a society without a government?
	But slavery ran the world's economies for uncounted millennia.
	Since really there were such a thing as human beings and certainly since agriculture, slaves have been the capital machinery of the primitive economies.
	I mean barely economies, right?
	In some societies, 70, 80 percent of the inhabitants were slaves.
	And that was it.
	That's what you did.
	You needed something done, you went and got slaves.
	Aristotle defended slavery.
	Even the Bible has instructions on how to better take care of your slaves.
	And the concept of a human society without slavery, not just as part of the society, but as the entire center of society.
	The idea of society sal slavery, society without slavery, absolutely inconceivable.
	And people just wouldn't like the slaves do all the work.
	How's the work going to get done without slaves?
	How's the fruit going to get picked?
	How's the crop going to be planted?
	Without slaves, we're all going to starve.
	But the end of slavery was the beginning of the modern world.
	When slavery ended, then labor turned from something that you bought, and therefore there was no point making things more efficient.
	don't buy slaves to plant and harvest your crops and then invest in labor-saving devices, because the whole value of your slaves is based upon manual labor.
	So when slavery was ended and labor became more immediately costly, well, the moment you're paying your workers by the hour, well, then you're going to pay your labor.
	You have to.
	You have to compete with efficiencies.
	So the end of slavery was really the birth of the modern economy and everything that you see around you, all of the beautiful, glorious technology that we have, the amazing efficiencies that we have, is all based upon the end of slavery.
	The end of slavery, which was inconceivable to people because all human societies everywhere across the world were all founded on slavery.
	Or you could say, or serfdom, which is where you have some nominal control over your products, but you are bought and sold and tied to the land like a piece of livestock.
	Or a modern tax.
	serf.
	So the modern world was born out of the end of a corrupt institution that had been right at the center of human society since there was such a thing as human society.
	And it was across the whole world, throughout all of history.
	And the end of it was inconceivable to all but the dedicated, largely white Western European Christian abolitionists.
	And then it's funny, you know, like with the end of slavery, it's a funny thing with the human mind.
	And the funny thing is that for some bizarre, deluded, fantastical reason, we keep, with morals, thinking we're done.
	Oh, we're done.
	We ended slavery.
	Yeah, we're done.
	That's it.
	I mean, it can't be approved.
	Things can't be better.
	Liberal, secular, semi free market, democratic society.
	It's the best.
	We're all done.
	There was even a book written prior to 911 called The End of History, where you finally cracked the code and created the perfect societies.
	We're just lazy.
	Lazy?
	You think you're done?
	You think I'm done?
	You think we're done?
	We're not done.
	There is more to do.
	Yeah, some things you're done.
	You're moving from one house to another.
	You take all your shit, you move it from one place to another.
	Oh, look, you're done.
	I get that.
	Life, you get old, you cough up a lung, you turn your head on the hospital pillow.
	The doctor says, Well, all we can do is make you more comfortable.
	The priest comes and blesses your body and you die and you're done.
	You want to make a bottle with a ship in it?
	Well, you make the little ship and you put the masts down and then you put it in the bottle and you lift the masts up with your little thread and you're done.
	We've got all this stuff, we're done.
	Oh, I'm making dinner.
	Oh, look, I'm done.
	We can eat our dinner.
	We have all of this fantasy that we're done with morals.
	We're done with improvement.
	We're not done.
	We're not done.
	We're closer to done than we were a couple of hundred years ago.
	And in many ways, we're further away.
	We're further apart.
	We're further back.
	In the past, they couldn't have babies born into a million dollars worth of debt and unfunded liabilities.
	Didn't have that ability.
	Because paper currency was a rarity.
	Even the America, like you know why it's called the Buck, it's because they had buckskin.
	It was part of their currency because you got to limit it somehow, other otherwise you just end up with copy-paste Zimbabwean dollar asswipe.
	Fiat currency.
	Fiat means by violent decree.
	Fiat by violent decree.
	And we've lost the common sense that God gave a goose a generation or two ago with the boomeress and most propagandized and spineless generation in the history of the world.
	And we think we're done.
	When was the last time you heard of some...
	When was the last time you heard of a substantial moral improvement that gave you goosebumps in your bone marrow, because that's what substantial moral improvement actually does, as you say.
	No way.
	That can't be.
	That's inconceivable.
	Aha.
	Then maybe, maybe you're somewhere close to genuine moral improvement.
	We can't have a society without slavery.
	My God, we'll all starve.
	There'll be no clothing, no food.
	We'll die.
	Or we get all of the amazing improvements of the modern world.
	A society without a state.
	We'll all die.
	I mean, gosh, what about national defense?
	Well, let's take.
	a little cruise over to the isle wherein I was raised and say, how do you think that 14 year old girl is doing with a big giant government to protect her?
	Are governments protecting borders?
	Because that's, we can't possibly do it without, we can't have any borders or defense without governments.
	Well, get your head out of your ass, look at the facts, and ask yourself, how's it going?
	When criminals are let out of prison, and people being terrorized by criminals.
	are the ones who end up being charged.
	How's that working out.
	Whatever you give power over you with the seductive idea that you'll be protected will almost always be inhabited by your worst enemies and deployed to destroy you over time.
	Don't be Boromir.
	If I get the ring, I'll use it for such good.
	I'll fix everything.
	I can wield this power.
	I can have the power of nukes and tanks, aircraft carriers.
	I can have the power to type whatever I want into my own bank account and bribe people into supporting me, but it'll never corrupt me.
	Oh, no, little old innocent me.
	No, no, no, I'm just a halo in a big, fluffy pile of angel wings, soaring to heights of perfect integrity.
	Since I was a little kid, the famous dictum that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely was chanted.
	Power corrupts.
	The sorcerer's apprentice.
	justice the one ring that must be destroyed.
	People don't generally know this.
	But JRR Tolkien was himself an anarchist, and of course not of the stupid psychopathic bomb-throwing kind, which is just nihilism and violence and sociopathy written in ridiculous or draped in ridiculous political loincloths and syllables.
	So everyone's, oh, power corrupts.
	Humans, we can't handle power.
	The Mildrum experiments, the prison experiments, the Stanford prison.
	Oh, people can't handle power, man.
	Power corrupts.
	Everyone says that.
	Everyone knows that.
	We have the example of the Weimar Republic and the corruption of currency.
	I did an entire series on the corruption of currency that led up to the French Revolution, Zimbabwe.
	Fiat currencies never last.
	The longest lasting fiat currency in all of human history is the British pound sterling, which has lost 98% of its value over the last couple of hundred years.
	The US dollar has lost 97, 98% of its value in 112 years.
	We all know these lessons, and we all keep repeating these mistakes.
	Power corrupts.
	Hey, I know.
	No, let's give people more political power and we'll get paradise.
	One more law, one more regulation, one more restriction on property and free speech, one more threat of jail and we'll be in paradise.
	One more initiation at the use of force, just one more on top of the tens of thousands we've already accumulated and we will finally climb that last stairway to heaven, climb into the soft duvet of Robert Plant's hair and slumber there in bliss and joy forevermore.
	Amen.
	Spoiler!
	It won't happen.
	The initiation of the use of force corrupts everyone it touches.
	There are solutions to social problems that are voluntary in nature.
	It's like this.
	If the government assigned everyone to get married and forced everyone to get married and somebody said, you know, I think, um, I think the government should not force people to get married.
	Every asshad idiot with tapioca where their frontal lobes should be would say, Whoa, you gotta be crazy.
	All societies all over the world have governments.
	force people to marry.
	You don't force people to marry.
	Well, there won't be any marriage, there won't be any children.
	You can't let people choose.
	Because nobody will date, nobody will marry, nobody will have sex if the government doesn't force them to.
	I kinda think they will.
	And as the government force increases and government control increases, particularly, say, Europe and the UK, the birth rates collapse, at least for the native populations.
	What does it take for a society to say, maybe, just maybe, we made a mistake?
	Oh no.
	Oh no.
	Don't make me sexist, please God above, don't make me sexist.
	Because women as a whole vote left.
	And leftism is producing a lot of these disasters.
	Not all, but a lot.
	Most.
	And women, particularly in the UK, overwhelmingly vote left.
	They used to vote more conservative up until the 1970s, and then they switched hard left.
	And that's not uncommon, of course.
	Married women tend to vote for smaller government, and unmarried women tend to vote for larger government.
	Because married women get their resources usually from their husband and their work, which means they want smaller government and lower taxes.
	Unmarried women get their resources from the government and their security from the government, so they want bigger government.
	get women to substitute being loved by a man for being bribed by a government, then they switch to bigger and bigger government.
	So I'm afraid, listen, listen, guys, maybe it's not as bad, maybe it's not as dire as I think.
	Maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel that isn't an oncoming estrogen train.
	Because you see, all that we have to do, all that we have to achieve, all that we have to get to save these countries, all that has to happen is happen.
	All that has to happen is women have to say, Whoopsie.
	My bad.
	Maybe just made a slight error.
	Oh, little, little zigged when I should have zagged.
	Didn't quite cross my eyes, dot my tees.
	My bad.
	Sorry, man.
	This might be a little rough on you, but we're going to have to, you know, back out, back away a little.
	We just have to beep beep beep hit in reverse.
	Gotta reverse things.
	And, uh, yeah, we, we, uh, we made mistakes.
	Now, just for those of you who are about to rail at me for being an inveterate sexist, I live with two wonderful females.
	Females love them to death, great people who readily, as I do, admit when they're wrong.
	It's not impossible.
	But as a whole, I would say, if I were a betting man, I actually am a betting man, which is why I don't bet because it's too much fun, but if I were an active betting man, and I said, well, the fate of civilization might, might, just might rest on women saying they are wrong, I would not give that super great odds.
	I don't know if you've ever known people like this in your life, it's an amazing thing.
	It's absolutely mind blowing, incredible and amazing thing.
	There are countless people in the world who would rather expire than admit fault.
	You ever known people like this?
	People who are in dangerous relationships, right?
	If you know some woman, she's in a dangerous relationship.
	Like some guy who's a real brute, a real, a real violent guy, a real Stanley Kowalski.
	And before she got together with him, you said, ah, this is not a good guy.
	She's like, no, he's great.
	You know, he's a little hot-tempered, but I like that passion about him.
	He's passionate.
	He's emphatic.
	He really cares very deeply, and that's why he getsets so intense.
	And you're like, and he's just kind of a thug, man.
	He's just kind of a brute.
	You shouldn't date him.
	And then she starts to date him, and you're like, oh, well, you know, he's a bad.
	No, no, I just walked into a door, man.
	It's just, you know, accidents happen.
	You know, he got excited.
	We were playing ping pong, and he lost control of the paddle, and boom, next thing you know, I got a shiner.
	And he's like, yeah, this is not good.
	It's not good, man.
	You gotta, you gotta, you gotta get out.
	This is like, this is bad.
	You're getting injured.
	This is like, terrible.
	And all she has to do is say, to get out of this relationship, all she has to do is say, you know what, damn it.
	You were right and I was wrong.
	Like the Fauns in the old happy days.
	I was I was right.
	He couldn't say it.
	Couldn't say it.
	So there are people who would rather descend into misery, disaster, or even death rather than admit they were wrong.
	And if you want to flip the genders, well, we've all known guys.
	Guys?
	I've beenm Roger Hardson, but we've all known guys who are dating the wrong girl, right?
	Dating the wrong girl.
	Bad call, man.
	Bad call.
	She's crazy, man.
	She's a bunny boiler.
	She's a ice scratcher.
	She's going to take a wolverine claw and disable your car, man.
	This is, uh, this is bad.
	You, you really shouldn't date her.
	No, she's, she's, you know, she's, uh, she's excitable, but I love about that.
	She's passionate.
	It's like, okay, whatever.
	She can suck a golf ball through a garden hose, but that's no reason to continue to date her.
	And yeah, bro can be in serious danger.
	Right?
	He can be in serious danger.
	False allegations, domestic violence, poison, all kinds of crazy stuff can be going on.
	And what does he do?
	What does he do?
	Just keeps going.
	All he has to do is say, Oh, God, man.
	You, uh, I'm afraid you nailed it.
	She's, uh, she's nuts.
	She's a bag full of squirrel balls, man.
	She's crazy.
	That's all.
	That's all.
	But there's a lot of people.
	And I, I personally have counseled people over the course of my life.
	I've been known to give a shred of decent advice or two in my day.
	And I have counseled people over the course of my life and said, this is not a good idea.
	I don't know if you have, I'm sure you listen to this show, so I'm sure that you're good at giving advice and trying to reason people through things.
	And did they listen?
	How many times have you given good advice to people and been proven emphatically over time to be 150% right and they don't listen?
	They just won't admit fault.
	They just won't admit fault.
	Now, it's not easy.
	Yesterday, just by the by, just.
	stupid personal anecdote.
	So yesterday, my wife was like, You don't have any calls tonight, right?
	No.
	She's like, You don't have a call at seven.
	No.
	Six forty five.
	Bing, you have a call in fifteen minutes.
	And I've been married, you know, 23 years, love my wife, we love each other.
	And she's not one to hold anything over you, right?
	And it's great, right?
	You can make mistakes and it's not like, Oh yeah, you're so certain of this, just like that time you were certain you didn't have a call four years ago.
	And I had to say, Ew, right?
	You're right, I have a call.
	I'm so sorry.
	And you know what's annoying is, well, this is what's annoying is that I admitted to my wife that I was wrong.
	She was right.
	I did have a call.
	And then, and it pains me down to the core of my spleen to say this, Guy didn't even show up.
	I could have got away with it.
	I really could have.
	I could have said nothing.
	I didn't know he wasn't even going to show up.
	He's like, well, I'm in another country.
	I didn't get the time change.
	Anyway, but yeah, so all that has to happen for disastrous policies to be reversed is women have to admit that they're wrong.
	And maybe it's only one percent more, but if I had to guess, I would say that the gender which has a little bit more trouble admitting when they're wrong tends to be a little bit more of the female persuasion than the ones who can never sit comfortably.
	All right.
	So answer is, and I'd love to take your thoughts, questions, comments, criticisms about whatever's on your mind.
	But the last thing that I would say is that, yeah, it's time for it's time for ostracism.
	It is absolutely time for ostracism, which is that whatever disastrous policies could be any number of disastrous policies, but the obviously disastrous policies.
	I've never said anything like this before in twenty years and in fact I've been doing philosophy for almost 45 years and I've never said anything like this before but I'll say it now and I'll just take whatever, whatever arrows come, it's fine, I'm old.
	But yeah, it's time for ostracism.
	And what that means is that people who openly support absolutely disastrous policies, yeah, it's time.
	The time for sort of reasoned, measured, oh, conversation and I asked Rock and here's a little table of diet and charts.
	No.
	No, I think that time is gone.
	Their time is gone.
	And I've been doing that for over forty years and this is where we are.
	So it's time for ostracism, which means if people support absolutely disastrous policies, get them the fuck out of your life.
	If they support absolute disaster and they cheer it on and they won't accept any data to the contrary and they call you names and they escalate, verbal abuse comes pouring out.
	They call you an evil person for having thoughts of your own, God help you, being possessed by the demons of reason and evidence.
	Yeah, it's time.
	I think we've reasoned long enough.
	And ostracism is the solution to social problems.
	Ostracism, you know, like if you go to a restaurant and they serve you shitty food, you don't go back, are you being violent?
	Nope.
	Firebombing anything?
	Nope.
	You're just withdrawing your support.
	That's all you're doing.
	If you go on a couple of dates with a boy or a girl, you don't really click.
	Maybe she's got that upside down horseshoe in her nose that drains out all the luck.
	Maybe he's got so many piercings he looks like he fell down a flight of stairs holding the tackle box.
	Maybe anything, right?
	It just doesn't, you know, you don't gel, you don't click, you don't vibe, as the young say these days.
	And then you don't, you don't want to go out again.
	You say, you know, it doesn't, not really working for me, but I wish you the best, right?
	That's ostracism.
	Not continuing the relationship.
	You got a friend won't stop drinking.
	Long past any remotely cool experimentation in your late teens could, could count, right?
	Early twenties for my American listeners, of course.
	Obey the law.
	But you got some friend you just won't stop drinking.
	Every time you get together, he gets shit faced and vomits on your Kodiak boots.
	Well, at some point, don't you say when he's like., hey man, we gotta go out and paint the town.
	It's like, basically, you just paint my shoes with your vomit.
	I'm kind of tired of that.
	So I'm gonna give a hard no to that.
	And that's ostracism, right?
	You got an asshole boss, you get a better job, you quit your job.
	That's ostracism.
	Withdrawing support from people who either are a huge net negative or you get a better positive elsewhere.
	Most people, most people, unless you got married very young, most people of the course of their life have gone through a situation where they're dating someone.
	Oh man.
	I thought this was pretty good.
	But they're dating someone.
	You're dating someone.
	And what happens?
	Oh, shit.
	Someone better comes along.
	Not just a little better, but a lot better.
	And you're like, damn.
	This is complicated.
	And maybe you make that leap off the sinking borderline cruise to nowhere and jump on the happy Lusitania.
	No, not the Lusitania.
	The happy...
	The good ship lollipop.
	There we go.
	The good ship lollipop.
	And you sail off to warm ports.
	Tropical fruits and coconut cups.
	And it's good.
	You bail out of something bad, you get to something good.
	You break up, do the honorable thing, right?
	Break up and, you know, woo the new girl.
	You get to something better.
	You take your vote away from the left, maybe you give it to some other party.
	It's ostracism in a way.
	Ostracism is healthy, ostracism is good.
	And from when I was a kid, the funny thing is the wild thing, right?
	So since I was a kid, ostracism has been praised enormously, mostly for women, right, mostly for women.
	Oh, are you unhappy in your marriage, darling?
	Oh, don't sweat it.
	Oh my gosh.
	If you're just a little bit teeny emotionally bored or dissatisfied, you know, maybe.
	If you're just a little bored and dissatisfied, this wonderful sculptors with downtown loft departments who have clay slathered all over their abs and long hair, and they just love to dig down a middle aged woman with two children.
	So all you have to do is leave your dandruff head of a husband and just go to this wonderful new young chap with his chiseled jaw, steely blue eyes and minotaur thighs.
	I don't know why I threw that in, but I should know I do.
	There was some really creepy romance novel that's out there at the moment where there's a glory holeole, a Minotaurus, and other things that, Even though I have a fairly strong stomach, I quail before, like a frightened little bird.
	Ostracism!
	Not happy in your marriage!
	Move on!
	Go open up that restaurant on the Mediterranean that you've always wanted to, honey.
	Ostracism!
	It's time.
	People in your life support crazy policies that are going to wreck your civilization.
	It's time to bid them may not so fond.
	Fuck off.
	I mean, think of how many disasters in history could have been averted through ostracism.
	Oh, you're a communist?
	Fuck off.
	Oh, you're a crazy fascist?
	Fuck off.
	Oh, you're pro slavery?
	Fuck off.
	It's a whole lot easier than the alternative, which tends to be not peaceful.
	We want to avoid that.
	I'm a philosopher, which means I'm good in debate, not so excellent in the trenches.
	So the peaceful solution is ostracism.
	You need to have those firm lines, these firm boundaries in your life.
	People who support really crazy and destructive stuff.
	You need to drop them like a hot rock that will burn through your hand if you hang on.
	All right, thank you for your patience.
	And now is the time in Sprockets when we dance.
	All right, so let's go.
	We've got a collar.
	Psycho sovereign.
	What is on your mind, my friend?
	How can philosophy help you tonight?
	That was quick.
	So, I'm an Englishman.
	And you're right about everything that's happening in this country.
	Everything.
	What we're supposed to do about it?
	I've been following you since I was a teen.
	I'm nearly 30 now.
	And anarchy is the way long term.
	But it doesn't work in a situation such as ours.
	And you're drawn towards an idea where everybody I know, young men, were drawn towards an authoritarian mindset.
	Right.
	I'm sorry.
	Are you sorry.
	Are you drawn towards a little hard to hear.
	Are you drawn towards an authoritarian mindset?
	Is that right?
	Yes, that's correct.
	Okay.
	Because it seems like a hard hand is the only way to fix this.
	And it aligns with what you're saying about the tape of rings, you know, your Lord of the Rings metaphor.
	But what else are we supposed to do?
	Because, and I understand that the government is trying to align us with that, because that's what they want in turn.
	They play us against each other.
	So what the fuck else are we supposed to do?
	Because the UK is in such a state.
	state right now that the only thing, revolution is the only option, really.
	And everyone's afraid to say it because you're not allowed to say it.
	And we're in a catch-22 then.
	You have to go very hard or not at all.
	And of course, the ideal, like you say, is anarchy in the truest sense.
	What are we supposed to do?
	We live here.
	We've had decades of our children getting raped by Muslim gangs and we're not allowed to say a fucking thing about it.
	The only solution is to go hard against it.
	It's a very slippery slope.
	I understand that.
	What do we do?
	Well, I don't counsel violence.
	And of course, in immediate extremity of self-defense is a valid use of violence.
	So if any criminal of any race or ethnicity or religion is attacking you, I fully support the right of self-defense.
	Depends on the laws where you are.
	Most countries will support self-defense.
	Not many of them are as strong as the sort of the castle doctrine or the no duty to repeat laws of the United States.
	So, you know, obey the laws in your local vicinity.
	But I. I don't want to overshadow your question, but I will just briefly speak about a personal frustration of mine.
	I suppose what do we do philosophically?
	No, but okay, let me ask you this question.
	And I'm not trying to pick on you and you may have perfectly great answers and I could be perfectly wrong.
	But let me ask you this question.
	So you've been listening to me for over a decade, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Do you still have statists in your life?
	Yes.
	Well, I'm a nutritionist as an analogy, right?
	Now a nutritionist may be an exercise person like some fitness trainer or whatever.
	I'm not these things, but just as an analogy, if I was a fitness trainer and a nutritionist and you said, hey, I'm 30 and I'm overweight and I'm flabby and my blood work is bad or whatever, what should I do?
	I'd say, well, you know, you should eat well and exercise and come up with an exercise plan and come up with a diet plan, right?
	And then hopefully you would avert a heart attack, right?
	Now, if you don't listen to me for 20 years as your nutritionist and your exercise expert, and then you call me up and you say, oh, Steph., I think I'm having a heart attack.
	What should I do?
	What am I going to say?
	Well, A, you should have listened to me 20 years ago, but that's sort of pointless now.
	And B, I can't help you, because I'm a nutritionist and diet guy, and I'm not going to say to you, well, if you're having a heart attack, you should put down the hamburger or the cheesecake or whatever your bad food of choices or whatever, right?
	So I've been putting out the same arguments.
	Sorry, we're getting quite a lot of echo here.
	I'm going to have to mute you.
	So we, I've been putting out the same arguments for over 40 years and of course for 20 years almost in the public square, the public sphere, which is do not consult with those who submit.
	Now, be patient, of course.
	Most people don't understand the evils of the society that they live in.
	And that's not their fault.
	I mean, you know, we're kind of propagandized a lot.
	And so you educate people and you say, you know, this is wrong, this is good and evil, and this is why this is good and this is evil.
	and you're patient, and you explain things, and so on, right?
	And then you hope that people listen to reason, and they understand, and they accept, and they, you know, if they can't argue against what you're saying, then they listen and come to the sunny side of the tracks, and the good side of
	Now, if, however, you explain to people, right, let's take the analogy of when they were trying to end slavery, right?
	So you've got a friend, like you become an abolitionist, you say slavery is an evil and immoral institution, and you've got a friend, let's call him Bob.
	And Bob says, no, no, no, it's not evil, it's not immoral, it's not bad, it's necessary, and we can't survive without it, and it's good, and blah, blah, blah.
	Right?
	Well, you make your case.
	You can't both own property and be property.
	We own the effects of our actions.
	It's immoral to own others.
	You know, arguments that you would make based upon natural rights and property rights.
	And basically, of course, slavery relies on the initiation of the use of force and thus would be immoral.
	So you would make that case.
	And there's a timer.
	It's a really important timer.
	It's a timer.
	When you tell people a new moral argument, a new moral idea, there's a timer that is set down by the conscience, your conscience, their conscience.
	And that timer is, you have to accept this or rebut it, but you can no longer ignore it.
	If you grew up in some state of nature, ancient Rome or whatever it is, everybody accepts slavery, you're kind of laughed at and insulted and scorned if you don't accept it, and there's no tradition, there's no Christianity which requires free will for the entrance to heaven, and there's no John Locke, there's none of the natural law theorists, there's none of the property rights theorists, there's none of those the Christian theologians who would say that slavery is a violation of God's freedom on this green earth.
	You know, you're not really going to make much headway.
	There's a lot of sort of foundational.
	arguments that need to go forward to look at the end of slavery.
	So you put these arguments forward and the timer, like the egg timer, is now in motion.
	It's been turned over.
	And I don't know what that time frame is.
	I talked about this in a libertarian conference, I think in 2011.
	That's a long ass time ago.
	And there's a timer.
	I don't know how that time is.
	It's not five minutes.
	It's not five years.
	It's somewhere.
	For me, it's a month or two.
	You know, if I'm engaged with someone, and I'm giving them moral arguments about right and wrong, good and evil, then I'll give them a month, maybe two, maybe two., couple of conversations.
	But if they can't rebut the arguments and they won't accept the morals, then they're just an amoral person or an immoral person.
	I don't want them in my life.
	In the same way that if you are very passionate as an abolitionist about ending slavery, how many pro-slavery people can you have in your life without being a giant hypocrite?
	And thus discrediting the abolitionist.
	abolitionistic movement.
	And so right now, I mean, I've been publicly talking about this stuff for 20 years and telling people, speech after speech, podcast after podcast, at great personal cost and danger, I might add.
	And so you have not listened.
	Now, I'm not trying to nag you or bag on you.
	I'm not trying to make you feel bad.
	And maybe you've got a perfect counter-argument to what I'm saying.
	But if you haven't listened, then at least acknowledge that when you call me up and say, well, Steph, I'm in a state of desperation.
	What should I do?
	Well, I'm not going to counsel you to violence.
	I'm not going to counsel you to law breaking.
	Because there was a perfectly peaceful and sensible way to do this.
	I still think there is.
	And if you haven't taken my good advice, why would you tempt me into giving bad advice?
	That makes sense, right?
	So the way that you end slavery is you take ending slavery seriously, which means you're not friends with people who advocate for slavery, right?
	And if you are going to advocate for the end of slavery, and the guy who's pretty foundational to the anti-slavery movement says, well, there's a timer, you know, give it a week or two, a month or two, but not forever, for people to join you in being...
	being against slavery but if somebody remains resolutely pro slavery don't consult with them don't break bread with people who are now consciously promoting and supporting immorality.
	Don't break bread with them.
	Don't be violent.
	It is not the initiation of the use of force to be in moral error.
	Don't be violent.
	Obey the law.
	But don't break bread with people who support immorality.
	Severe, significant immorality.
	Now you, and again, I'm not nacking at you.
	I'm not bagging at you.
	I'm just simply pointing out a cause and effect.
	You have chosen to ignore that advice, as have millions of other people.
	You are in good company.
	You're in good company.
	There's the majority of people have not listened to my advice and my fairly passionate and powerful and reasoned moral arguments i don't think it's too late for ostracism which is why i made the case for it earlier and it's peaceful and that's way better but if you haven't followed my advice and you have continued to consult with and break bread with people who support some pretty significant immoralities Well then,
	I'm not really sure what to say.
	Because if you don't listen to the advice of a philosopher, then calling up to get the advice of a philosopher seems a little odd to me.
	And so I will, yeah, I will, I will just leave it from there, from there, and, you know, I certainly do wish everyone, of course, probably doesn't even need to be said, but I wish everyone in the world, the peaceful and voluntary pursuit of virtue.
	Do not initiate the use of force.
	Do not break the law because you don't need to.
	And you will get far more out of ostracism than you will out of violence.
	And I mean, just all we have to do, I understand.
	People get desperate when they ignore good advice and feel cornered.
	But, you know, I've done twelve hours on the French Revolution.
	Look what happened with the French Revolution.
	An absolute countrywide slaughterfest.
	Priests slaughtered, nuns raped and killed, beheadings, guillotines, the reign of terror.
	Just absolutely appalling.
	People say, ah, yes, well, but what about the American Revolution?
	Okay, well, what about the American Revolution?
	The American Revolution, even at its most optimistic, you could say, although George Washington ordered his troops to ride down.
	down 10,000 of his troops to write down the farmers in Pennsylvania who didn't want to pay a whiskey tax.
	Even if we give it its most charitable interpretation, we can say that the constitution lasted for barely 80 years before it was subverted and overthrown, and America went from the smallest government that had ever been created to the largest and most powerful government that could ever be conceived of relatively quickly.
	I mean, in the span of human history, 200 years.
	arguably.
	So, what about the Russian Revolution?
	What about the Cambodian Revolution?
	What about the revolutions in just about every country that you could conceive of?
	Or look at the absolute disasters of the National Socialist reaction to the fear of communism, what that did to Germany and the world, complete catastrophe.
	So, it is very tempting to want to take up the sword and violence except in an extremity of self-defense where legal is a bad idea.
	You say, ah, but what else can we do?
	And blah, blah, blah.
	Well, I'm offering you the peaceful solution.
	And if you don't choose to take it, I withdraw approval.
	Significantly.
	All right.
	Any other questions?
	Comments?
	Thoughts?
	Issues?
	Problems?
	It can be about any topic that you like.
	I have a little bit of time.
	Before my, you know, I'm going to be 59 next month.
	Pretty wild, man.
	Pretty wild.
	And I'd say I still feel pretty young.
	The only difference is that when I've been in the car for an hour or more, I don't take many long drives when I've been in the car for an hour or more.
	When I get out, I feel like a little bit of a creaky old launcher.
	You know that launcher you pull out from the garage and eh.
	It's a little rusty.
	A little creaky.
	All right.
	Gilbert, I think I remember you from the Scott Adams cartoon.
	What is on your mind, my friend?
	How can I help you?
	Hello.
	This voluntary society that I hear so much great, so many great things about.
	How about power consolidation?
	Because that's always been the thing that's been on my mind in connection with that.
	Like, how do you avoid this slow rolling takeoff of people just consolidating more and more power to themselves after you've created this greater construct?
	And also, would that be maybe why it doesn't exist in a Wait, wait, one question at a time.
	Don't double-barrel me.
	Okay, so let's say that we have a free society.
	There's no centralized coercive political power.
	It's a voluntary society.
	So tell me the scenario by which people accumulate power.
	And I'm not trying to get you here.
	I'm genuinely curious how your thoughts are that people are going to consolidate power and what kind of power would it be?
	Well, I would think the most natural way is the same way that is mostly done in our societies, right?
	That you would do it through media communications, for example, that you would angle specific, like you could build up an ethos for your organization to be okay, wait, wait.
	So sorry to interrupt but i i don't want you to like skate along when i'm not sure about the beginning so uh you're in a free society and let's say there's i don't know something like television i i know that probably wouldn't be but let's say there's something like television and you are you're dudley do bad and you buy out this television station and what do you do with it do you stop broadcasting propaganda is that right Let's say I own another company that sells specific products.
	I could just.
	No, no, no.
	You said, hang on.
	No, you said media.
	So I need to keep the example in media.
	Yeah.
	So let's say that you own a movie studio or you or you own a television station or some streaming service or something like that.
	Yeah.
	So what do you do to begin consolidating power?
	Well, I would spread my message.
	I would figure out what resonates with people and I could even be, I could I could weave in lies, small lies.
	Things that would push it in.
	Like, say I would be Okay, so give me an example of an agenda that you might have, what would you be trying to achieve?
	I could be trying to achieve consolidating power around myself as a person.
	Okay, no, I get that.
	I mean, but that's just, let me, this is just another way of saying getting power.
	So, yeah, you're trying to consolidate, but how are you going to get power in a voluntary society?
	I think in the same way that it's done in this society, right?
	No, no, it can't be.
	It can't, no, it can't be because the way that you do it now is you create a whole bunch of propaganda that has people obey the state and then you do the long march through the institutions to attempt to gain control of state power and so on.
	But there is no centralized state power in a free society, so that's not, that's not a mechanism that's available to you, if that makes sense.
	Oh, and also, of course, children are raised peacefully because that's the only way we get to a free society.
	So there's peaceful parenting and there's really good education to teach people how to reason, how to rebut, how to spot lies, how to spot sophists.
	There would be almost, almost virtually endless education because everyone in that societyety would know that the only way you retain your freedoms is if children are raised with good reasoning skills and good skills of skepticism and detecting sophistry and lies.
	So you don't have any central political power to take over, and you have a population that is raised to be very, very sensitive and very alert and aware of sophistry.
	So how do you do it?
	Well, in that situation, I would lower my target towards the lower IQ part of the population.
	I would figure out if they had some contentions or some things they weren't happy about in society, and I would start hammering on those right that that's a also a modern technique okay so uh all of your and that's that's a that's a good argument i appreciate that so all of your contracts which are necessary for you to survive as an economic entity in a free society you you require companies or outside agencies to enforce your contracts to supply you with electricity to supply you
	with water to to do all of these things right to to give you banking services or finance services or whatever it's going to be right probably bitcoin or something like that right so if you have taken over a movie studio and people can very quickly see, the smarter people, like the people who run all these services and these companies, can very quickly see that you're trying to exploit less intelligent people in order to create social unrest or whatever.
	They will simply stop doing business with you.
	And then you can't get any electricity, you can't get any banking, you can't get any water.
	And people will simply refuse to do business with you because you are doing bad things to less intelligent people.
	So you're looking at almost the inverse of the system we have now where people are debanked for being too radical or too anti-system.
	No, people aren't debanked for being too radical.
	People are debanked for telling the truth that goes against the interests of those in power.
	Yeah, that's radical in a society of lies.
	I get it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So, yeah.
	So, you are generally, not always, but in general.
	So, the people who de-platform, de-platform truly objectionable people and then mix in people who are just telling the truth.
	So, everyone gets things.
	It's the same category, right?
	But in a free society, if you're out there lying to less intelligent people and saying, you know, whatever propaganda or programming or whatever it is that you're doing, well, people won't want to support your business, the more intelligent people.
	They would recognize the danger of what you're doing because they would be trained to do that from a very early age and they will simply start doing business with you and they will stop enforcing your contracts and and so on.
	Right?
	So, uh, and that that would all be written into the contracts that you have with them in some manner that would be relatively, um, uh, objective.
	So in order to do anything in a free society, you need the approval of all of the organizations that are necessary for you to do business and survive and so on in a free society.
	So they won't want you out there riling up the people and getting them all mad and hot and bothered and aggressive and angry and possibly violent and so on.
	Uh, and, and, you know, the less intelligentent people often have a lot more common sense than the more intelligent people And they themselves would have been educated well and raised peacefully.
	And so people would engage with you in debates.
	They would point out the flaws in what you're doing.
	And if you continued to do it and continued to escalate, they would simply start withdrawing services from you until you were no longer able to destabilize the country with some level of propaganda, if that makes sense.
	Yeah.
	I see what you're saying.
	But that's also just like one area of society.
	And you would think that this mode of operating could scale to other aspects.
	Like say, for example, if I run a private school or I could also be a service delivery company.
	And that's actually the crux of what I wanted to get at, like this cartel formation.
	You would say this cartel, sorry you said cartel formation?
	Yeah, if you get cartel formation, which is, which has happened in history, do you think it's necessary to, if you want to form cartels, do you think it's necessary for a government to exist that can No, not only do I think that, that's absolutely provable historically.
	Yeah.
	So, for those of you who don't know, and I'm sure you do, so I'll keep it very brief.
	A cartel is when a bunch of people, let's say, they supply bread to a certain area.
	There's like six bakeries, and they all get together and they say, hey, we're going to double the the price of our bread, right?
	And because it's really hard to set up your own bakery and maybe it's tough to get bread imported for whatever reason, then they can they can all get together and collude and and raise the prices and then people are just helpless.
	They've got to pay four bucks instead of two bucks for a loaf of bread and they all go laughing their way to the bank and and I'm sort of putting it in a bit tongue in cheek but that's the kind of stuff you mean, right?
	Yeah, correct.
	Right.
	So the reason why that never works is because there's such a great incentive for one of those bakeries to cut its prices that that's what inevitably happens.
	Even if they all get together and they say, oh my God, we're gonna we're gonna going to raise double the price of our bread.
	Well, what happens is people just stop buying as much bread.
	And they're like, wow, this price has gone up like crazy and there's no particular reason for it.
	I'm not going to buy bread.
	I'm going to buy English muffins or I'm going to make my own bread or I'm just going to not have bread.
	I'm going to pita instead or like they just stop buying it, right?
	So then what happens is the bread manufacturers see their profits really begin to decline and then one of them has a huge incentive to break the cartels agree quote agreement and this would have to be a handshake deal.
	You couldn't write it into law, right?
	Because that's kind of it's certainly legal now and it would not be.
	be very much approved of in a free society.
	So every single one of those cartel members is going to face potentially the end of their business in a permanent way.
	Like once people get off a particular product, they don't often get back on it.
	So once if you like bread but the bread's too expensive and you switch to pita or English muffins or I don't know whatever you might use as a substitute or nothing at all, then after a certain amount of time doing that, your palate gets used to it, your kids get used to it, you start incorporating it into your cooking and so on.
	And so you might be permanently destroying your business in its sort of foundational way.
	So each one of these cartel members, each one of these six bakeries has a huge incentive to cut the price of the bread back to its original levels and that way they scoop up everyone else's business too.
	So the only way that cartels have ever survived is by getting the government to pass laws to restrict entry or by getting the government to pass laws to put in tariffs to competitive competition or to have a mandated price as they sort of have in the dairy boards in various places in the west and so on.
	And so, yeah, cartels simply can't exist in a free society because there's just, I mean, yeah, and people, and of course the thing is too, if you're concerned about cartels, the government is the ultimateate cartel.
	So you don't solve the problem of, gee, people could officially raise prices when, you know, every time you go and get your driver's license renewed, it's raised and you can't do anything about it, right?
	Your property taxes keep going up.
	So if you're concerned about monopolies or cartels raising prices, the government is like the worst conceivable solution, if that makes sense.
	Yeah, it's the automatic cartel in a way.
	It's preset up that way.
	Oh yeah, yeah.
	I mean, there's no competition and it has a monopoly on services and on prices.
	And so, yeah, I mean, the only hope you have is in a free market.
	You certainly don't solve it with a state.
	But then what about these online platforms which has become the main mode of communication for modern humans, right?
	We have all these enormous tech conglomerates basically dominating entire sectors on their own.
	And they run these social media sites like profiling engines and like data engines, right?
	So how do you and they're primarily people are primarily kept inside them due to the network effect.
	If you're familiar with this, you probably Yeah, no, I know what the network effect is.
	I mean, I worked in computers.
	Okay.
	And so, let's talk about in a free society.
	Why does censorship occur in a government based in a state of society?
	Why does censorship occur?
	Well, censorship occurs mostly there to placate the government.
	Well, so censorship occurs.
	Censorship occurs in general because people find some arguments and information detrimental to their goals of political power.
	So as we all know, people on the left very rarely get censored and people on the right consistently get censored.
	And there's a variety of reasons for that, but the reason is the most fundamental reason is because people want the left to get in power or stay in power and therefore they deplatform those who criticize the left or who have arguments and evidence against the left.
	So the reason that censorship occurs is in the pursuit of political power.
	And of course, when you get a hard rightist government in power, then they do the opposite, right?
	They de-platform and censor the left and not the right.
	And so the censorship is based upon the desire to control political power.
	And if there is no centralized agency of political power, why would you censor?
	See, censorship is very expensive, right?
	Because, I mean, what were there?
	But the whole teams, 30,000 people or whatever it was under Meta, mostly sweatshops in the Philippines, it seemed, who were reviewing online material.
	And that really adds to your price considerably.
	And of course, Facebook is nominally free, but you pay for it with time, with ads and ad revenues and ad costs.
	And so because Facebook is very expensive, they have to raise the price of their advertising.
	So their advertising price or the price to advertise on Facebook would be like twice what it would be on a non-censorship platform.
	And now they have to do this in part to comply with government regulations and requirements, but also because we all know that Mark Zuckerberg himself has particular leftist goals and poured huge amounts of money into politics and tends to censor people more on the left than on the right as a whole.
	It's sort of my opinion and what I've seen.
	And so if you have two companies, company A and company B, and they're both social media companies, and one of them has a censorship goal, then they have to hire tens of thousands of people.
	And, you know, maybe you could do some of it with AI or maybe not, whatever, right?
	But still pretty dicey.
	But even if that, you'd still have to hire a bunch of people to manage and run the AI and pay for the cost of the AI.
	So you've got company A that does censorship and company B that doesn't do censorship.
	And the way that company B would operate is they would say, all law, sorry, all speech that has not been adjudicated as criminal in a court of law like a guilty verdict, right?
	Some immediate incitement to violence or death threats or something like that.
	So all speech that has not been found guilty of violating the law is legal speech.
	And that company B would not need to hire all of these people.
	It would not need to review all of these posts.
	It would not need to adjudicate all of these disputes.
	And people wouldn't want to post on it anyway.
	Because why would you want to post on it?
	Because censorship laws by definition are all vague and murky, right?
	Nobody knows.
	Right?
	Nobody knows.
	So people would not want to stay on company A because it would be more expensive, either in terms of time or money.
	And of course, all the goods they bought that were advertised on company A would have the price raised because those goods would have to cover the costs of the increased advertising costs of advertising on company A because they had to pay for all of the censorship.
	So it's just ridiculously inefficient.
	So people would much rather post on company B's social media platform because the goods they buy are cheaper, the advertising rates are cheaper, and they know ahead of time.
	what's allowed and what's not in that all speech that has not been found criminal in a court of law is legal and so they're fine right.
	They don't have any concerns that all of their platform is going to be nuked out from under them.
	It's much cheaper, it's much faster, it's much more efficient, much more responsive, much more fun.
	So any company in a free society that decided to start imposing arbitrary censorship on its users would go out of business relatively quickly.
	I see.
	Yeah, in theory it makes a lot of sense that you would be mostly guided by these more subtle or in some cases more extensive pressures instead of getting into a kind of a standard situation where the government is so heavy and there's so much regulation surrounding companies that you end up with a small group of them who have an enormous legal departments to even follow along in the regulation that's made.
	Yeah, I see where you're coming from.
	It makes sense.
	Well, and the network effect, I mean, I'm sure you, I don't know if you're old enough to remember things like MySpace or AOL or things like that, but there were massive networks early on that.
	completely went the way of the dodo because, you know, for a variety of technical reasons and so on or consumer reasons or something like that.
	So, and of course, you know, the way that things work right now, I mean, the internet was developed by the government, so it's missing very.
	important security protocols.
	It doesn't have a way of dealing with spam and so on.
	I'm generally convinced that if people had to pay a penny to send emails, we'd liberate humanity from the endless problem of spam and hacking and phishing and all that kind of stuff.
	But there was no crypto and it sort of wasn't developed with any of those sort of thoughts in mind.
	So yeah, I mean, there would be a much better internet with a free society and yeah, censorship.
	It's just too expensive.
	And why would you want to do it right now?
	It's because, well, if your friends get into government, your job as a businessman becomes much easier.
	And if your enemies get into government, you know, maybe you'll get audited or maybe you'll get, you know, the government will come after you for, you know, all of these vague things like particular mandates and all.
	So it's just it's better to have your friends in and therefore you're going to censor and, you know, but without that central corrupting principle of the need to control political power, I mean, who would want to just start imposing censorship and raising their rates and, you know, tripling their workforce and, and slowing down their entire system and making users anxious about what's allowed and what's not.
	I mean, that would just be a terrible business decision, right?
	Yeah.
	Well, those were my questions for today.
	for today and I'm happy that you answered them in such an expanded way.
	It really, really made me think.
	Yeah, I appreciate that.
	And we're not done.
	That's what I was saying earlier.
	We're not done with the moral journey of mankind.
	We still have many, many places to go.
	And I understand that there's some anxiety and some conceptual challenges with looking at these kinds of issues.
	But it really, really is important for us to recognize that we still have places to go.
	We can't look across the world.
	We can't look at the world as it is and say, well, this is as great as it can possibly be.
	And it's like, no, that can't be.
	This can't be.
	This can't be the best.
	This can't be the best that we can do.
	Especially when we've looked at the last couple of hundred years and seen how much we've improved and we still have more to go.
	Sorry, you were going to say?
	Yes, I'm hoping for a safer future and a kinder future and also that we might finally be able to discover a more stable system than the ones we've discovered so far because it all just seems to trend towards misery in the end.
	And I'm tired of this cycle.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm so sick of this cycle I can't even tell you.
	Like I could do a whole other rant, but I'm so sick of this cycle I couldn't even tell you this cycle of like, well, you got some freedom.
	That's great.
	So you get some big economic productivity and you get some wealth that's generated in the society.
	And when that wealth is generated, oh, look, the government gets bigger because it can tax more.
	And then it can use future tax receipts as a way to pretend it's adding value by borrowing money from the future to buy votes in the present.
	And then the future bill comes due and then the government can't pay its bills.
	So then it provokes either internal or external conflict in order to cover up the fact that it can't pay its bills in the same way that a restaurant that can't pay its bills might burn itself down for the insurance money.
	Governments regularly provoke conflict when they can't pay their bills.
	And I'm just, I'm so tired of this whole cycle that freedom breeds tyranny and then tyranny collapses, freedom reemerges, freedom breeds tyranny.
	And I just don't see how we can get out of it without.
	And like From an engineering group, you've found what?
	Right.
	I see the government almost like a positive feedback loop because there's no regulation on it.
	It is the regulating body and it can also decide on money creation and stuff like that.
	Right.
	So you get this positive feedback loop that as soon as you move the ball just slightly off target, it just starts rolling on its own.
	And you get this brainwashing machine and all these things that the government uses tax money to promote in society.
	Yes.
	And there is a, you know, that there's a.
	balance in nature.
	That's why we have life and why life has been able to sustain itself for like four billion years.
	There is a natural balance in nature.
	I mean, as simple as things like, oh, there's more CO2.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, CO2 stimulates plant growth, which takes out the CO2 and replaces it with oxygen.
	Right?
	So that, and this is why global warming never made any sense to me that we were just going to get this, you know, absolute, uh, exponential, runaway, uh, nonsense.
	It's like, oh, well, if that was possible, like a little bit more CO2 in the air destroys all capacity for life.
	There's no way life would have lasted four billion years because there's been way too many variables in the planet over four billion years and there's just no way.
	It has to be a self-balancing and self-correcting mechanism in order for life to have a stable enough environment to develop this amazing brain that allows us to be paranoid about things like global warming.
	And so the idea that, you know, well, gee, you know, three more cow farts and we turning into Venus is like, there's just no way.
	There's just no way that is, that it could possibly be a thing.
	I mean, it's the balance in nature is just incredible.
	Like if you've got, if lions are too good at hunting zebras.
	zebra, then the lions eat all the zebra and then the lions die because there's no prey.
	So lions have to be strategically incompetent in order to survive.
	If lions get too good, they all die out.
	And so, I mean, just literally incredible delicate balances like that.
	The fact that, you know, we think we have an ego and we rely on, you know, twenty different organs, you know, a couple of square meters of skin and, you know, a couple of trillion bacteria floating around in our gut.
	Like it's all, it's just amazing the way that it works.
	It's, and that sort of beauty and elegance and self-correcting nature is part of the free market as well.
	Like, you know, the old thing that, oh, there's a shortage of steel.
	Oh, okay.
	Well, that, that incentivizes people to produce more steel because the price has gone up and that's a free signal that steel is in demand.
	So then a bunch of people produce steel that drives the price back down and it reaches equilibrium.
	Like, that's so elegant and so foundationally beautiful.
	That to me is more beautiful than any concerto, any symphony, any beautiful play that is more beautiful than Shakespeare, that is more beautiful than a sunset, that is as beautiful a thing as you could possibly get that you get free information about what people need that self corrects relatively quickly.
	A study that was done some years ago about when information is released about a stock, it takes about 18 seconds to be reflected in the price.
	It's incredible, right?
	That's exactly it, right?
	With the free market, you mostly have negative feedback loops.
	So if something starts moving in a very extreme direction, they will be forcing in the other direction almost automatically.
	Just do so.
	Oh, yeah.
	The whole balance of longs and shorts in future trading is just incredible.
	I mean, pork belly futures.
	I mean, like the amount of knowledge that is put in there to balance productivity and align it almost as perfectly humanly possible, the various needs and preferences of billions of people around the world that are constantly changing and people constantly working to balance all of that out with all of this free information.
	I mean, this is the basic Austrian school of economics argument that you can't have an efficient economy without a price mechanism and you can't have an effective price mechanism without a free market.
	And this is why central planning really doesn't work because you don't have a price mechanism that reveals people's true preferences.
	I mean, everyone's going to say, I want the latest iPhone.
	Everyone's going to say that or the latest Android or whatever, right?
	Everyone's going to say that.
	And in a centralized planned economy, how do you determine who gets it?
	Well, it ends up being assigned and referred to the aristocracy of pull of political favors and powers and so on.
	But in a free market, Well, it's the people who slap down the 1500 or what is it like a new iPhone now is like crazy expensive like 1500, 2000 bucks or whatever.
	I was in an Apple store the other day.
	I was just kind of curious because I have an old iPad and I was like, hey, I wonder what the price is of a new iPad.
	I'm like, holy shit balls, Batman.
	That's some shekels.
	But it's the number of people who will actually put the money down and that's how you know.
	And they do a lot of research to figure out how many to make, how many obscene, obsessive Apple fanboys are.
	You know, I saw this study the other day that if you had bought Bitcoin instead of a new iPhone over the last 15 years, you'd be like a multi multi millionaire.
	But you know, I guess people want their Pixel pushes to be a little bit, a little faster on their camera, their photos to be a little better that nobody's going to care about after they're dead.
	But that elegance of the free market and how it balances things out and how people are constantly sniffing for any price disparities to close those gaps.
	Right?
	Oh, you always hear this in the, oh, stock, I found an undervalued company.
	Like value is some objective thing, right?
	An undervalued company, I'm going to close that gap.
	Or this company is overvalued based upon their price earnings ratio.
	I'm going to sell that stock.
	And people just constantly looking to look at, to arbitrage any gap between value and perception and just close that as quickly as possible.
	I mean, the absolute elegance of the free market and how you can see innovations like polymarket right it's the most you can see innovations like polymarket right it's the most precise predictor of political events right now right and all it took was just for people to put up their money and suddenly we see the truth well that's the skin in the game that uh nasim taleb talks about like and this is why i don't I don't listen to people who don't have skin in the game.
	And we all have skin in the game with regards to politics.
	But, you know, when people say, well, I think this government program should do X, Y, and Z, I'm like, you have no skin in the game.
	Well, I'm a taxpayer.
	parents like, no, you're not.
	They're just going to borrow and print the money and the future and the people on fixed incomes, the kids in the future and the people on fixed incomes are going to take it in the shorts in a couple of years, but you don't have any skin in the game.
	Now, if somebody says, I'm going to support this government program, and if it doesn't work, according to some objective metric, I'm going to quit my job and go live in a tent in the woods.
	And I could be like, okay, now you've got some skin in the game.
	But otherwise, it's just people windbagging about stuff.
	Like, you know, these questions of the migrants and so on.
	And so you see these videos of people who say, do you support migration or, you know, mass migration?
	So yes, yes, yes.
	Oh, well, we have a fellow here.
	He needs to come and live in your house.
	And people are like, oh, no, no, no, I'm busy.
	I'm traveling.
	My place is too small.
	Okay, so it's gone from abstract to real.
	And people who don't have skin in the game, they just make it a whole bunch of noises.
	And so, yeah, so I just really wanted to point out that the elegance of the free market is one of the most astounding, amazing, and literally beautiful things in the world and the more that we can feed into that exquisite excellent machinery of voluntary choice objective value in terms of price and voluntary transactions, the free market is the only place, you know, outside of.
	love and sex, but economically, it's the only place where two people are by definition happier for making a trade.
	Because that's if you have a dollar and I have a pen and you want my pen more than you want the dollar and you want and I want your dollar more than I want my pen, then I sell you my pen for the dollar.
	You know, I go to get a coffee and it's two bucks, then I want the coffee more than I want my two bucks and they want my two bucks more than they want their coffee.
	So we're both happier and better off, but only because it's voluntary.
	The moment it's coerced, it's exploitative and awful.
	So it's peaceful, it's rational., it's voluntary, it's beautiful, it's self-correcting, it's sustainable, it produces the most amazing, beautiful, wonderful things, from antibiotics to cell phones to UV lamps for people with seasonal affective disorder to you name it, right?
	Just the most incredible, amazing, beautiful stuff, this wonderful conveyor belt of magical items goes past you and all you have to do is provide value to reach out and exchange for them and it makes everyone happier by definition who exchanges voluntarily.
	You couldn't come up with a better conceivable system and it is an amazing product of British economists, Amsterdam economists, the Dutch economists in, in particular, are the first stock market in the history of the world.
	They figured out how to bottle up evolution, basically.
	I'm sorry?
	They figured out how to bottle up evolution and apply it to something else.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And so balance plus progress plus sustainability is the greatest thing that human beings can achieve and we don't have any of that with the current status system.
	So yeah, it certainly is my goal that we're not exactly my concern and question, right?
	This why do these states, these authoritarian systems seem to win out evolutionarily in the world?
	Like we don't really see these large voluntary communities, right?
	Most of it is either extreme government or less extreme government.
	You don't really have anything too much like early America, maybe with the pioneer spirit and stuff like that, you saw glimpses of it, but it very quickly started going down the central government route.
	But that's childhood.
	And this is sort of one of the, I'll cling to this one, you know, hopefully not desperately, but with validity.
	But that's because people are raised, usually in coercive households, where it is expected that order can only be maintained through the initiation of the use of force.
	That parents spanking children, putting them in timeouts, sending them to their rooms without dinner, withholding food, or other sorts of verbal abuse, which is the equivalent of violence for children as a whole, because you can't escape it.
	But because children are raised with the idea that society, the society that they're born into, the family, only has any stability or any rules because of the aggression and violence of parents and priests and teachers, we then grow up speaking the language of violence, and then we feel that the state is inevitable.
	Whereas if you grow up in a family where you are peacefully reasoned with and not aggressed against and not violence, then you grow up saying, well, yeah, of course peace works.
	But if you grow up in a violent family, which most families are to one degree or another, then you say, well, of course you can't have order without violence.
	You can't have order without central authority that has the right to initiate the use of force because you grow up with that with parents.
	You have teachers and priests with heaven and hell threatening you with eternal damnational salvation.
	You got teachers who, you know, when I was a kid, you could get caned or I got caned or you got teachers who can give you homework, extra homework, or they can require you to do lines or God forbid they can hold you back a year and steal a year of your life with an extra 365 days, give or take in another prison of pretend education.
	So you grow up as a kid with order.
	With order requires violence.
	And then of course you look at society and say, well, of course we have to have a centralized organization of violence in order to have any stability in society because that's how you grew up.
	And this is why peaceful parenting is the only path to a free society.
	We're pushing back against the sort of revolution idea in the past because revolution is just saying, well, if we have different people using violence, we'll get paradise.
	And it's like, no, it doesn't, that's not going to work that way in the long run.
	Yeah, okay.
	So I see that like it sounds like the propagation mechanism of this mindset that allows the state to exist.
	But my thinking is more like why?
	Why has this if the free market based like the voluntary society is the better society and it is the more correct and more in tune with reality society or in tune with what humans want?
	I find it so interesting how it just has been totally out competed by these large centralized blocks.
	It's almost like it has some kind of advantage in a way.
	And I'm not saying like an advantage in a moral way, but an advantage like a very raw, natural way.
	Sorry, you just a long No, hold on, hold on.
	So you mean something like the Dzhengis Khan violence approach versus say the free market approach?
	I'm not really trying to pit them against each other.
	It's more like why did one win out in basically across the world in very different societies.
	Well, no, but I've sort of explained that.
	So it's a cycle.
	So people grew up in violent families and they say, well, we need violence to run society.
	And then because their violence runs societies.
	then people use violence in their families and then people feel, well, we need violence in our schools.
	We gotta fail kids or punish kids or exclude kids or kick kids out or, you know, again, until recently, you basically just hit kids or starve them.
	And so it's a cycle.
	And it is definitely the case though, that more free market societies tend to win against more statist societies in conflict.
	I mean, the typical example, which I talk about in my documentary on Hong Kong is the more free market British versus the much more stagnant and statist Chinese.
	That the Chinese entered into a shock, which they're actually technically still recovering from over 150 years ago when the British ships sailed up.
	The Chinese had been so stagnant and so statist that the guy who first developed ocean bearing ships was killed by the Emperor.
	And even all of the plans were burned with him and all of the people who knew about it were killed as well because he just felt it was too destabilizing to the society.
	So they destroyed their innovators.
	And this is one of the reasons why China was, you know, somewhat stagnant despite initial incredible success of printed money, IQ tests for bureaucrats, gunpowder and, you know, written language and, you know, beautiful art.
	But it stagnated for thousands and thousands of years because it was a very top down kind of tyranny that did not allow for creation and innovation.
	That's exactly my contention, right?
	It's it's almost like that kind of system is incredibly stable in a way.
	Like it just well, it is and no, it is it is until.
	you come across a more free market society and then the free market society, the more free market society will kick you butt.
	Yeah, if you fight, if you fight, but like I said, if you just leave them in a vacuum and wait for a long time, it seems to me that more of the time you're in the statist, very controlled situation versus the more free and voluntary situation.
	Well, it certainly has stability, but it's horrible, right?
	So it's when I was in my speaking tour in Australia, you know, people hated the fact that I pointed out that the Aborigines, you know, had been in Australia for 40,000 years and hadn't progressed.
	And that's because they would kill off their more innovative and smarter people and people who challenge the central narrative like the cucumber.
	If you hear the sound of the cucumber, that's a evil portent and all sorts of superstitious nonsense and the fact that they used rape as a weapon of war, tortured their teenagers in initiation rituals and regularly killed forty percent of their babies by pouring sand into their mouths or other horrible tortures or the Aztecs or like when the Aztecs met the Cortes troops like in in South America, Central America.
	I mean, say, oh, it was only 400 Spaniards.
	It's like it wasn't only 400 Spaniards.
	The Aztecs were so hated by all the local tribes that they all teamed up with the conquistadors to take out the Aztecs and so on.
	because they were just so hated.
	So you can use a lot of violence to create local stability, but there's always an outside influence that's less violent and more innovative and more creative and with better technology as a result that will kick you in the butt.
	And so it's stable only insofar as there's no particular travel, but as soon as travel gets invented, then you know, the more totalitarian states almost always end up being challenged and beaten by the less totalitarian states.
	Well, maybe right because like we have the transition of Europe and also America from a freer to a more statist and a more authoritarian regime.
	But it's weird, right?
	How it results in mass migration, it results in very egregious crimes against the populations in the West.
	Well, sure, because why?
	Because they're still very nationalistic and they're very ethnonationalistic, should at least have some kind of continuity.
	Well, but the goal, the goal of a lot of bad policies, you know, I'm sure you've seen this meme, it's obviously a bit simplistic, but it's like when you're talking to the kind of hysterical environmentalists, it's like, well, why don't you ever nag China about global warming?
	It's like, well, because they're already communists.
	So the problem is that once you accept that the initiation of violence is necessary for the achievement of virtue, well, where do you stop?
	Where could you stop if you say, well, you gotta hit kids for kids to develop respect and follow rules, and you have to punish children in school who don't enjoy school, and you drug them if they don't like it, and you have to force people to be, you have to force people through taxation to help.
	the poor, otherwise they won't.
	Violence is necessary, coercion is necessary for the achievement of virtue.
	Well, doesn't everyone want more virtue in the world?
	And if violence leads to virtue.
	And you want or also want more virtue, how can you say No to more violence.
	And that's the sort of foundational principle that we have a huge problem with in the West is that we've accepted, and for many, many centuries really, we've accepted that violence is necessary for the achievement of rights and virtue and independence and freedom and property and so on.
	And so violence leads to virtue.
	And if you accept that as your basic premise, you know, if you're some terrible guy who says, well, the more I hit my wife, the happier and better she is and the healthier she is, how do you stop hitting her?
	You're just making her worse in that terrible paradigm, right?
	So once you say, we must use violence to achieve virtue and there's no other way to do it.
	There's no other way to achieve virtue or protect people or help the poor or heal the sick or protect our borders or enforce property rights or respect contracts.
	There's no other way than violence to achieve all of these innumerable goods within society.
	How can you say no to more violence?
	You've already broken the principle.
	And if violence leads to virtue and people say, well, look, more violence is going to lead to more virtue, what are you going to say?
	No, no, no, that's too much violence.
	Well, that's like saying too much rape or too much slavery or too much, you know, whatever.
	Once you've broken that principle, you know, the dam just never stops pouring out.
	Yeah, but it was more like in a comparisonison, right?
	Because it seems like, okay, that China is communist, so they get a free pass.
	But you also have other states like Israel, for example, they're also very ethnonationalist.
	They're a very powerful state with a very extreme intelligence service.
	And they are also allowed to do as they please almost with their own people, right?
	Sure.
	I mean, that's the whole issue that's going on in the Middle East at the moment, is the more totalitarian organizations versus the less totalitarian organizations.
	And I mean, not too hard to see how that plays out.
	Okay.
	Is there anything else that you wanted to mention?
	Nothing.
	That was interesting.
	I enjoyed it.
	I appreciate that.
	Yeah.
	Great questions, great comments.
	And thank you.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	We have one more time for one more.
	So we can't, sorry, we can't get to everyone.
	James.
	What is on your mind?
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, sir.
	Awesome.
	Yeah.
	So I had a situation that popped up in my head when I was just listening.
	I remember discussing with someone on your discord a while ago.
	We had a conversation about IFS therapy and I think it was one of Jay Early's books.
	Basically, he was all right.
	Be helpful to the audience.
	Don't use acronyms, they won't know.
	Remember, we're talking to the world here.
	Yes, yes.
	Internal family systems therapy.
	Really more of an anecdote to express my main point.
	But yes, that's that was that was a topic of conversation that we were discussing.
	And so it was essentially just a psychotherapist's particular book on his version of therapy.
	And so the guy who I was discussing it with because we were both interested in it, he had expressed how he was currently boycotting using Amazon because of, you know., I think he listed the reasons at the time and I think they were they were pretty legitimate to me.
	I think didn't Amazon take down Hoaxed, Mike Zernafit just documentary that I had a small part in and I think he even took it from people's hard drives after the fact, if I'm remembering things vaguely here, but yeah, there's certainly some censorship going on there.
	Yeah, yeah, for sure.
	And well, and that's just one point, right?
	I'm sure there's plenty more.
	And so essentially that's kind of like the voluntarism there.
	Well, let me just let me not try to make it abstract.
	Let me just stick with my point.
	The book that he wanted to get was he ended up calling or emailing Jay early specifically because he had to get around the shipment shipment process that was standard for the book through Amazon.
	And that sort of extra little hassle to do things in a moral, moral way for the customer when the company is just kind of not caring for.
	small creeping details of ways they can kind of screw with the customer and just kind of get away with it.
	I mean, I think you mentioned Apple earlier and their iPhones.
	You know, I mean, We could there's other things we could list that Apple has done that is not the best to be supporting with, you know, buying their products.
	But yeah, yeah, for sure.
	And so anyway, my my question was when we're in hypothetically in a voluntarist society, how might that issue be resolved for certain industries that have large short term barriers to entry?
	Like, I don't know, like laying lines of fiber optic cable across the company or investing in, you know, a SpaceX, new satellite launch, just things that people need in the short term.
	How might that look for a peacefully parented society?
	How would that deferral of a gratification to not support just being screwed around with the company that you get basic necessities from?
	I was curious.
	Okay, so something like you lay all this fiber optic cable to bring data out to some remote location or something like that, and then you don't, it's not as easy to come up with substitutes for that, and therefore there may be too much power on the part of the cable layer.
	is, is, do you mean something like that?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So that would, or like a utilities company, something like that, um, that, uh, an oligopoly, essentially, and just how much in a voluntary society, people would essentially make the slightly more uncomfortable decision, which would, I would think would be the correct decision.
	Well, no, handsome man.
	So, so, so, so, just, I get the uncomfortable decision.
	You already went over that.
	So, okay.
	So, um, why would, let's say, a company that delivers water to someone's house, right?
	Why would they turn off the water assuming that the bills have been paid, what would be the incentive?
	Would you, and we can come up with something like, I don't know, the guy in the house slept with the CEO's wife, or, you know, I mean, you could come up with something, right?
	I mean, we can just come up with something that's not political, because, you know, political stuff wouldn't really be a motive in that society.
	Okay.
	So everybody who buys a service is aware of the possibility of corruption, right?
	I mean, because it's pretty much the default position throughout human history, the power corrupts, right?
	So if you are ordering, if you're buying a house, right, then you wouldn't buy the house if your water could be turned off at will.
	Is that fair to say?
	Like that would be a pretty bad situation, right?
	Yeah, yeah, for sure.
	Yeah, I'm not buying real estate in Crimea or whatever it is, right?
	Yeah, and I remember there was a, I won't sort of get into the details, but every now and then sort of lurking like a shark in the is a libertarian society oh we're going to create a libertarian society in x y or z place or whatever and i remember one that was sort of coming along and things were choking along and progress was being made and ground was being broken.
	And I think if I remember rightly, it kind of crumbled because they couldn't secure the water rights.
	I mean, I think from the state or something like that, right?
	They couldn't secure the water rights and therefore they couldn't basically provide water to the community and therefore the community kind of crumbled.
	And so if you're going to buy a house, you need to have a guarantee that If you pay your bills, the electricity is going to come and the water is going to come.
	And also, let's say there's only one road that goes to your house.
	You're going to need to have guaranteed access to that road.
	Otherwise, you're not going to buy the house, right?
	Yeah, definitely.
	In fact, you won't even build the house if you can't get that guaranteed.
	Like nobody's even going to build the house unless the basic necessities are guaranteed to be provided.
	Does that make sense?
	Like the house wouldn't even exist if you couldn't guarantee that, you know, electricity and road access and water provision would be there, right?
	Yeah, yeah.
	I think I'm getting to suspicion of what the answer might be.
	No, no, you take it from here, man.
	I've had lots of yammering.
	So you go ahead.
	Yeah, so I'm sorry.
	I'm thinking something to do with DROs, sorry, an acronym, dispute resolution organizations, setting up more of a infrastructure or just a foundation for making contracts that are going to,
	you know, not be like your contract with Amazon, where it's going to be a little bit more flushed out and, uh, there's going to be a little bit more, uh, there's going to be more consequences should they, for instance, in the metaphor, shut off the water, right?
	Like that's.
	Well, you'd have a contract that guarantees you access to the water if you pay your bills.
	Yeah.
	And if you, if they don't provide the water, then you'd call up your DRO and you'd say, whoa, whoa, hang on.
	I paid my bill.
	These guys turned off my water.
	And the DRO calls up the water company and says, hey, Bob, like, you should turn off this guy's water.
	And he's like, well, yeah, the guy slept with my wife.
	And I'm like, I'm going through this contract.
	And it doesn't say anything about him banging your wife.
	So I'm sorry that he banged your wife, but that does not give you the right to turn off the water.
	So you have to turn the water back on.
	Now, if Bob says, you know, screw him, he banged my wife, I'm not turning his water back on, Then the DRO says, okay, well, now you are in violation of your contracts.
	and we're going to have to start to lower your contract rating which is going to increase your cost of doing business right because now you've broken a contract and we're going to have to to talk to the board.
	We're going to have to talk to the shareholders.
	And we're going to have to raise the fact that you are arbitrarily turning off someone's water against their contract.
	Also, we're going to have to publicize that you, as the water providing company, have now arbitrarily shut off someone's supply of water for a personal reason, not a business reason, which is not valid.
	And that is going to make people pretty nervous to buy your product.
	Because if someone annoys you and you can just turn off their water, nobody wants to do business with you.
	We're also going to tell that in the business community.
	And that means that your share price is going to go down because people are going to be nervous about doing business with you.
	you.
	Your cost of doing business is going to go up because you've now broken your contract.
	And what that means is that your company will now be a ripe target for a corporate takeover because somebody else will say, listen, I would never, ever, and I will sign penalties and contracts that if I break my contract, I will not only resume the water supply, but I'll give somebody fifty thousand dollars.
	If they can prove that I broke contract arbitrarily, right?
	Which would be pretty easy to establish.
	So there would be so many negative consequences that the water would just be turned on.
	I mean, that just there would be so many cascading negative consequences that the water would just be turned back on.
	And of course, I wouldn't sign a contract with someone who could just turn off my water because I would want to sign a contract with someone that said, if your water gets turned off and you have paid your bills, we guarantee you to ship you all the water you need at our expense while we work through the resolution process.
	I wouldn't.
	Why would you sign a contract that didn't include that?
	Because otherwise someone could just turn off your water and then maybe there'd be some, you know, a month or two delay.
	But, you know, bro, you got to bathe, right?
	You got to brush your teeth and stuff, right?
	So I would sign a contract.
	I would only sign a contract if there was somebody delivering water to my house that said, if they turn off the water and you paid your bills and they turn off your water, then while we're in dispute, we'll ship you the water or we'll turn it back on until the dispute is resolved.
	No, so ship the water is nonsense, right?
	So if you turn off your water, then we'll guarantee you we'll turn it back on until the dispute is resolved.
	And if the dispute is resolved in your favor, then we will give you five years of free water or something.
	something like that right because and if the dispute is in our favor like maybe you sabotage the pipes or something then you know there'll be a penalty that you'll have to pay but and this is a the details of this to me are always kind of interesting to sort of play out in my head, but the basic principle is this that if you think of a problem in the free market, I said this like 20 years ago and God, I can't tell you how great it is to revisit this stuff, right?
	So if you think of a problem in the free market, what you need to do is think of it from a consumer standpoint, right?
	So you say, well, but somebody could just block the road to my place or somebody could just turn off my water or something like that.
	I say, okay, that's a legitimate concern or fear or worry or problem to have.
	So how as a consumer would you want it to be solved?
	Because if there's a problem., you know, people who are entrepreneurs and service providers, they're in the business of pleasing customers and solving problems and reassuring people.
	And so, rather than saying, Oh, well, this problem can't be solved and the magical power of the state is going to solve it all, the question to ask is, what as a customer would make me sign on the dotted line?
	So let's say I'm buying a house, I'm somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
	Of course, I need access to it.
	It needs to get electricity.
	It needs to get internet access.
	It needs to get water, other things, right?
	So, what would I need as guarantees to even buy that house?
	Because whoever sells that house is going to have to set that up in order for anyone to buy it, because no one is going to buy a buy a house where you can just lose all of the services arbitrarily.
	So when you come up with a problem, which is great, I mean, being an entrepreneur is all about solving problems.
	But when you come up with a problem, my suggestion is to say, okay, so if I was a consumer, what would a company have to do to reassure me that this wasn't going to be a problem?
	Ah, that's a great question, right?
	And there'll be 500 entrepreneurs who are as smart as...
	Awesome.
	That, no, that is a very useful perspective.
	I will keep that in the back of my head as I may or may not in the next five to ten years try and be an entrepreneur.
	So I appreciate that.
	Thank you for puzzling through that with me.
	Oh, my absolute pleasure.
	And thank you, everyone, for dropping by tonight.
	I do have a call coming out.
	I think it's half a donor, so it should be out soon, where I go through how to be an entrepreneur with a caller who's currently So I hope you'll check that out later this week.
	Freedomain dot com slash donate to how bad the show.
	Come on.
	You know, this is the great greatest conversation in the history of the world, in my perhaps not so humble opinion.
	And some of it's me.
	A lot of it's to do with the great questions and comments from the listeners and the callers, but freedomand dot com slash tonight to help out the show, really would appreciate it.
	August is a little bit of the coolest month for support for the show, so if you could help out, I really would appreciate it.
	And that, you know, this is why we are commercial free and you don't have to listen to me talk for 20 minutes a show about sponsorships, which I think is nice and productive and helpful, keeps the flow going well, but the opposite of sponsorship and ads.
	adds is donations, which I would really again very gratefully appreciate your support at freedomain.com slash nine.
	Have a beautiful, glorious evening.
	We'll talk to you tomorrow night for Wednesday Night Live and thank you for jumping in with me this evening and I wish the very best to people in Europe, people in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern and Southern Ireland.
	I wish you all the best and listen to what I'm saying about ostracism.
	It's really needed and the alternative is much, much worse.
	Take care, everyone.

▲