Latest / Yaron Brook Show / Hoppe: The Libertarian God that Failed | Yaron & Nikos Dialogues

Transcript

Hoppe: The Libertarian God that Failed | Yaron & Nikos Dialogues · Yaron Brook Show

• 0:32
  Speaker 1: Bye. All right, everybody. Welcome to the Ioannis Nikos Dialogues.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: I am... Hi, Nikos. How are you? Welcome. We've got
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: that echo. Let's get rid of that. Then I know
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: how to get rid of it. One second. How are you? Welcome.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: There we go. Hi, Nikos. I think I got rid
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: of the echo. All right.
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: It's a national celebration day in Greece. And how do
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: I spend it? Revising the works of Hans Hermann Hoppe.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: So.
• 1:27
  Speaker 3: That's my patriotic duty to the cause.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: How much fun is that? I mean, what a fun
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: day Nikos has had. I, on the other hand, was
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: stuck at the back of an airplane flying into Buenos Aires.
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: So I'm in the land of liberty and freedom. The
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: only politician on earth who stands for anything close to
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: that here in Buenos Aires. So I'm in Argentina. So look,
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: you know, you can ask in the... I haven't yet
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: got an impression of Buenos Aires. I might... I'm here
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: for such a short visit. I might not get an impression.
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: We'll see. I'm meeting a lot of Argentinians tomorrow. So
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: maybe I'll have a better idea after that. Uh, let's see. Uh,
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: what else? So, so yeah, so I'm in a hotel. Uh,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: we've got the remote set up. Um, and let me just,
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: let me just do this. Yes. I forgot to do that.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: All right. Hi everybody. Uh, this is for the people
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: are just on the audio. Uh, me and Nikos are here. Uh, so, um,
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: let's see. So, uh, I'm in a hotel, so who
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: knows the internet connection supposedly is really good. Believe it
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: when I see it. Uh, but, but so let's see
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: how this, uh, the show goes. The audio so far
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: is great. So I don't think you're hearing an echo.
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: If you are, please let me know. Uh, so, uh, uh,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: let us know as soon as possible. If you can
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: hear any echo or if there are any audio problems,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: I think so far so good. All right. So, um,
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: Today we're going to talk about Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and we'll
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: talk about who he is in a minute. This weekend,
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: there's going to be no show. This is why I
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: moved it to today, because the weekend was going to
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: be too difficult and messy, and I wasn't sure about
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: bandwidth on the weekend, and I thought today we'd have
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: a good internet. But the weekend after that, on Sunday,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: there definitely will be a show. That is November 8th,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: I think. and we will be doing the Suez Crisis.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: We'll be talking about the Suez Crisis. And then I
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: start traveling again, so they probably, and Nikos and I
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: will actually, the following weekend, we'll be meeting up in,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: on the Saturday, meeting up in San Francisco to do
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: a debate. If you live in the San Francisco area,
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: stay tuned for an announcement, but it will be Saturday evening,
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: November 14th. Is that right? I think it's November 14th
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: on Saturday evening.
• 3:51
  Speaker 3: Bring banners, flags, yellow flags.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: We should find the colors. Yeah, it's going to be huge.
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: I like blue, so bring dark blue, really dark blue. Exactly.
• 4:00
  Speaker 3: Yellow, dark blue.
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: So not like the ANCAP, like the Maccabi, but with
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: more dark blue.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: There you go. So we want dark blue. And there
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: are going to be hundreds of people usually at these events.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: There are hundreds of people. They'll almost all be in
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: opposition to Nikos and I. We are debating two Catholics
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: on whether capitalism can lead to human flourishing or not.
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: So a great topic for debate, I think. And usually
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: we debate this with a bunch of Marxists. But this
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: time we're going to debate it with Catholics. I don't
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: know if there's much difference between Catholics and Marxists. We'll
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: find out. But Nikos and I are going to be
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: ready to take them on. And it'll be a lot
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: of fun. So you guys should definitely come if you
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: live in the Bay Area. It'll be quite a brawl.
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: And it gets rowdy. These debates get rowdy. So please
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: join us. Also, quickly, before we get to the topic,
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: remind you that these shows are only possible because of
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: your support. We cannot do them. I mean, time is money.
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: Nico spent all day today reading Hoppe. Rereading. Rereading. Rereading Hoppe.
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: So you're paying for our time, our knowledge, our expertise,
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: but also just our sheer time of doing these shows.
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: So Please be generous in the super chat. We have
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: double the amount per hour because there are two of us.
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: We both have to eat. So take that into account.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: I already see Adri came in with $ 50. Thank you, Adri.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: I really appreciate that. All right. So let's get started.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: So Hans... Herman Hoppe, you know, was a, I'll just
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: give quickly and then you can fill in the blanks,
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: was a, you know, student of Mavi Rathbad. He worked
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: with Mavi Rathbad. I think he would consider himself a
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: student of Mavi Rathbad's ideas, is a follower of Mavi
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Rathbad and is considered probably the leading anarcho-capitalist of the
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: Maui Rothbard school in kind of the world today. He
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: has been incredibly influential on the libertarian movement over the
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: last 20 years, particularly the anarcho, the anarchist side of
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: the movement. I don't think he has much influence outside
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: of the anarchist side of the movement.
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: He has in the new right these days.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah, on the new right, on the non-anarchist, like more
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: of the conservative right, yes. And on people like... What's
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: his name from the Bay Area?
• 6:47
  Speaker 3: Curtis Yarvin.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: Curtis Yarvin. And you'll see some similarities between him and
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: Curtis Yarvin that I don't think are accidental. The video
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: on my end seems a little jittery, so I don't
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: know if you're getting a little jitters on the email,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: on the video, but hopefully it won't be too bad
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: and hopefully it won't last.
• 7:05
  Speaker 2: Let me add one more thing in what you said.
• 7:08
  Speaker 2: It's not just that he was a student of Rothbard.
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: Rothbard himself considers that Hoppe has moved his ideas forward.
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: So his contribution to libertarian thought is what we'll discuss later,
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: his argumentation ethics. And Rothbard says, actually, I was wrong.
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: And my student, this young man of 30 years of age,
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: which is how much how old Hoppe was when he
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: came up with this.
• 7:33
  Speaker 3: I'm wrong and this guy's right.
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: So he's considered the most prominent living intellectual for the Austro-Libertarian,
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: for the Austro-Libertarian world and someone who. corrected Rothbard and
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: pushed the Rothbardian movement actually forward.
• 7:48
  Speaker 3: And also he had ideas.
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: That he traded in territories that Rothbard did not trade
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: so much, such as his theory on democracy and monarchy
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: with a question mark.
• 8:01
  Speaker 3: And we'll discuss this.
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah. And you see his influence everywhere. So he had
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: a huge influence on the Mises Institute, you know, continuing
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: to Rothbard and he led intellectually together with Lou Rockwell.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: I think the Mises Institute, he had a huge influence
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: in Europe on kind of the anarchist, libertarian anarchist movement
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: in Europe. I encountered his followers, particularly in Poland. I
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: debated a follower of his at a Polish university. We
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: did a debate on anarchy a few years ago. So,
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: He is out there, and he very much kind of
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: follows the pattern of Rothbard when it comes to anarchy,
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: but also when it comes to, for example, being critical
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: of the United States. Not to be critical, but being
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: hateful towards the United States, and we'll get to that.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: And as a consequence, I think, or expansion of that,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: being critical and hateful towards Israel. And that's really what
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: motivated this, right, to do it now. is a video
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: that came out. You want to say something about the
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: video and maybe we.
• 9:11
  Speaker 3: Can show it in a few minutes.
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: We can show it so that people get the context
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: of what we're talking about and you can post it
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: whenever you want to include your commentary on it.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so let me show you. I'll share my screen.
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: This is Hoppe. He's in his 80s, I think.
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: He was born in the late 40s, actually on Atlas
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: Rag Day, September 2nd.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: So he is in his 80s and... I'll play this.
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: It's two minutes long. We'll listen to the whole thing,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: and then we can talk about it, and then we
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: can get deeper into his philosophy and his contribution, if
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: you will, to anarchist ideas. Here we go. Let me
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: know if you hear this well, you know if it's
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: coming the sound is coming across let me know if
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: there's any echoes or issues or anything else but here
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: we go.
• 10:06
  Speaker 4: And if you look at what Israel with Americans assists
• 10:11
  Speaker 4: is doing in the Gaza Strip is doing in Lebanon
• 10:17
  Speaker 4: and doing in Iran.
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: Of which we all have documentation.
• 10:24
  Speaker 4: We can see it. There are videos of that. The
• 10:27
  Speaker 4: cruelty that is unrivaled. Nothing like that happened in World
• 10:32
  Speaker 4: War I. Nothing like that happened in World War II.
• 10:35
  Speaker 4: Look at Gaza, completely flat. To compare what happens to
• 10:41
  Speaker 4: Gaza and then the so-called Holocaust. As far as the
• 10:46
  Speaker 4: Holocaust is concerned, if you deny the teeniest detail in
• 10:52
  Speaker 4: the official narrative of the Holocaust in Germany, you will
• 10:55
  Speaker 4: be jailed. Despite the fact that nobody I've ever met,
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: even among those people who are called Holocaust deniers, has
• 11:10
  Speaker 4: ever denied that cruel, evil, ugly things happened during that period.
• 11:17
  Speaker 4: But if you study these things a little bit more closely, again,
• 11:20
  Speaker 4: and I learned that all from Ross Part II, there
• 11:22
  Speaker 4: are huge holes in the story. There are lots of
• 11:26
  Speaker 4: lies mixed into certain things that are.
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: Uh-oh.
• 11:34
  Speaker 3: Well, we got the main, we got the gist.
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: Of the argument. What happened there? Oh, sorry.
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: It's a Twitter problem, not your connection. We can still
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: hear you well.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: Okay, so it's a Twitter problem, but why would it?
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: That's weird.
• 11:54
  Speaker 3: But we got the gist of the argument.
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: Okay, yeah. So let me just stop sharing. So notice,
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: just a few things, just a notice in terms of
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: his language. So-called Holocaust, so-called. And then he said, Yeah,
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: we all recognize that, you know, some bad, even evil
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: things happened during that period. So not by the Nazis
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: towards the Jews, God forbid. No, not that. Just evil
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: and bad things happened during that period. Maybe Churchill did them.
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: Maybe who knows who did them. We're not going to
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: talk about that. You know, so he said Holocaust denial, right?
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: So that's part of it. So-called Holocaust. That's enough to
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: deny the Holocaust right there. And he later on goes
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: on to say, look, We don't really know what happened
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: in the Holocaust. We don't have, in a sense, we
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: don't have video. We don't really know what happened, but
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: we know what happened in Gaza. We see the bombing
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: in Iran. We see what's going on in Beirut. We
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: know what's going, we have video. I don't think he
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: mentions October 7th and the video we have from there,
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: which he never really... We.
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: Have a whole section on Hoppe on October 7th. We're
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: going to circle in that when we speak about his
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: foreign policy theory.
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: So notice, we don't have videos... Now, by the way,
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: there is video of the Holocaust because there's video that
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: the Nazis made of the concentration camps. Just like Hamas,
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: there was a certain... pseudo-pride that went into the annihilation
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: of the Jews. We have plenty of firsthand testimonials of
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: the people involved. We even have Nazi testimonials after the fact.
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: They don't deny what they did. They just, you know,
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: they don't deny what they did. They just say we
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: were following orders. But they don't deny the fact of
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: what actually happened. They just deny taking responsibility for it.
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: And yet he, in the Holocaust denying industry, which now
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: I think Tucker Carlson is probably a member of, you know,
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: all engaged in this. Yeah, bad things happened. Yeah. I mean,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: both sides did bad things. But what Gaza think, we
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: can see with our eyes. We can actually see it.
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: So we're going to talk about why he has this view,
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: why his philosophy demands this view. But go ahead, Nikos.
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: He says nothing like that happened in World War I
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: and World War II. My family comes from an island
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: in Crete, my grandmother, where the Nazis burned the whole
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: village and they executed every single male occupant of the village.
• 14:36
  Speaker 2: It's not even in the top five war crimes in Greece,
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: not to mention in World War II. But apparently, nothing
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: like that happened in Gaza. The other thing is- Have you.
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: Seen pictures of Dresden? Put aside who committed it. Dresden
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: was flattened, you know, and it looks, it very much
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: looks like Gaza probably was. And yet that happened during
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: World War II. I mean, the guy is just.
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but Hoppe would consider Dresden a war crime. So
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: he would say.
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: Well, okay, let's talk about what the Nazis did to
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: Stalingrad or what the Nazis did to, you know, to
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: any place, to the Warsaw Ghetto, to any place... that
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: actually resisted them, right? I mean, the Nazis didn't destroy
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: cities primarily because everybody surrendered to them very quickly, right?
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: And then they tried to destroy Prague. They put bombs
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: everywhere as they left and they destroyed other cities as
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: they left. But I mean, the idea that nothing like
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: this happened is just, you know, so absurd. I mean,
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: Think about, put aside the Jews, think about what happened
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: to the Polish officers. They were just lined up and
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: mowed down in large numbers by the Germans during World
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: War II.
• 15:59
  Speaker 3: And the Soviets.
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but also by the Nazis, before the Soviets, by
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: the Nazis. So, yeah, I mean, these are ridiculous stories.
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: And also notice the contradiction. Gaza is supposedly everyone has
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: seen the crimes. And yet a couple of years ago
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: or last year, when Hoppe mentioned the victims of Gaza,
• 16:22
  Speaker 2: he said, oh, there are probably like hundreds of thousands.
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: So it's so well documented that he gets wrong the
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: numbers by a magnitude, the numbers that the Palestinians themselves give.
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: But somehow it's so well recorded that there's zero doubt,
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: zero question about what happened there.
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: And what's shocking is the camera moves to the audience
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: and there's a bunch of people who look pretty respectable
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: and nice people that you would meet at libertarian conferences.
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: And they're all like, hmm, okay, yeah. He's just making
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: stuff up and denying the Holocaust and making things up
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: and showing a complete lack of any knowledge or an
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: evasion or just lying about history. And a bunch of
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: people are just nodding their heads with him on this.
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: It tells you a lot about whatever's left or whatever
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: exists of this movement that is around Hoppe and around
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: the Mises Institute is just so intellectually, morally disgusting and corrupt.
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: And Hoppe himself knows that he's moved to directions that
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: Even some of the Mises people would consider, okay, this
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: is embarrassing, which is why he created his own group
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: where this video is from, the Property and Freedom Society.
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: It's in the Bastion of Liberty, which is Turkey.
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: It's based.
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: And the interesting thing is that These views these days
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: are so mainstream among libertarians that maybe he shouldn't have
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: created his own group because I don't think the Mises
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: people would be so offended with the views of Hoppe.
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: No, I don't think they're offended by his views, but
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: they did kick him out of the Mises Institute recently.
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: So there's been a schism in the Mises Institute where just,
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: I think, six months ago or whatever, nine months ago,
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: I was watching this on X, that he resigned, he left.
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we can have a different topic on there. Yeah,
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: there was the Salerno side and the Di Lorenzo side.
• 18:31
  Speaker 2: But anyway, we'll get to that when we talk about.
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: All the same crap, right? They don't disagree about ideas.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: It's all about personalities.
• 18:43
  Speaker 3: And we'll get to that. Sal, we get to Hoppe's
• 18:46
  Speaker 3: key ideas. Where do you want to start from?
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: Start with his ideas and his intellectual journey, if you will.
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: Okay, so why are we even discussing Hoppe? Why is
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: he considered the most important thinker in libertarian recent history,
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: at least in Rothbard's head? Because of his argumentation ethics.
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: This is his contribution to knowledge. Now, what is argumentation ethics?
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: So Hoppe wanted to prove libertarianism on a philosophical ground
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: that he would consider irrefutable. So he said there are
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: two ways these days that people try to prove that
• 19:27
  Speaker 2: we have liberty and individual rights. The one is the,
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: let's call it natural rights, the deontological argument for freedom.
• 19:40
  Speaker 3: And most people would put Ayn Rand on that side.
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: So this is that we have rights based on our
• 19:47
  Speaker 2: nature or God gave us to us. And this is
• 19:50
  Speaker 2: why we have rights. And the other side is the
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: utilitarian side or some other people call it consequentialist side,
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: which says if you want to achieve things like we
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: are all wealthier and we assume that being wealthy is good,
• 20:04
  Speaker 2: then you should have capitalism. There you usually see people
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: like Ludwig von Mises or people like Milton Friedman. Hoppe
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: thinks that there's a way that you can go beyond
• 20:18
  Speaker 2: these things. And throughout his career, he tries, as other Austro-libertarians,
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: to fight the idea of empiricism. Empiricism claims that every
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: argument needs to be tested.
• 20:31
  Speaker 3: And everything we.
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: Prove that is true is proven to be true only temporarily,
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: till we make the next experiment, and the next experiment
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: might falsify it. So for example, Why would the Chicago
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: School economist, and maybe I'm wrong here, you'll correct me,
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: say that minimum wage laws do not work? Because we
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: run some formulas, some tests, and we see it does
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: not work. But we do not draw universal lessons from that.
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: And every person in the Austrian school, the praxeology school,
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: does not like this approach. They think that economics is
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: a science that does not need this constant.
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: Testing and verification.
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: So Hoppe thinks that economics should be based on arguments
• 21:20
  Speaker 2: that are incontestably true, incontestably obvious.
• 21:24
  Speaker 3: So deductively, we can reach truths.
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: So, for example, he says, do we all agree that
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: this pen cannot be at the same time here and
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: in Buenos Aires? Yes, we don't need to test this
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: many times. Or he would say, if this is smaller
• 21:43
  Speaker 2: than this, and this pen is smaller than this notebook,
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: then this post-it is also smaller than this notebook.
• 21:51
  Speaker 3: It's always going to be like that.
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: Now Hoppe says that in the same way that these
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: are universally correct things, we don't need to test them,
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: we can draw similar conclusions for economics. For example, If
• 22:06
  Speaker 2: the minimum wage is, let's say.
• 22:08
  Speaker 3: $ 2.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: Million per hour, we should expect that employment will fall
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: because it will be too expensive to hire anyone.
• 22:17
  Speaker 3: Or if we print $ 3.
• 22:19
  Speaker 2: Trillion every day, prices will go up.
• 22:22
  Speaker 3: There's going to be inflation.
• 22:24
  Speaker 2: So Hoppe believes these things are self-evidently true.
• 22:31
  Speaker 3: Therefore, he says, economics is a science.
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: That has some deductive big truths. Now, this doesn't tell us, though,
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: whether liberty is good or not. This tells us that
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: Austrian economics is true. But still, the question remains, is
• 22:47
  Speaker 2: there a way to validate not only that the Austrians
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: are right in their economics, but also that we have
• 22:54
  Speaker 2: individual rights and we have rights to our properties?
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and the key.
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: Is property, because everything with the Rothbardians and Hoppe rests
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: on property. Not life, you know, property. That is kind
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: of the foundational right that makes all other rights possible.
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: Particularly Hoppe, because Rothbard claimed that he was in the
• 23:14
  Speaker 2: tradition of Ayn Rand and natural rights. Now, Hoppe, and
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: here begins his contributions. Hoppe had as his PhD student, sorry,
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: as his PhD professor.
• 23:26
  Speaker 3: Jürgen Habermas.
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: Now, Jürgen Habermas, our audience might remember, we saw him
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: when we talked about the Frankfurt School. So he was
• 23:34
  Speaker 2: one of the most prominent new leftist intellectuals. And Habermas
• 23:38
  Speaker 2: had his theory of communicative action. It means that when
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: we discuss, when you and me discussed This discussion entails
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: some presuppositions. I recognize Yaron as an autonomous entity. Yaron
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: recognizes me that we are in this, let's say, relationship
• 23:58
  Speaker 2: and we are trying to reach some state of coming
• 24:01
  Speaker 2: closer to truth. Also, Haberman said, we need to understand
• 24:06
  Speaker 2: that some arguments are self-reliant. For example, if I say
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: I cannot even say one word in English, I contradicted
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: myself because I just spelled the word in English. Now,
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: you could say, OK, this is very simple. How can
• 24:21
  Speaker 2: you come up with a mega theory from that? Hoppe
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: takes this from there and says, when I discuss with you,
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: I don't just recognize your existence over there as someone
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: who is worth communicating. But I recognize that there is
• 24:37
  Speaker 2: a mind there that I'm trying to reach.
• 24:39
  Speaker 3: But there's also a.
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: Body and that you own your body because otherwise I would,
• 24:45
  Speaker 2: I don't know, come and steal your stuff or beat
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: you up. But instead of beating you up, I'm talking
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: to you, which means I recognize that you have ownership
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: on your body. I cannot come there and take your glasses.
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: The fact that we speak rather than me beating you
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: up means that I recognize your self-ownership. Also, I recognize
• 25:05
  Speaker 2: you occupy some space. You are wearing some clothes. You
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: have a computer. Again, notice I'm not coming there to
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: grab your computer. Therefore, I don't just recognize your self-ownership.
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: I recognize also your private property. So Hoppe claims that
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: merely by communicating with each other peacefully, we recognize someone
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: else's self-ownership. And if I claim... You don't have self-ownership
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: and you are my slave. Or I have a right
• 25:37
  Speaker 2: to take your book, but I don't take your book.
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: I'm engaging in self-contradiction. It's like what I said earlier.
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: I can't speak a word of English, but I just
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: spoke a word of English. I'm talking about your stuff,
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: but I'm not stealing your stuff. Therefore, I recognize this
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: is your stuff.
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: But if I do steal your stuff... Sorry? Sorry? But
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: if I do steal your stuff.
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: If you do steal my stuff, then you step outside
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: of the realm of discourse. And therefore you step outside
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: the realm of civilized existence.
• 26:10
  Speaker 3: This means that.
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: By what standard?
• 26:14
  Speaker 3: Sorry?
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: By what standard?
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: By the standard that you have validated that force is okay.
• 26:20
  Speaker 3: Which means that now I can retaliate against you.
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: Why is force not okay?
• 26:28
  Speaker 3: Here I blank.
• 26:29
  Speaker 2: This is above my pay grade. So he would say
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: that either you speak with someone, in which case force
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: is not okay, or you exercise force, in which case
• 26:41
  Speaker 2: then the other side can retaliate force because you've put
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: yourself outside of the realm of civilized discourse. Therefore, you
• 26:50
  Speaker 2: have accepted that I have the right to retaliate on you.
• 26:54
  Speaker 2: And retaliation can be I mean, it's up to me.
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: You have put yourself outside the.
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: Well, unless it's Israel, and then they can't retire you.
• 27:04
  Speaker 3: We'll get to that. We'll get to that.
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: Now, maybe I'm not the brightest person in history. I
• 27:13
  Speaker 2: went through even a period where... I went through a
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: hope period just after my Marxism, because we can discuss
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: it at some point.
• 27:21
  Speaker 3: He has an interesting.
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: Marx-like theory of exploitation, but in which he proves that
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: the socialist is the exploitative class and the producers are
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: the exploited class. Anyway, even in my Hopian period, I
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: could not understand why this argumentation ethics thesis is so bright.
• 27:39
  Speaker 3: It basically says that since.
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: We discuss, we recognize each other's ownership, checkmate socialists. the
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: mere fact that you claim socialism is good means that
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: you are engaging in a contradiction because you are recognizing
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: me as self-owner, but you don't recognize that I have
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: a right to keep my marker or to keep my factory.
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: That's his big contribution. That's the argumentation on ethics. Not
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: every Austro-libertarian agrees with it.
• 28:13
  Speaker 3: Rothbard agreed with it. Stefan Kinsella, who is a.
• 28:16
  Speaker 2: Big name, agreed with it, and then he took it
• 28:20
  Speaker 2: to a slightly different direction. Walter Bloch agrees with it.
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: Others don't agree with it. For example, Bob Murphy does
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: not agree with it. But it is why he's considered
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: the biggest living libertarian, this theory of argumentation ethics. I
• 28:35
  Speaker 2: apologize if I simplified it. If you understand that there's
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: something deeper there, please correct me.
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, we have a name for this in objectivism.
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: It's called rationalism. It is complete detachment from reality. It's
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: kind of a wordsmith, word gaming in people's heads. It
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: has no real reference to anything. You know, you can't
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: start morality, in a sense, which is what he's doing, right,
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: or political theory, with argumentation. You know, without... talking about
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: what kind of human being, the nature of man. You
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: have to start with the nature of man. You have
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: to start with man's requirements for survival. You have to
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: start with life. You have to start with something. But argumentation,
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: it just seems so bizarre and really detached from reality.
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: And ultimately, it has to kind of be a circular argument, right?
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: So as long as we're arguing and I'm not using force,
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: then that means that using force is bad. That means
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: I'm recognizing your rights. But as soon as I use force,
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: Then I'm not recognizing your rights, which means I'm bad
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: because I recognized your rights when I was arguing with you.
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: What if I don't even argue? I just use force.
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: What if I stay mum? I never open my mouth.
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: I just use force.
• 30:15
  Speaker 3: But then I can use force against you.
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah, sure. But what's wrong with that? So what's wrong
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: with the world, which I think is what he really wants,
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: what all anarchists want, which is a war of all
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: against all. which is what anarchy ultimately is. It's, I
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: use force against you, you use force against me, and
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: the cycle continues, right? And that's actually what happens under anarchy.
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: Anarchy is a system where force is legitimized and where
• 30:41
  Speaker 1: force is traded, and back and forth and back and
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: forth we go. So, yeah, I mean, the whole thing
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: conceptually really makes no sense. There's, you know, but... The
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: whole idea of self-ownership is the starting point of morality
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: or political theory makes no sense.
• 31:03
  Speaker 2: What about the fact that this is considered a continuation
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: of a priori principles in economics, which he claims, everyone
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: would agree it's self-evident. Everyone would agree it's self-evident that
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: this cannot be at two places at the same time.
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: And equally, everyone could agree that a minimum wage of
• 31:22
  Speaker 2: one million per hour would mean higher unemployment. You don't
• 31:25
  Speaker 2: need to go out in reality and try to prove
• 31:28
  Speaker 2: this empirically.
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: Sure. But, you know, so you can find extreme cases
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: that are you know, what do you call it? Self-evident.
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: By the way, you know, the million dollar minimum wage,
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: I don't think is self-evident. That is, I think there's
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: a bunch of theorists out there that would say, well,
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: we'd have to really measure it and think about what's
• 31:53
  Speaker 1: the state of the economy and where's the money coming
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: from and what exactly happens. So, but yeah, if you
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: take things to the extreme, but what happens if I
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: raise the minimum wage by 5%? Does that create unemployment? Well,
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: there's a huge argument about that. So just because you
• 32:10
  Speaker 1: raise it by a million, it creates unemployment, doesn't mean
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: that if you raise it by five, it'll create unemployment. Yeah,
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: I mean, it does create unemployment, but that you have
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: to show and you have to prove. You actually have
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: to make the argument. So I still don't get what's
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: self-evident here. So what's self-evident about, you know, where do
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: these rights come from? The fact that I'm arguing with
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: you Suggest that I respect your mind and respect your
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: body because I'm arguing. I'm not using force. Okay. I
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: know a lot of Marxists who argue and yet they'll
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: turn around and use force at the most convenient opportunity.
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: So the fact that they argued, did that mean they
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: recognized my rights for five minutes? then when they use force,
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: they no longer recognize their rights, and then they can retaliate?
• 33:02
  Speaker 2: Stig Brodersen It means they engaged in a contradiction, in
• 33:04
  Speaker 2: a logical contradiction, like saying this can be here and
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: there at the same time.
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: Stig Brodersen That is true in the sense that force
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: is a contradiction, because it contradicts human life. But again,
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: I don't get it. I don't get the universality. I
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: don't get what he's actually trying to do with this.
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: It really Makes no sense. Like most rationalistic arguments that
• 33:29
  Speaker 1: detach from reality. You know, was Lenin, was he contradictory
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: because he tried to convince people of communism and then
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: when they didn't accept it, he killed them? Is that
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: a contradiction or is the contradiction in the very ideas
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: that he was trying to convince them of?
• 33:50
  Speaker 3: He would say both.
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: He would say both, yes. Yes. And I would say,
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: so what? I mean, so what? Yes. You know, Lenin's
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: ideas are contradictory and the use of force is always
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: bad when you initiate it. Okay, what have you proved?
• 34:10
  Speaker 1: You haven't proved anything. Why is it bad? Why is
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: the use of force bad? Because I argued before. So
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: it really goes back to what is the basis by
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: which we believe the use of force is bad? And
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: Rand has an answer. Human life depends on the mind.
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: The enemy of the mind is force. Therefore, using force
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: is undermining human life. And if human life is the standard,
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: and life is the standard, my life is the standard,
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: your life is the standard, man's life is the standard,
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: then anything that interrupts and obstructs human life, the very
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: idea of pursuing human life, which is force, is wrong.
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: That's it. It's a simple argument. And it starts from
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: the nature of man. Man is a as a rational being,
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: therefore reason is man's basic means of survival. Anything that
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: stands in opposition to reason is evil. Force is the
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: ultimate thing that stands in opposition to reason, therefore it's evil.
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: So where does force becoming evil come in here? How
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: do we get to force is evil?
• 35:17
  Speaker 2: It's surprising how Hoppe spent so much time to claim
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: I go beyond the ontological defenses of freedom and empiricist
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: defenses of freedom, but he does not engage with the
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: person who gives one of the most compelling deontological defenses
• 35:34
  Speaker 2: of freedom, which is Ayn Rand. He doesn't appear anywhere
• 35:38
  Speaker 2: in theory of socialism and capitalism or the economics and
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: ethics of private property.
• 35:43
  Speaker 3: It's quite surprising.
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: In 2024, you wrote that Rand played no role in
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: his own intellectual development. And he thought the virtue of
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: selfishness was lacking analytical rigor. And that's right. From the
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: perspective of a rationalist, of an analytical philosopher, you know,
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: raised in the German school, right, of kind of analytical philosophy,
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: Ayn Rand comes across as not rigorous, right, because she's
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: not a rationalist, because she's constantly connecting stuff to reality,
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: and she's talking in English, right? in a normal language
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: that everybody can understand. And that to them is not rigorous.
• 36:26
  Speaker 1: Whereas he's playing mind games, you know, and with abstractions,
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: not connecting it to real life. And, you know, his
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: critique of Ayn Rand is he's not rigorous. And it's
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: not surprising that his critique of Ayn Rand is the
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: same critique as philosophers in philosophy departments all over the
• 36:47
  Speaker 1: world who consider it non-rigorous. not philosophical enough. That's exactly...
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: Because his philosophy is conventional. He's, you know, as you said,
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: he comes from a kind of a postmodern... No.
• 37:02
  Speaker 3: Not really.
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: I wouldn't say postmodern, but yeah, critical theory, it's more that,
• 37:08
  Speaker 2: you know, I'm not even sure how to put it.
• 37:11
  Speaker 2: And again, this is not... That's not.
• 37:13
  Speaker 3: The problem with Hoppe.
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: He could be influenced by Habermas and then take it
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: in a different direction.
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: But he.
• 37:21
  Speaker 2: That's his whole point, that argumentation almost creates the fact
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: that we speak, creates this reality that is almost by
• 37:31
  Speaker 2: definition irrefutable.
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: So there's something very conscientious.
• 37:34
  Speaker 2: Whatever you see happening, you can see us punching each
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: other after five minutes, but we entered in this discourse
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: and therefore this has proven everything.
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: There's something very conscientious about that. There's something very, there's
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: something Hegelian and even Marx. I mean, it comes right
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: out of the German tradition of philosophy, which tends to
• 37:55
  Speaker 1: be rationalistic, very unintelligible, and very unconnected to reality, because reality,
• 38:02
  Speaker 1: we're not really connected to reality. So, yeah, I mean,
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: this is analytic philosophy, and it's... I'm not a philosopher,
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: but to a non-philosopher like me, it sounds like garbage.
• 38:16
  Speaker 3: And again, it sounded.
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: completely incomprehensible to me when I was a newbie and
• 38:22
  Speaker 2: I spent all my intellectual energy trying to understand it
• 38:25
  Speaker 2: and I couldn't.
• 38:26
  Speaker 3: But anyway, the.
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: Reason why Hoppe is big out there is not so
• 38:30
  Speaker 2: much his argumentation ethics. This is why he gets all
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: this respect and this is what got him into the
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: game of being a great philosopher. But his biggest contribution
• 38:39
  Speaker 2: in the cultures, let's say, or so to speak, to
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: use his usual phrase, is his work on democracy. And
• 38:46
  Speaker 2: that's his most controversial work, the book Democracy, the God
• 38:51
  Speaker 2: That Failed. And I know libertarians don't believe in intellectual property.
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: The book is very, very expensive for some reason. And
• 39:00
  Speaker 2: you can find, I mean, you can find it pirated,
• 39:03
  Speaker 2: but the actual version is it's an expensive book. So
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: I think most people use it as a catchphrase rather
• 39:10
  Speaker 2: than they've actually read it.
• 39:12
  Speaker 3: But that's why we're here.
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: So it's not online. It's not available for free.
• 39:16
  Speaker 3: I mean, no, it's not available for free.
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: That's just shocking for Kinsella who doesn't believe in intellectual.
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: I mean, Kinsella should should scan the book and put
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: it up on his website for the benefit of humanity, because.
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: Kinsella doesn't believe in intellectual property. So I'm not sure
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: why he is spending time respecting the intellectual property of
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: Hans Hohmann Hoppe.
• 39:39
  Speaker 2: Well, let's say that when I didn't believe in intellectual property,
• 39:42
  Speaker 2: I have read it somewhere. But I haven't got here
• 39:46
  Speaker 2: to show it to you. But let's sum up the
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: main argument in democracy, the god that failed. So Hoppe says, look,
• 39:57
  Speaker 2: in monarchy, so he says there have been two systems
• 39:59
  Speaker 2: mostly in the recent history, monarchy and democracy. In monarchy,
• 40:03
  Speaker 2: something is clearly wrong. The king is above the law.
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: The king can do things that you cannot do. And yet,
• 40:11
  Speaker 2: how did we correct this with democracy? We actually said
• 40:15
  Speaker 2: that now this privilege to do whatever you want, to
• 40:19
  Speaker 2: exploit other people, now this is democratized. Now through the ballot,
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: everyone and anyone can become a tyrant. Because if I
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: pass a law to tax you, Yaron, now I am
• 40:33
  Speaker 2: a king on your life. So back in the day,
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: we had one king, potentially horrible, potentially a tyrant.
• 40:40
  Speaker 3: Now we have millions and millions of kings. That's one argument.
• 40:45
  Speaker 2: Another argument. A king is to a country what an
• 40:49
  Speaker 2: owner is to a house. If I own this house,
• 40:52
  Speaker 2: I want to make sure that I take care of
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: it because I can sell it, I can pass it
• 40:57
  Speaker 2: to my kids. Now, it's not clear what selling a
• 41:00
  Speaker 2: country would mean, but the idea is that a democratic
• 41:03
  Speaker 2: government is like you are a tenant under a rent.
• 41:07
  Speaker 3: And then I can turn it to an Airbnb, I can.
• 41:10
  Speaker 2: Turn it to a whorehouse, as Hoppe says, and put
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: 30 beds and make it a bordello, and then I
• 41:17
  Speaker 2: make a lot of money very quickly. But the value
• 41:21
  Speaker 2: of the house is depreciated. Another problem with democracy, which
• 41:27
  Speaker 2: was not such a problem with monarchy, kings tend to
• 41:30
  Speaker 2: have a smaller state bureaucracy because bureaucracy costs if you
• 41:34
  Speaker 2: have to pay from your pocket. Which means also that you,
• 41:38
  Speaker 2: the citizen, the subject, would come across less often to
• 41:43
  Speaker 2: the state bureaucrats. There's less inflation because the king needs
• 41:47
  Speaker 2: to have gold.
• 41:47
  Speaker 3: He cannot just print.
• 41:49
  Speaker 2: And there's also lower taxes. And also, democracy tends to
• 41:54
  Speaker 2: take from the most productive and give to the least productive.
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: Whereas if you are a king, you want the best,
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: the aristocracy, you want them to have around you in
• 42:05
  Speaker 2: good terms with you. Whereas in democracy, because... The worse rule,
• 42:11
  Speaker 2: the better. You subsidize poverty. You encourage having children out
• 42:17
  Speaker 2: of the wedlock and all that stuff. And last but
• 42:19
  Speaker 2: not least, under democracy, you can have massive wars, massive armies,
• 42:24
  Speaker 2: whereas in monarchy, We deal with our differences like men.
• 42:28
  Speaker 2: I bring my best men. You bring your best men.
• 42:32
  Speaker 2: We fight it out. And that's that. So I think
• 42:35
  Speaker 2: it's a misunderstanding that Hoppe is for monarchy. He's not
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: for monarchy. But his argument is that historically, democracy is
• 42:44
  Speaker 2: a regression when it comes to the liberty that we have.
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: So does he talk at all about kind of a
• 42:56
  Speaker 1: constitutional republic. Does he talk about the American system of
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: government at all? Yes.
• 43:00
  Speaker 2: And his claim about America is that it's clearly America
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: was not a democracy early on. It became a democracy
• 43:11
  Speaker 2: after the defeat of the Confederacy. The defeat of the
• 43:15
  Speaker 2: Confederacy is when the United States stopped being what it was,
• 43:19
  Speaker 2: which was a republic ruled by the best, And it
• 43:23
  Speaker 2: became a majoritarian thing that if we decide that the
• 43:26
  Speaker 2: Southern states are now part of this homogeneous mass, we
• 43:31
  Speaker 2: have the right to attack them and to use a,
• 43:34
  Speaker 2: to use a force against them. So that was the
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: turning point. Lincoln was the first democratic ruler of the
• 43:42
  Speaker 2: United States for Hoppe.
• 43:44
  Speaker 1: And therefore, you know, an evil, one of the worst presidents.
• 43:47
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah.
• 43:47
  Speaker 3: That goes without saying.
• 43:48
  Speaker 1: Yes. Yep. Yep. Um, So it's fascinating to me how
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: ahistorical this is. And of course, he prides himself on
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: being an historian. Murray Rothbard did this as well. I mean,
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: Murray Rothbard, we'll talk about him someday, had economic theories,
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: had ideas about economics, and then basically wrote history to
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: validate his economic theories. When the history didn't quite match
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: his economic theory, he changed it. When facts didn't match reality,
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: you don't fake the facts.
• 44:30
  Speaker 2: One comment just as a trailer for the episode on Rothbard,
• 44:35
  Speaker 2: Rothbard claimed that the best example of a non-imperialistic foreign policy,
• 44:41
  Speaker 2: of a foreign policy where your focus is, let's just
• 44:45
  Speaker 2: maintain what we have and protect our borders was, drum roll,
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: Stalin Soviet Union.
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah, which is, God, so crazy and insane. But just
• 44:57
  Speaker 1: on a technical thing, I mean, he believed that fractional
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: reserve banking caused all banking crises in American history. He
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: wrote a whole history of the 19th century banking from
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: the perspective of it's all fractional reserve banking, BS, complete nonsense.
• 45:15
  Speaker 1: Economists have shown that over and over again. There are
• 45:18
  Speaker 1: other causes for the banking crisis in America that have
• 45:21
  Speaker 1: nothing to do with fractional reserve banking. He literally lies
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: in his history. Now, this is a history I know
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: because I specialized in banking and I read all the
• 45:30
  Speaker 1: banking history. It's complete BS. It's complete nonsense what he
• 45:33
  Speaker 1: writes about 19th century American banking. And here, Hoppe is
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: talking about kings. Now, you know, what about Louis, what
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: was it, Louis XVII? I mean, let them eat bread.
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, she really cared about her people. They
• 45:46
  Speaker 1: really cared about France. They really wanted France to be
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: a good country. And this is why the king was
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: so good. Or have you seen, has anybody ever been
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: to kind of the palaces of the kings of France
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: and the kind of wealth that they accumulated while their
• 46:03
  Speaker 1: subjects lived in unthinkable, you know, poverty. And I'm trying
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: to think of exceptions when, you know, the kings of
• 46:13
  Speaker 1: England are considered relatively good, right? But think of what,
• 46:19
  Speaker 1: I don't know, what's his name with eight wives? Henry VIII,
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: who had all the wives and chopped their heads off.
• 46:27
  Speaker 1: I mean, okay, so there are wives, who cares? You know,
• 46:31
  Speaker 1: it's just his wives, he can kill them. But think
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: about how many people he killed when he decided, that
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: England was going to leave the Catholic Church and have
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: its own church.
• 46:39
  Speaker 3: Ah, he has a theory on that. He has a theory.
• 46:41
  Speaker 2: He says, don't at me when it comes to religious wars.
• 46:45
  Speaker 2: They have nothing to do with kings and stuff. These
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: are ideological wars similar to the wars that democracies are
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: fighting today.
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: But that is so nonsense because the reality is that
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: Henry VIII wanted a new religion for England. Why? Because
• 47:03
  Speaker 1: the Catholic... the Pope wouldn't give him a divorce. Again, wives.
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: I mean, it goes back to his wives. So the
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: very idea that somehow monarchies are stable, France is a
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: complete repudiation of that. I mean, think of the little
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: monarchies that existed in Europe during this entire period or
• 47:29
  Speaker 1: during the Middle Ages and post-Middle Ages. Think of the
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: number of wars. And yes, some of the wars are
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: religious wars. But you can't separate religion from politics. A
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: lot of the wars are not so much about religion
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: doctrine as making sure that the people under your realm
• 47:47
  Speaker 1: have the same religion as you as the king have
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: decreed and therefore following your religion. So it's part of politics.
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: You know, the 30-year war was not just a religious war.
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: It was a political war. It was about the control
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: of kind of the, you know, the Roman Empire. So
• 48:08
  Speaker 1: it's the Christian Roman Empire. So it's just such fallacy.
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: Think about what the Spanish did, the Spanish monarchy did
• 48:19
  Speaker 1: to the Netherlands, right? This wasn't about religion. This was
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: about the Netherlands wanting independence and secession, right? And wanting
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: to have their own commercial enterprises and without being beholden
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: to a king was in Spain, which was far away.
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: and they crushed Netherlands. I mean, it's just complete evasion
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: of the historical reality and historical fact, just like he's
• 48:46
  Speaker 1: invading the Holocaust.
• 48:48
  Speaker 2: You know what Hoppe would reply to you? That you
• 48:50
  Speaker 2: are now becoming an empiricist. You are getting this and
• 48:56
  Speaker 2: that case, and you see there it was.
• 48:58
  Speaker 3: He said, but look, I'm talking about in principles.
• 49:01
  Speaker 2: In principle, it makes sense that the king would behave
• 49:04
  Speaker 2: that way.
• 49:05
  Speaker 3: But he doesn't.
• 49:06
  Speaker 2: Maybe there's something wrong with the principle.
• 49:10
  Speaker 3: In principle.
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: But that's the point. The point is this is why
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: we're not rationalists and we're not empiricists. So one of
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: the ways you test your principles is by looking at reality.
• 49:23
  Speaker 1: And every principle, every principle in objectivism has to be
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: tested in reality. You can't just accept it because Ayn
• 49:29
  Speaker 1: Rand said it or because it makes sense, because it's logical,
• 49:32
  Speaker 1: because it's deductively true. Go check it in reality. If
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: it doesn't work in reality, it's not true. So you
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: can only induce principles from reality, and they have to
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: be checked against reality. So in objectivism, we talked about inducing,
• 49:49
  Speaker 1: and then once we form an abstract concept, what do
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: we do in order to make it ours? We reduce it.
• 49:55
  Speaker 1: We reduce it to the concretes in reality. So yeah,
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: here's epistemology, it's floating abstractions. It's detached from reality. Therefore,
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: history doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. Reality doesn't matter. The
• 50:06
  Speaker 1: videos from October 7th don't matter. All that matters is
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: the principles he's come up with, the rationalistic constructs, arguments
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: that he has created in his own head. But everybody
• 50:20
  Speaker 1: out there should test these things. When intellectuals say stuff,
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: and this is true of Ayn Rand, it's true of Nikos,
• 50:26
  Speaker 1: it's true of me, it's true of anybody. When intellectuals
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: say stuff, You've got to check, you know, okay, is
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: it true? And how do you know if something's true
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: or not? How do we know the self-evident one? What
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: was the self-evident one? This pencil is bigger than this.
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: How do we know that? We look. I mean, he's
• 50:44
  Speaker 1: an empiricist. The only reason it's self-evident is because it's
• 50:47
  Speaker 1: perceptually evident, because it's within our senses. We can see it.
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: So you need to bring everything down to the perceptually evident.
• 50:58
  Speaker 1: And Hoppe and Rothbard and rationalists generally, reality doesn't matter
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: to them. It's completely, all of their principles are floating completely.
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: This is why they can say stuff that is vicious
• 51:15
  Speaker 1: and evil and they can make up reality and they
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: just treat it like, yeah, oh, but look, it's internally consistent.
• 51:25
  Speaker 1: It's logical. So of course it's right.
• 51:27
  Speaker 2: And at this point of the show, Yaron, there's at
• 51:30
  Speaker 2: least a couple, I'd say 25 people in the audience
• 51:34
  Speaker 2: would say, okay, okay, yes, maybe Hoppe is wrong in
• 51:38
  Speaker 2: all this, but at least we agree on the basics.
• 51:42
  Speaker 2: We agree on things like freedom, liberty, and property rights.
• 51:46
  Speaker 2: So shall we test also this by using the thing
• 51:50
  Speaker 2: that made Hoppe so famous, so notorious actually, which is
• 51:55
  Speaker 2: the physical removal So shall I read the infamous part
• 52:02
  Speaker 2: from Democracy the Godfather Has Failed where he talks about
• 52:04
  Speaker 2: physically removing Democrats and Communists from a free private property society?
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: Sure, but let me just say, I mean, I'm just
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: looking at the comments and we've got people on here saying,
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: many libertarians are objectivists, so please don't smear us with
• 52:22
  Speaker 1: a broad brush. So let me be very clear, Bruce.
• 52:26
  Speaker 1: If you're a libertarian, you're not a rejectivist. If you're
• 52:28
  Speaker 1: an objectivist, you're not a libertarian. These are two distinct
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: sets of ideas.
• 52:34
  Speaker 3: Well, okay.
• 52:35
  Speaker 2: What do we mean by libertarian? I mean, if I
• 52:37
  Speaker 2: talk to my grandmother and says, are you a libertarian?
• 52:40
  Speaker 3: She said, yeah, approximately.
• 52:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but she's not an objectivist. So that's fine. I'm
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: not saying all libertarians are Perians. I'm not saying all
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: libertarians are Rothbardians. But no libertarians are objectivists. If we
• 52:54
  Speaker 1: mean by objectivism, an understanding of Ayn Rand's ideas and
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: adherence to it. So if you understand Ayn Rand's ideas
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: and you adhere to Ayn Rand's ideas, you cannot be
• 53:04
  Speaker 1: a libertarian because libertarianism in almost every, in every one
• 53:10
  Speaker 1: of its various, you know, concorded variations is incompatible with
• 53:18
  Speaker 1: objectivist philosophy, right? Now, some of you libertarians might have
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: a very similar conception of liberty as we do. Some
• 53:26
  Speaker 1: of you libertarians might have a very similar conception of
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: even rights as we do, although not completely. But none
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: of you libertarians have the full philosophy of objectivism. And
• 53:38
  Speaker 1: if you did, you wouldn't call yourself a libertarian. Okay,
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: that's my little spiel. So go ahead and give hope
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: as meme.
• 53:46
  Speaker 2: Okay. And ideally, you should have it and show it
• 53:48
  Speaker 2: in the screen. Is it too late to send it
• 53:50
  Speaker 2: to you to show it on the screen, his point
• 53:53
  Speaker 2: on physical removal?
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: You can send it to me and I will share
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: it on the screen.
• 53:58
  Speaker 2: I'm sending it to you right now. So this is
• 54:02
  Speaker 2: again from democracy, the God that failed. We should not
• 54:06
  Speaker 2: be allowed to use it without permission. But again, intellectual
• 54:10
  Speaker 2: property is communist, so we can't.
• 54:16
  Speaker 1: Well, I mean, it's fair use. We're educating.
• 54:19
  Speaker 3: I know, but still.
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: I mean, my internet's kind of weird, so it hasn't
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: come through yet, but it will.
• 54:30
  Speaker 2: Okay, so just to give a bit of the context
• 54:32
  Speaker 2: here is that you've seen perhaps the meme with the helicopter,
• 54:37
  Speaker 2: with Pinochet throwing communists out of the helicopter. This is
• 54:42
  Speaker 2: related to Hoppe because Hoppe has used this infamous term
• 54:47
  Speaker 2: that it's okay to physically remove communists from a society,
• 54:55
  Speaker 2: a private society, which is built based on a covenant,
• 54:59
  Speaker 2: as he would put it.
• 55:00
  Speaker 3: Did you get it?
• 55:02
  Speaker 1: Yes, I'm trying to see where I can share it.
• 55:05
  Speaker 3: Good.
• 55:06
  Speaker 1: I think this is it. Can you see that? Yeah.
• 55:11
  Speaker 2: The reason I'm sending this to you is I want
• 55:14
  Speaker 2: you to tell me how, for example, his theory of
• 55:18
  Speaker 2: free speech would be different from our theory of free speech.
• 55:20
  Speaker 2: Because again, these kids, these friends of ours in the
• 55:24
  Speaker 2: comments would say, come on, we basically agree on the
• 55:26
  Speaker 2: basic stuff with them. So with that in mind, I
• 55:28
  Speaker 2: want us to read this quote.
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: All right. You want me to read it? Yes.
• 55:35
  Speaker 3: I can't see it.
• 55:36
  Speaker 1: In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community, tenants in
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: a covenant concluded among proprietary and community tenants for the
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: purpose of protecting their private property. No such thing as
• 55:51
  Speaker 1: a right to free unlimited speech exists, not even to
• 55:55
  Speaker 1: unlimited speech to one's own, on one's own tenant property.
• 56:01
  Speaker 1: One may say innumerate things and promote almost any idea
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism.
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: So democracy, not just communism, right? There can be no
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: tolerance towards Democrats and communists in a libertarian social order.
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: They will have to be physically separated, by the way,
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: we can talk about what that entails in a minute,
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: and expelled from society. But what if the whole world
• 56:37
  Speaker 1: is libertarian? Likewise, In a covenant founded for the purpose
• 56:43
  Speaker 1: of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: towards those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with these goals. Watch out,
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: gay libertarians. They, the advocates of alternative, non-family, and kin-centered lifestyles,
• 57:02
  Speaker 1: I want to throw up here, such as, for instance,
• 57:06
  Speaker 1: individual hedonism, parasitism, nature, environmental worship, homosexuality, or communism will
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: have to be physically removed from society too, if one
• 57:18
  Speaker 1: is to maintain a libertarian order. Now, notice here, I mean,
• 57:23
  Speaker 1: there's so much to notice here, but.
• 57:24
  Speaker 5: Notice here, a libertarian order, which most of you interpret
• 57:29
  Speaker 5: as an order of liberty. But anybody who disagrees with
• 57:33
  Speaker 5: Hoppe is going to remove from such a society. And
• 57:37
  Speaker 5: if that society... as one and the.
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: Whole world is libertarian, what that actually means is that
• 57:45
  Speaker 1: they will be killed because that's the only way to
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: remove them from society is to kill them. So basically
• 57:52
  Speaker 1: what he's calling for here is the extermination of people
• 57:56
  Speaker 1: who disagree with him. And note that includes Democrats. And here,
• 57:59
  Speaker 1: what does Democrats mean? You know, anybody who argues for, well,
• 58:03
  Speaker 1: maybe we should have a tax, a low tax, not
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: a high tax, a low tax. To facilitate, I don't know,
• 58:10
  Speaker 1: the military or the police force, it's going to be
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: a compulsory tax. Well, they have to be removed from
• 58:15
  Speaker 1: society because they're violating property rights because the tax is
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: obviously evil. Even we think the tax is bad. And therefore,
• 58:21
  Speaker 1: you can't advocate against property rights.
• 58:26
  Speaker 2: Okay, let me hear, do not devils advocate. I'll actually
• 58:29
  Speaker 2: think you are too harsh on him. But doesn't he
• 58:34
  Speaker 2: speak about a particular covenant? So we agree and we
• 58:38
  Speaker 2: say we are for property rights, and we create this
• 58:42
  Speaker 2: little community, these golds, golds, as he would say.
• 58:46
  Speaker 3: So in that case, you can go to a different covenant.
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: First of all, people are not, there is no social contract.
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: There is no covenant. You know, there is a constitution,
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: let's say a constitution that protects property rights. But you
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: can argue, you don't have a right to stand on
• 59:06
  Speaker 1: your own property and argue against that constitution. That constitution
• 59:11
  Speaker 1: can't be, you don't have to, even though you're arguing
• 59:15
  Speaker 1: a contradiction, right? Because you're using your property, you know,
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: to argue against property rights. You have every right as
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: a human being to hold a contradiction and to have
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: a contradiction. As long as you don't, manifest it in
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: the use of force, as long as you're just arguing,
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: as long as you're just... But again, anything that involves
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: an attack on property rights would be, you're out, right?
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: And again, notice that if you include the community as
• 59:47
  Speaker 1: a global community, the only way of out is know
• 59:51
  Speaker 1: death camps that that's the only way to get to but.
• 59:54
  Speaker 2: He claims we should not have a global government we
• 59:57
  Speaker 2: should have a trillion small covenants.
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: Yeah so you have a trillion small covenant but they're
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 1: all libertarian right because we won the libertarians won hope
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 1: they won convince the world so you've got a trillion
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 1: covenants and now people arguing against property rights what do
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: we do.
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 3: With okay here's what the whole globe.
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: Is divided up by a bill by a million little
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: covenant communities. There's no way to go. Every piece of
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 1: the land is owned by a covenant community. The only
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 1: thing is to kill them. I mean, that's implicit. Would
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: Hoppe object? You know, he probably would say he would.
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 1: But in reality, would Hoppe and his ideal object to
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 1: concentration camps for the, what would you call it, the... undesirables,
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 1: I think it's undesirable, homosexuals, he lists them, hedonists, parasites,
• 1:00:55
  Speaker 1: environmental worshipers and homosexuals and communists. And of course, in
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: the earlier paragraph, he said Democrats. So anybody who disagrees
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: with him on the nature of property rights, and as
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 1: we know, right, for example, intellectual property rights, property rights
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 1: can be complicated, right? There can be disagreement about property rights.
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: And this is, you need a process to define property rights.
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 1: What if people just disagree under this covenant about property rights.
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 1: I mean, this is really sick stuff. This is not,
• 1:01:21
  Speaker 1: I'm not gonna give him an inch here because this
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 1: is truly sick to treat people who disagree with you
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 1: in this kind of way. And the reality is that,
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 1: where's the anarchy here? What if I'm a Democrat, but
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: I've got a police force, I've hired Nikos to protect me.
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: and you come to try to extract me from society,
• 1:01:51
  Speaker 1: is my police force going to fight against you? Are
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 1: they going to negotiate? How is this going to be
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 1: adjudicated under anarchy?
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 2: But what if this is a society of voluntary society
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 2: of Catholics? So would it make sense to expel or
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 2: not allow someone who is openly gay in a private
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 2: society of Catholics?
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: No, I mean, no, because in the private society of Catholics,
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 1: there's no private, there's no Catholic property. There's no public property.
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 1: So if I'm gay, all my neighbors are Catholic, but
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 1: I have property. I have my land. I have my house.
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: They don't get to take my land and take my
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 1: house because I happen not to be Catholic.
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 3: Okay, maybe then the context is that.
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 1: You cannot create a covenant. Let's say you cannot create
• 1:02:52
  Speaker 1: a gated community. People like gated community. You cannot create
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: a gated community that says, everybody who lives in this
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: gated community has to be a Catholic. That is an
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 1: illegitimate contract. It's a completely legitimate contract. What if I
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: go into that community of Catholic? I bought the land.
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: It's mine, right? I bought the land. It's not my land.
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 1: And while I'm there, I changed my mind. I'm no
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: longer Catholic, but it's my land. And I don't want
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 1: to leave. You can't dictate in advance the intellectual content
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: of somebody else. And I can't commit to holding ideas,
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 1: the same ideas forever, you know, with regard to property,
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 1: with regard to my property, right? It would be like, um,
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 1: let's say I, I, you know, I stopped being an
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 1: objectivist while I'm the CEO of the Ironman Institute. I
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 1: can be fired, I can be fired, but they can't
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: take my back pay. They can't take my money away. Um,
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: they can't, you know, they, they can't take what they
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 1: paid me while I was an objectivist. They don't have
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: a claim on my property. Um, so you, you either,
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: we have private property. We don't have private property. Private
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 1: property means I can use my property as I see fit. Um,
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: And it doesn't have anything to do with the intellectual
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 1: content that I hold. So, yes, you can say you
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: can't turn your house into a brothel. That could be
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 1: a covenant that's in there. But they can't say you
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 1: can't change your mind about Catholicism. That's absurd.
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 2: And this would include the advocacy of overturning private property.
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 2: Because you'd say you can believe it, but you cannot
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 2: advocate it.
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 1: Say that again?
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 2: They would say, sure, you can believe it, but if
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 2: you advocate, you are actually encouraging violence.
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 1: Not if I'm advocating on my land, but yes, I'm
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: advocating for a system that is violent, but there's a
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 1: difference between advocating for a system of violence and inciting violence.
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: Those are not the same thing. If I say, take
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 1: up arms, let's overthrow the regime, that's inciting violence. If
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: I say, The regime is rotten. We need a new regime.
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 1: That is not inciting violence. This is the big difference
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 1: in free speech, right? You have every right to advocate
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 1: for an ideology that is violent. I mean, I consider
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 1: hope is ideology violent, right? Because I consider anarchism a
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: violent ideology. I can't silence him because now if he says,
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: let's go take your own stuff, that's incitement. I see. Okay.
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 2: So for me, the very suspicious thing here is while
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 2: he's talking about the religious covenant, he says at the end,
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 2: we'll have to be physically removed from society if one
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 2: is to maintain a libertarian order. Not a Catholic religious order.
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 2: That's what I found weird.
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 3: We want freedom.
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 1: We want freedom. We want liberty unless you disagree with us.
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: And then you have no freedom and no liberty. So
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: unless you buy into a libertarian ideology, unless you buy
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: the dogma that, as we state it, right, exactly, because
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 1: you can't even be a homosexual. Remember, homosexuality has nothing
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 1: to do with advocating for violence. Nothing. Assuming it's voluntary, right?
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 1: So there's no violence in homosexuality. And there's no violence
• 1:06:23
  Speaker 1: in what? In hedonism. What's the violence in hedonism? Individual hedonism.
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: I want to sit on my couch all day I
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 1: want to watch Netflix. I want to have sex with
• 1:06:34
  Speaker 1: as many people as I want, all consensual, all voluntary,
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: all within my property. And that is being banned. I'm
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 1: going to be removed from society in the name of
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: liberty and freedom. I mean, this is truly sick and
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: disgusting stuff. And to claim that there is anything resembling
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: liberty and freedom And here is just completely bizarre. This
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 1: is medievalism. It is, you know, he loves the city-states
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: of the medieval period. This is a new religion. This
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: is exactly religion, right? Hope decides what's acceptable in your home, right?
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: But you have private property, Nikos. It's your property. Just,
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 1: you know, don't sleep with the wrong people. And by
• 1:07:23
  Speaker 1: the way, we're going to evaluate whether the people you're
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: sleeping with, you're doing it for hedonistic reasons. or whether
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 1: there's a rational reason for you to be sleeping with them.
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 3: You know, I found this so crazy.
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 2: The fact that he says, if one is to maintain
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: a libertarian order, that for a moment I freaked out
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 2: that it's a fake quote, or I got the wrong
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 2: contraband version of the book.
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 3: But turns out it is the right quote. It is....
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 1: Anyway.
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 3: Okay, so this is.
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 1: I mean, this is why... This is why... I mean,
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: I view these people as bad, in some sense worse,
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: than communists and fascists. Because they pretend to be pro-liberty.
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 1: And then they can make this statement. Again, we're going to,
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 1: you know, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature environmental worship, homosexuality or communism,
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: they're going to be physically removed from society. I mean,
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 1: it's just, it's stunning. And again, I want to emphasize,
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 1: physically removed from society is one step away, one step
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 1: away from eliminating them because there might not be any
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 1: way to remove them too. And we need them out.
• 1:08:38
  Speaker 1: We need them gone. So we make them disappear. One
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 1: way or the other, it doesn't really matter because they're
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 1: living in contradictions. What difference does it make if they're dead?
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 2: Okay, now I am playing devil's advocate because I have
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 2: the answer to this. But someone will say, But come on,
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 2: you can definitely kick me out of Ocon if I
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 2: come to Ocon and I start praising Marxism or Marxism.
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: You have no private property at Ocon. So when you
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 1: come to Ocon, you sign a contract, whether that is
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 1: explicit or implicit. It's my property.
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 2: He will say the same thing. If you come to
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 2: this covenant, you sign a contract.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 1: But you don't, right? So if you come to Ocon
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 1: and you rent a room in the hotel, I can
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 1: kick you out of the conference, but I can't kick
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: you out of the room. So your room is a
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: different contract. It's a property right. So a property right
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 1: says you have a right to this property. And, you know,
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 1: unless you've committed physical force against somebody, you cannot be
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 1: removed from your property. So, you know, now you can say,
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 1: and maybe this is what he means, you're only renting.
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: You don't own the property. So now it's collectivism. So
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 1: that's fine. Maybe so he's just a collectivist, right? So
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 1: the group owns the property. We buy a plot of land.
• 1:09:53
  Speaker 1: And then we rent it to people. And we rent
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 1: it to people under certain terms. And if they behave
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 1: in certain ways that we don't like, or they, what
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: do you call it, advocate for ideas we don't like,
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 1: then we have a provision in the rental contract, in
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: the rental contract, that says, out they go. Fine. But
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: then who owns the stuff? You know, so yeah, so
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 1: you could form a corporation that rents stuff to people
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 1: under only certain terms. But to think that a libertarian,
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 1: libertarian political entity would be structured in that way is,
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 1: is again, pretty, it's pretty collectivist. You know, the collective
• 1:10:39
  Speaker 1: is going to decide, the group is going to decide
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 1: what behavior is accepted to it or not, what ideas
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 1: are accepted to it or not. So, you know, again,
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: Ocon is a delimited event. It's delimited in time and space.
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: You know, it does not involve the sale of any property.
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: Your attendance is conditional on certain behavior. And even at Ocon,
• 1:11:05
  Speaker 1: short of engaging in disruptive behavior, we don't kick people out.
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: I mean, we've had Satanists at Ocon. You know, if
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: a communist came to UConn and stood up and said,
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 1: according to Marx, da-da-da-da-da, in a Q & A, would
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: we kick that person out? No. He's come and voiced
• 1:11:24
  Speaker 1: an idea. Our intellectuals should be able to answer these questions.
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 1: So if Alperian showed up, would we automatically kick them out? No. Now,
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 1: we might not accept them to begin with, but we
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 1: wouldn't kick them out. I see.
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 2: Now, believe it or not, the quote I read still
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 2: is not the most controversial stuff. about Hans-Hermann Hoppe because
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 2: the most controversial is the role that he plays in
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 2: what some describe as a pipeline between libertarianism and the alt-right.
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 2: So in 2006, actually before 2006.
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 1: You can see the elements of that already here in
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 1: this quote, right? He's anti-gay, which plays right into the
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 1: hands of kind of the Christian conservative, you know, alt-right
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 1: type attitude. You know, do we think he's going to
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: be racist? Yeah, I mean, it's very likely he's a racist,
• 1:12:23
  Speaker 1: although I don't have anything stated here. So you can
• 1:12:28
  Speaker 1: already see his kind of, why can't we just have
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 1: an all-white nation, right? Which is, you know, the white
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 1: nationalists in America claim they're not racist. They're not against blacks.
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: They just don't want to be in the same neighborhood
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 1: with them. They want white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods. They
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: want a white country and a black country. That's all
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 1: they want, right? Would Hope object to that? No, I mean,
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 1: his theory that he just articulated is completely consistent with that.
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: So why not add color skin to the homosexuality and the,
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 1: what was it, hedonism and a bunch of other things?
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: So his view is, within your country, let's expand his
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 1: community to a country, You should be able to say
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 1: certain behavior is unacceptable, even if they don't violate rights,
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 1: certain behaviors are unacceptable, and therefore kick them out. You
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 1: being the wrong color skin, kick him out. You being
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: here without a, quote, visa, kick him out. You being
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 1: a homosexual, kick him out. You being a hedonist, kick
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 1: him out. A communist or a Democrat, you know? I mean,
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: this place, Democrat here, I don't think he means a
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party, but I'm sure.
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 2: The- No, no, it means believing in democracy.
• 1:13:39
  Speaker 1: Yes. But I think when the alt-right reads that statement,
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 1: they think of the Democratic Party.
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 2: Okay, so what's the relationship between Hoppe and what we
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 2: would call the alt-right? So in 1992, Mari Rothbard indicates
• 1:13:55
  Speaker 2: a new direction for libertarianism, a new tactical alliance. And
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 2: the tactical alliance would be with paleoconservatives. Now, paleoconservatives are
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 2: people of the alt-right, People who started being against the
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 2: New Deal, but also who had very particular views on
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 2: the Civil Rights Act.
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 3: Not just in terms of the Civil.
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 2: Rights Act is violating individual rights, which is true that
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 2: it does, but also they go back to historical events.
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 2: views about the civil war, about the Confederacy and all
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 2: that stuff. So in 92, Rothbard writes an article, Right-Wing Populism,
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 2: A Strategy for the Paleo-Movement. And he and Hoppe joined
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 2: the John Randolph Club. The John Randolph Club was a
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 2: club that had paleo-conservatives, people who are characterized as neo-Confederates. Now,
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 2: how much of this is mischaracterization, that's another thing. This
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 2: is Pat Buchanan- Yeah, Paul Gottfried, that type of people.
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 2: Later though, because you could say this is neither here
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 2: nor there, you know, I don't know these people, whatever.
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 3: In 2006, Hoppe.
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 2: Starts his own group, the Property and Freedom Society, to
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 2: discuss libertarian ideas. And yet in this group, you find
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 2: Paul Gottfried, which again, you could say, okay, he's libertarian, whatever.
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 2: But you also find Jared Taylor, the famous race realist
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 2: or white nationalist. You find Richard Spencer, you find other
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 2: race realists, and you wonder, why are these people in
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 2: these libertarian circles? Could it be because they're the only
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 2: ones who uphold, let's say, one's right to discriminate? But
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 2: this is not the case. You can find people who
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 2: are not race realists who agree with your right to
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 2: discriminate on.
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 3: Your private property.
• 1:15:55
  Speaker 2: So, That begs the question, why is Hoppe going to
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 2: bed intellectually with such figures? Could it be that, you know,
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 2: his libertarianism is fused with ideas around racism and all
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 2: that stuff, which I'll just leave this as a question.
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 1: I don't leave stuff as questions. Of course it is.
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: I mean, you sanction the racists because you are one. And,
• 1:16:21
  Speaker 1: you know, again, it's this idea that you know, his ideas,
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 1: these is the little city States, uh, you know, and
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 1: one is white and one is, you know, maybe black
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 1: and one, but, but they keep to themselves and they
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: get to set the rules. We saw hedonism and all
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: these other things we kick out. We, we take out, um,
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: it's yeah. I mean, you don't associate with Jerry Taylor
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 1: unless you think there's something really in common with Jerry
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 1: Taylor and what else could be, you have in common
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 1: with Jerry Taylor other than kind of a, uh, a
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 1: racist attitude towards the world. So it wouldn't surprise me.
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 2: It's also that we are just asking questions here. We
• 1:17:01
  Speaker 2: are the space where questions are asked.
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: And the Iran book show, I don't know about the
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 1: Iran and Nikos dialogues. We don't ask questions. We answer them.
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 3: That's a good.
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 1: We are not.
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 3: That's a good piece.
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: We answer the questions.
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 2: But see how this plays also with the so-called Holocaust line, right?
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 3: It's like we question everything.
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 2: We don't believe anything that the empire is telling us.
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 2: And anyone who is against the empire and the elites,
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 2: we're all friends here.
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 1: Yes. And it's important to note that there's plenty of evidence. Look,
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: what we saw the clip before about his Holocaust denial
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 1: and his equating, kind of what, oh, not equating, saying
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 1: Gaza is worse than the Holocaust because there's evidence in Gaza.
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: I mean, that can only be motivated. I mean, it's
• 1:17:59
  Speaker 1: not only, but there's certainly reason to believe this might
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 1: be motivated by anti-Semitism. And so I wouldn't be surprised
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: if there's an anti-Semitic racist streak within Harper. that, you know,
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 1: he's so viciously anti-Israel. He's so hateful towards Israel that
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 1: one suspects that might be the cause. But then again,
• 1:18:23
  Speaker 1: what else does he hate? What other country does he hate?
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 1: What other country is the worst?
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 2: The number one country that he hates, the country that
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 2: he believes is the menace in the world is the
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 2: United States.
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 1: The United States. Like Mali Rothbard, both of them believe
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: that the United States is the ultimate evil. It is
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: the menace. It took a long time in the Civil War.
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: Civil War should have never been fought. Since then, it
• 1:18:46
  Speaker 1: has been an empire building, colonizer, oppressor. It wasn't slavery
• 1:18:51
  Speaker 1: that was the problem. When America had slavery, it was
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: actually good. It was a relatively good country. No, it's
• 1:18:59
  Speaker 1: the post-slavery era. That's when America became rotten to the core.
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 1: It is the ultimate evil in the world. Anything America
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 1: does is bad. And notice that what that leads them to,
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 1: it led Rothbard and it leads Hoppe, is to supporting
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: America's enemies. So Russia is the good. Putin is okay.
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 1: Ukraine is evil because it's part of the West. Any
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: Western country is really not good. Israel is awful because
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 1: it's the most similar to the United States in their eyes.
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 1: And it's a bunch of Jews. And so the enemies
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 1: of the United States, Stalin, in the case of Rothbard
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: in the past, and now Putin. And again, this is
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 1: a connection to the alt-right. The alt-right has very much
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 1: embraced this. I wouldn't be surprised if these guys actually
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: like Dugin.
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 2: I know a libertarian who has invited Dugin to his podcast. Now,
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 2: let us put it the way Hoppe would put it.
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 2: He would say, look, every state is a gang.
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 2: The Ukraine-Russia war is the war between the Zelensky gang
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 2: against the Putin gang.
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 3: So both gangs.
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 2: However, Ukraine is supported by the most dangerous gang, which
• 1:20:27
  Speaker 2: is the U.S.
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: Gang.
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 2: Every state in Europe is a vessel state of the
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 2: United States. Therefore, it is worth opposing any assistance to
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 2: Ukraine because this just perpetuates the war. Interestingly, when he
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 2: talks about the Israel-Hamas war, again, he says.
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 1: Hamas is a gang.
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 3: Israel is a gang.
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 2: Hamas, though, is not a vessel gang of Iran, of
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 2: the Iran gang, because.
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 3: Iran is not so dangerous and so bad.
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 1: Israel is evil, partially because it is a vessel of
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: the American gang, which is powerful and strong. He never
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 1: talks about why it ever becomes powerful and strong, why
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 1: America became powerful and strong. When it comes to Israel,
• 1:21:15
  Speaker 1: the reason Israel is powerful and strong is because of
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 1: American support for Israel. Otherwise, that's the only reason it
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: is a powerful and strong, right? I mean, here's a line.
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 1: This is something he wrote. I don't know when he
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 1: wrote this, but this is after October 7th. He wrote
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: this explicitly. He's not against Jews, qua Jews, he says,
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 1: but specifically against Zionists. Now, notice that that line now.
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 3: No, no, that's Hamas.
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 2: He says Hamas is not explicitly against Jews.
• 1:21:48
  Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, that's right. That's right. Hamas is not explicitly
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: against Jews, qua Jews, but specifically against Zionism. It actually received... Yeah,
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 1: so notice that that line is now part of the alt-right.
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 1: That line is now part of the new left, of
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 1: the far left. That line is now standard. Oh, we
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: don't hate Jews, quite Jews, just the Zionists. We just
• 1:22:12
  Speaker 1: hate the Zionists. So it is interesting how they position
• 1:22:18
  Speaker 1: themselves and they all position themselves in the same place.
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 2: So recently, Hoppe excommunicated his old friend and comrade and
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 2: a legendary figure in anarcho-capital is Walter Bloch because Walter
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 2: Bloch who is otherwise wrong on almost everything regarding foreign policy.
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 2: He dared to say that Israel has a right to
• 1:22:39
  Speaker 2: defend itself, And Hoppe, in this milieu where everyone has
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 2: said every crazy thing under the sun, he excommunicates Bloch
• 1:22:48
  Speaker 2: publicly because Bloch dares to say Israel has a right
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 2: to defend itself.
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 3: And he writes a whole article.
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 2: About October 7 where he says the Hamas gang attacked
• 1:22:59
  Speaker 2: Israel gang. We've heard many lies because many of the
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 2: people who died on that day died because of Israeli helicopters.
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 3: And the only thing.
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 2: That Israel has a right to do is to send
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 2: some detectives or police officers or sicarios, assassins, to find
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 2: the Hamas perpetrators, kill them one by one, but no
• 1:23:21
  Speaker 2: retaliation in Gaza is acceptable. And also they should find
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 2: the Israeli soldiers who by mistake or not by mistake
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 2: killed Israelis and they should assassinate or arrest them immediately.
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 3: But no war is allowed.
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 2: And if you support a warrior, a genocidal collectivist, because
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 2: you fall for this idea that there's a nation versus
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 2: a nation, whereas they're only individuals. And he says, I'm
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 2: a methodological individualist. And I want your comment on this, Yaron.
• 1:23:49
  Speaker 2: He would say, I'm the real individualist here because I
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 2: see individuals in Gaza and you see collectives.
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 1: I mean, here's the thing that... You know, individuals exist,
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 1: and it's tragic when truly innocent individuals die. But in
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 1: an attempt to defend myself, if innocents have to die
• 1:24:18
  Speaker 1: because the bad guys are hiding behind the individuals who
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 1: are innocent, you know, it's the bad guy's fault that
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 1: they are dead. The moral responsibility for their death is
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 1: on the other side. So I'm being an individualist by
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 1: defending myself. And I'm being an egoistic individualist by defending
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 1: myself by any means possible. I'm not going to let
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 1: myself and people I love die. And if that means
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 1: that some innocents die as a consequence, that is the
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: fault of those who initiate the violence. So there's nothing
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 1: collectivistic about that. That is true in a gunfight in
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 1: the middle of the street. You know, if somebody's rushing
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 1: to kill my wife and my children, And they're doing
• 1:25:05
  Speaker 1: it in a way where there are civilians in between
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: me and them purposefully in order to protect themselves from
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 1: me shooting back. I'm still going to shoot back and
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 1: some civilians will die. But the reason they die is
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: because he tried to kill my wife and kids. So
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: the whole idea here that, you know, defending yourself and
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 1: civilians die is somehow collectivist is ridiculous. It always assumes
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 1: that the civilians are innocent. There's nothing to suggest civilians
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 1: are innocent. They provide material support to the people actually
• 1:25:41
  Speaker 1: engaged in warfare. There are very few civilians who are
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: actually truly innocent. Maybe the children, but short of the children,
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 1: very few others are innocent. And then finally, the reality is,
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: and I don't think it's a bad reality. I think
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 1: it's a good reality. And this is where we fundamentally disagree.
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: We do live in states and we do have governments.
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 1: And not all governments and not all states are equal
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 1: morally because they all exercise force. Some states exercise force
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: in ways that make them far more immoral than other
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 1: states that might exercise force more judiciously. So Israel, for example,
• 1:26:25
  Speaker 1: exercise force in a judicial way. It has a rule
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 1: of law and it, it generally, is a free country.
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: And yes, it exercises way too much force than I
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 1: would like, but on the spectrum of history, which I
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 1: know Hopi rejects, because that's empiricism, but on the spectrum
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 1: of history, Israel is on the side of one of
• 1:26:48
  Speaker 1: the countries that uses force the least, together, by the way,
• 1:26:52
  Speaker 1: with the United States. They are the devil, right? I mean,
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 1: he shares his view of the Iranians. This is why
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 1: these people love the Iranians, because the Iranians say, the
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 1: big devil, right, which is America, and the little devil,
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: which is Israel, and he would use exactly the same
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 1: terminology to describe American Israel. But the reality is American Israel,
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 1: in the spectrum of force in human history, they are
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 1: on the good side. No monarch, no monarch in history
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 1: has used less force on his people than these countries have.
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: Then if you look at Hamas, Hamas on the spectrum
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 1: of using force is one of the worst. in all
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 1: of human history, towards its own people and towards people
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: outside of itself. So Hamas is a worst, it's morally condemnable. Israel,
• 1:27:41
  Speaker 1: you can condemn it on certain respects, but generally it's good.
• 1:27:45
  Speaker 1: And that difference, it's pro-life, it's on the pro-life side
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 1: versus the Hamas, which is on the pro-evil side. And
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 1: if you can't see that, then you're purposefully blind, you've
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 1: blinded yourself, you're engaging in evasion, again, rationalists don't care
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 1: about reality. Force is force, right? If I steal 10
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 1: bucks from your pocket, or if I murder you, I
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 1: use force against you. I'm just equally evil when I
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 1: do those two acts. And that's the way they equate
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 1: Israel to Hamas. You know, the government in Israel taxes,
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: God forbid, they have a tax, right? Taxes, you know,
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 1: we all agree taxes are bad, but that taxes is
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 1: equal to Hamas You know, oppressing its people, throwing homosexuals
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 1: off of tall buildings. Well, I guess now considering the meme,
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 1: maybe Hoppe agrees with throwing homosexuals off of tall buildings.
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 1: Forcing women to wear hijabs, just treating people monstrously, that
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 1: is the same as having a tax and a rule
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 1: of law.
• 1:28:52
  Speaker 2: I'm sure there will be a lot of pushback from
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 2: the audience, and since today we have less time than
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 2: usual because you have somewhere to be shall we get
• 1:29:02
  Speaker 2: to the questions now.
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 1: Yes i don't know that we've got a lot i
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 1: mean we don't have a lot of questions by the
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 1: way guys we don't have a lot of financial support
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 1: today um i don't know or the timing and and
• 1:29:14
  Speaker 1: i don't see a lot of pushback here there's pushback
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 1: maybe in the comments but not in the super chat
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 1: um so uh.
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 3: Okay then let me let me put.
• 1:29:23
  Speaker 1: It i mean the individual is is is conscious moral
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 1: agent capable of reason and moral choice The state has
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 1: neither consciousness nor morality. It operates through necessity, preserving order, territory,
• 1:29:38
  Speaker 1: and authority. But that's nonsense. This state is, in some sense,
• 1:29:42
  Speaker 1: an aggregation of the individuals who are part of the state.
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: Just like a corporation has no consciousness, a corporation has
• 1:29:51
  Speaker 1: no identity, but it represents, it is an agent of
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 1: of its shareholders, and therefore it can act morally or
• 1:30:01
  Speaker 1: immorally based on the consciousness and the morality of its shareholders, right?
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: You project it onto the individuals that are owners of
• 1:30:10
  Speaker 1: this corporation. The same thing as a state. The state
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 1: can be a moral state to the extent that it
• 1:30:18
  Speaker 1: facilitates or leaves free individuals to live flourishing life, or
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 1: it can be an immoral state which suppresses and oppresses
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 1: the individual human being's ability to be free and therefore
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 1: to flourish as human beings. So you absolutely can talk
• 1:30:36
  Speaker 1: about morality as applied to a state by the standard
• 1:30:39
  Speaker 1: of human life. A state that promotes human life or
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 1: that protects individual rights generally, overall protects individual rights more
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 1: than it, let's say, violates them, is a pro-life state
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 1: and a state that is only violating individual rights or
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 1: predominantly violate individual rights is oppressive to human existence and
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 1: therefore an immoral state. So this idea that you can't
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 1: apply morality to states is wrong. You can absolutely apply
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: morality to groups of people, particularly groups of people under
• 1:31:15
  Speaker 1: particular governance.
• 1:31:18
  Speaker 3: One last comment on Hoppe there.
• 1:31:20
  Speaker 2: Again, someone who claims that he has found a way
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 2: to support libertarianism on moral grounds. Notice on how oblivious
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 2: he is on the morality of self-sacrifice and the morality
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 2: of what we'd call altruism. So he claims that the
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 2: reason why the most productive give to the least productive
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 2: is democracy. Without asking why does democracy, the obvious solution,
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 2: when someone puts a gun against your head is to say, okay,
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 2: those of you who have a lot give to those
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 2: who haven't got a lot. So at the end of
• 1:31:52
  Speaker 2: the day, he hasn't got even his own good moral
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 2: theory to understand why this happens. And his only answer is, yeah,
• 1:31:59
  Speaker 2: that's because of democracy.
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, you know, remember he said the virtue
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 1: of selfishness is lacking of analytical rigor. He, he, He's
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 1: not engaged in a moral argument. His arguments are all
• 1:32:14
  Speaker 1: about force. He's a typical Rothbardian in the sense that
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 1: they start with the non-aggression principle. Anything below that, you
• 1:32:23
  Speaker 1: can be a Christian, you can be a Kantian, you
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: can be an objectivist, it turns out. You can be
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 1: whatever you want. They start, libertarianism starts with the non-aggression principle.
• 1:32:32
  Speaker 1: They don't care about individual morality. They don't care about
• 1:32:35
  Speaker 1: self-sacrifice and things like that. They embrace it. And, you know,
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 1: this is what he said about Ayn Rand and her followers, again,
• 1:32:45
  Speaker 1: in a 2024 piece. He said, Randianism, which is what
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: he called it, involved, quote, collective guilt and punishment. This
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 1: is because of our foreign policy, right? This is, I guess,
• 1:32:56
  Speaker 1: his attack on me. And this is really his attack
• 1:32:59
  Speaker 1: on me. And genocidal collectivism. So, you know, that's the
• 1:33:06
  Speaker 1: wanting to defend yourself. and be willing to do what's
• 1:33:09
  Speaker 1: necessary in order to defend yourself, even at the cost
• 1:33:15
  Speaker 1: of some innocent dying.
• 1:33:18
  Speaker 2: And notice that whenever there is a war, always his
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 2: answer is immediately, let's try to find the truce, let's
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 2: try to find a negotiated settlement. And ask yourself, people,
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 2: who benefits from that? So in the Ukraine-Russia, even put
• 1:33:33
  Speaker 2: it in his terms, the Zelensky gang and the Putin gang,
• 1:33:36
  Speaker 2: when Putin attacks.
• 1:33:38
  Speaker 3: his first.
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 2: Instinct is to say, okay, guys, you negotiate. Who benefits
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 2: from this? Every single time, the aggressor benefits on it.
• 1:33:47
  Speaker 2: After October 7, he thought that what should have happened
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 2: is immediately negotiate the release of the hostages. Give them
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 2: something and they'll give you something. Where is justice in this?
• 1:33:58
  Speaker 3: Where is justice?
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 2: Every time you have an aggression, it's okay, fine, meet
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 2: somewhere in the middle.
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 1: This is the hearts of Anarchy. so-called anarcho-capitalism. When somebody
• 1:34:11
  Speaker 1: steals something from you, the two agencies will negotiate. When
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 1: I pushed Brian Kaplan in our debate about this and
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 1: I said, well, what about individual rights? He basically said, well,
• 1:34:23
  Speaker 1: it's negotiable. I mean, yes, individual rights will be violated.
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 1: We won't get the just settlement because it's all negotiated.
• 1:34:30
  Speaker 1: I mean, that's the essence of the whole system. The
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: system is a system that negates individual rights because it's
• 1:34:36
  Speaker 1: all about we negotiate, right? The murderer and the victim's
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 1: police forces negotiate a settlement, right? He spends five years
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: in jail and he pays a little bit of reparations
• 1:34:47
  Speaker 1: and we let it go, right?
• 1:34:49
  Speaker 2: Because- I remember discussing with an anarcho-capitalist, okay, could you
• 1:34:53
  Speaker 2: have a covenant when you have Sharia law? And he says, yes,
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 2: if the covenant explicitly says this is a Sharia law,
• 1:35:00
  Speaker 2: and then I say, okay, what happens? You're a girl,
• 1:35:04
  Speaker 2: Let's say your father protects you. Now you turn 13
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 2: years old, whatever, or whenever they consider it's okay to marry.
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 2: What happens to her rights in that private covenant if
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 2: it is under Sharia law?
• 1:35:17
  Speaker 1: There are none. They don't exist. The point is, under anarcho-capitalism,
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 1: there are no rights. Now, I respect David Friedman. David
• 1:35:29
  Speaker 1: Friedman is Milton Friedman's son, who's an anarchist. Respect David Friedman.
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 1: David Friedman at least says, explicitly, he says, individual rights
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 1: are nonsense on stilts. There's no such thing. Okay, well, okay,
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 1: but they all believe that. Just the Rothbardians pretend that
• 1:35:47
  Speaker 1: they're natural rights and they believe in individual rights, but
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 1: when it comes down to it, they don't. And by
• 1:35:52
  Speaker 1: the way, Sharia law is a great example of David
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 1: Friedman gives a talk on private law, because private law
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 1: and anarcho-capitalism would be private law. And what example does
• 1:36:03
  Speaker 1: he give of private law? Sharia law in a tribe
• 1:36:08
  Speaker 1: in Somalia. Look, they have private law.
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 3: It works.
• 1:36:11
  Speaker 1: It works. And you go, wait a minute, that girl
• 1:36:14
  Speaker 1: who just got her genitals mutilated, how did it work
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 1: for her? No answer, right? Because there's no such concept
• 1:36:23
  Speaker 1: of rights. It's just, you know, it's, but, you know,
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 1: at least if you don't believe in rights, say so.
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 1: But the idea that you can believe in rights and
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 1: they're inalienable and they're absolute and they're non-negotiable, except you
• 1:36:41
  Speaker 1: adhere to a political system that by very definition has
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 1: no individual rights, no recognition of rights, and clearly is
• 1:36:50
  Speaker 1: going to engage in violation of rights. Yeah, it's just horrible.
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 1: All right, let's go to questions. Let me first thank
• 1:36:58
  Speaker 1: the sticker people. Paul, thank you for the sticker.
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 3: Thank you.
• 1:37:02
  Speaker 1: Let's see. Exploring Simon, $ 50. Thank you. Really appreciate that.
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 1: Let's see. Exit, thank you for the sticker. We had
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 1: Hellwolf for Liberty. Thank you for the sticker. And Oivind,
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 1: thank you for the sticker. Mary Alene, $ 50. Really appreciate it.
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Mary Alene. And Neo, thanks for the sticker.
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 1: And Adri, thank you for the $ 50. So thank you
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 1: to all the stickers. You can still do a sticker.
• 1:37:40
  Speaker 1: We've got a bunch of people watching. Value for value.
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 1: Be a trader. You're listening because you're getting something out
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 1: of this. We can only do this because you guys
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: are willing to pay up for that. One way to
• 1:37:53
  Speaker 1: do it is through Super Chat and stickers. Another way
• 1:37:56
  Speaker 1: is through Patreon. Nico says a Patreon page. It's only
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 1: seven bucks a month, so.
• 1:38:01
  Speaker 2: I'm about to release my Ask Me Anything for this month,
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 2: where some of my patrons thought it's a good idea
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 2: to ask me seven and eight questions.
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 3: So it's going to be.
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 2: But hey, that's why we're the Stakhanovites of objectivism. We
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 2: did today's episode with half a day notice. And yet
• 1:38:17
  Speaker 2: here we are delivering, so you should contribute, people.
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 1: Yep, absolutely. So show the love, show your appreciation, show
• 1:38:25
  Speaker 1: the value for value, show that you're a real trader.
• 1:38:29
  Speaker 1: and not just a consumer. but actually a trader. All right.
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 1: Catherine says, great topic. Thank you, Catherine. Really appreciate it.
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed it. Andrew, $ 50. Thank you, Andrew.
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 1: Thank you. How do you judge libertarians for their moral relativism?
• 1:38:46
  Speaker 1: When you discuss with better libertarians the objectivist ethics, specifically
• 1:38:51
  Speaker 1: a standard of individual life, how do they respond? Do
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 1: you sense genuine confusion or fear evasion?
• 1:39:02
  Speaker 3: You've debated more of them.
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, my general sense is they're just not interested.
• 1:39:11
  Speaker 1: Most of them just, their eyes glaze over. Oh, you're
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 1: getting into this philosophy stuff. They think that because they're subjectivist.
• 1:39:20
  Speaker 1: So morality is whatever they want it to be. And
• 1:39:23
  Speaker 1: what really interests them is the politics of it. You know,
• 1:39:27
  Speaker 1: if we had a free society, we'd all be rich
• 1:39:28
  Speaker 1: and we'd be able to do what we want. And,
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 1: and they have no, they can't connect morality to life.
• 1:39:36
  Speaker 1: And when you try to explain it to them, they're
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 1: just uninterested. They're glazing over it. It's a form of evasion. Maybe,
• 1:39:41
  Speaker 1: maybe it's motivated by fear. I don't know. Um, And then,
• 1:39:45
  Speaker 1: you know, but look, a lot of libertarians are religious.
• 1:39:48
  Speaker 1: So when you talk about morality, it immediately goes to
• 1:39:51
  Speaker 1: their religion. They associate morality with religion. And all they
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 1: know is the religious morality that they grew up on.
• 1:39:57
  Speaker 1: So they immediately go there. So it really depends on
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 1: who you're talking to. But mostly I find they're just
• 1:40:07
  Speaker 1: not engaged. They find economics fascinating and there's political stuff fascinating.
• 1:40:13
  Speaker 1: And they're just not interested in anything more philosophical than that.
• 1:40:17
  Speaker 2: Which also means that many people will find libertarians non-inspiring
• 1:40:23
  Speaker 2: because they'll go, it's just graphs, just what to do
• 1:40:26
  Speaker 2: for the economy to do well. You take away the
• 1:40:29
  Speaker 2: fire and the heroic sense of life, which is our
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 2: biggest competitive advantage when it comes to going out there
• 1:40:38
  Speaker 2: and inspiring people. So they're also shooting themselves in the feet.
• 1:40:43
  Speaker 1: You know, and their view of a heroic sense of
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 1: life is taking drugs and, you know, doing whatever you
• 1:40:49
  Speaker 1: feel like doing. And there's a big group of libertarians
• 1:40:52
  Speaker 1: who are like that. Not all of them, but there's
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 1: a big group of libertarians that they just want access
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 1: to their drugs. They just want to be able to
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 1: do whatever the hell they want. Although I worry for
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 1: them because I'm very concerned about these libertarians because I
• 1:41:06
  Speaker 1: think Hoppe would define them as hedonists and they're out.
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 1: They're out, you know. If Hoppe was the monarch, these
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 1: people would not survive very long under Hoppe's rule. And look,
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 1: this is why there's so many different types of libertarians. Most,
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 1: I think, Cato libertarians, most reasoned libertarians would not associate
• 1:41:29
  Speaker 1: with Hoppe because of these kind of views, right? Hoppe's
• 1:41:32
  Speaker 1: attitude towards homosexuality versus Reason's attitude towards homosexuality, you know,
• 1:41:39
  Speaker 1: completely night and day. And reason, libertarians tend to be
• 1:41:43
  Speaker 1: more on the hedonistic side, on the more subjectivist hedonistic side.
• 1:41:47
  Speaker 1: Hoppe is dogma and much more, I think, Christian identity,
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 1: even if he's not a Christian. That's where he's getting
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 1: his morality from. And you can sense the morality. What
• 1:41:56
  Speaker 1: does somebody like Hoppe have against homosexuals? The family. The family.
• 1:42:01
  Speaker 1: The family is all. I mean, where does that even
• 1:42:03
  Speaker 1: come from, right? If not, you know, if that's not collectivism,
• 1:42:07
  Speaker 1: I don't know what is. It's your duty to have
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 1: children because that's what the future, it's all about the future.
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 1: That's pure collectivism. Where does this veneration of the family
• 1:42:19
  Speaker 1: come from? I mean, I'm not anti-family. I like my family.
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 1: But where does it really come from, this absurd focus
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 1: on it and the rejection of sexuality that doesn't lead
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 1: to family automatically? There's something very Actually, it's interesting.
• 1:42:40
  Speaker 2: Hoppe is definitely has a, his current wife was not
• 1:42:46
  Speaker 2: his first wife.
• 1:42:47
  Speaker 3: Let's put it this way.
• 1:42:48
  Speaker 2: So I wonder what this would mean to the family
• 1:42:51
  Speaker 2: and king covenant, which later he described as the libertarian order.
• 1:42:55
  Speaker 3: So he would be physically removed.
• 1:42:58
  Speaker 2: From the covenant, now that he's with his wife and
• 1:43:02
  Speaker 2: they have this nice hotel in Turkey, this would mean
• 1:43:06
  Speaker 2: he's out of the covenant.
• 1:43:07
  Speaker 1: I guess so. I don't know. He didn't mention divorce
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 1: in the list of things he disapproves of. But notice
• 1:43:13
  Speaker 1: that the list of things he disapproves of is his list.
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 1: It's not based on reality. It's not based on some
• 1:43:19
  Speaker 1: moral standard. It's not based on, I mean, maybe divorce
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 1: is included, maybe divorce is out because he got divorced,
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 1: so divorce is okay.
• 1:43:26
  Speaker 3: And what is hedonism?
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 2: I mean, in a way, divorce means I want pleasure
• 1:43:32
  Speaker 2: from this woman rather than from this woman.
• 1:43:35
  Speaker 3: So why is this not hedonism?
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 1: Well, it's only hedonism based on what the king decides
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 1: hedonism is. I mean, that's the essence of kingdom. But
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 1: he'll decide well because he's got a vested interest in
• 1:43:46
  Speaker 1: keeping his kingdom generating wealth. So he's not going to
• 1:43:52
  Speaker 1: be nasty about definition of hedonism. He'll only define hedonism
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 1: in an objective, good way because he's a king and
• 1:43:59
  Speaker 1: kings are good.
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 3: We don't call it kingdom. We call it covenant.
• 1:44:03
  Speaker 1: Covenant. I mean, covenant also, you know, is a biblical word.
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 1: It comes from, yeah. And notice what the Jews, you
• 1:44:12
  Speaker 1: know what the Jews have to do because they signed
• 1:44:15
  Speaker 1: a covenant with God. How do they sign the covenant
• 1:44:17
  Speaker 1: with God?
• 1:44:19
  Speaker 3: You tell me.
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 1: So you know what the act of engaging in the
• 1:44:24
  Speaker 1: covenant with God is?
• 1:44:25
  Speaker 4: No.
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 1: It's circumcision. Ew. Oh, absolutely. You signed it with blood.
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 1: So circumcision is the covenant with God. That is the
• 1:44:38
  Speaker 1: act that binds you to God. Couldn't you take the
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 1: blood from here? No, no. That would not be... That
• 1:44:46
  Speaker 1: would not be, you know, intense enough. That would not
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 1: be important enough. Abraham was circumcised, I think, at a
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 1: pretty late age.
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 2: Not something I didn't need to know an hour before
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 2: I go to sleep.
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 1: You can have nightmares about your covenant with... Well, you're
• 1:45:03
  Speaker 1: not a Jew, so what do you care? You know,
• 1:45:05
  Speaker 1: I have the nightmares because I have this covenant with
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: God that I didn't choose and that was signed in
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 1: my blood from a particular... area of my body that
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 1: should not have been bled, put it lightly. So, yeah,
• 1:45:21
  Speaker 1: not good. Not good. All right. You know, biblical, the
• 1:45:26
  Speaker 1: Bible is important. It's good for people to know this stuff.
• 1:45:29
  Speaker 1: This is the book at the base of the Judeo-Christian
• 1:45:33
  Speaker 1: whole thing. And when they use words like covenant, that's
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 1: what comes to my mind. Well, covenant with God. The
• 1:45:37
  Speaker 1: Jews have a covenant with God, which is, that's why
• 1:45:42
  Speaker 1: you get circumcised. All right, Jennifer, can you discuss the
• 1:45:50
  Speaker 1: group ownership idea with how American natives were in their Americas?
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 1: The new people couldn't go anywhere because the natives claimed
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 1: to own every square inch of the continent. Is that
• 1:46:04
  Speaker 1: a parable there? I mean, I don't know if it's
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 1: a parable because, I mean, I mean, it's interesting because
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 1: from my understanding, the native Indians didn't even have a
• 1:46:17
  Speaker 1: concept of ownership. So it's not like they really thought
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 1: everything was owned. You were going onto their grazing land,
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 1: you know, which, which, you know, and they, and they,
• 1:46:28
  Speaker 1: they were going to take you out. There wasn't, there
• 1:46:31
  Speaker 1: wasn't a concept of this as property rights, what constitute violations,
• 1:46:35
  Speaker 1: how we deal with violations of property rights. There was,
• 1:46:38
  Speaker 1: you're a stranger. You know, we've always grazed here. We've
• 1:46:44
  Speaker 1: always walked over there. Therefore, it's the equivalent of ours,
• 1:46:49
  Speaker 1: even though we don't really have a concept for that.
• 1:46:54
  Speaker 1: You can't, I mean, you can't own property you don't use.
• 1:47:00
  Speaker 1: I mean, even when you buy something, if you don't
• 1:47:04
  Speaker 1: use it, like land, if you don't use it for
• 1:47:07
  Speaker 1: X number of years, if you abandon it, then... you know,
• 1:47:12
  Speaker 1: it stops being yours. That's recognized in the law today.
• 1:47:17
  Speaker 1: In America, there's such a thing as abandonment. If you
• 1:47:19
  Speaker 1: abandon property, it stops being yours. You can't just, you
• 1:47:24
  Speaker 1: don't own property just because you walk through it, just
• 1:47:27
  Speaker 1: because you travel through it. You have to mix, you
• 1:47:30
  Speaker 1: literally have to do something with it. You know, and
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 1: this is why, what's interesting about Rand's definition of rights,
• 1:47:38
  Speaker 1: rights are freedoms of action. You know, and property is
• 1:47:44
  Speaker 1: the product of action. The product of action. It's not
• 1:47:48
  Speaker 1: in and of itself. It's because you acted. So that's
• 1:47:54
  Speaker 1: what you're free and you're free to act on your property. So,
• 1:47:59
  Speaker 1: you know, the whole conception of rights, there's no such
• 1:48:02
  Speaker 1: thing as, I mean, there's group ownership only in the
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 1: sense of a corporation, only in a sense of some
• 1:48:09
  Speaker 1: kind of contractual agreement But even a contract, let's say
• 1:48:12
  Speaker 1: there's a corporation and they say, we only sell stocks
• 1:48:19
  Speaker 1: to catholics and if you stop being a catholic you
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 1: have to sell your stock i can't you can't enforce
• 1:48:28
  Speaker 1: a contract like that that's a non-enforceable contract you cannot
• 1:48:33
  Speaker 1: enforce you cannot dictate the ideas that people hold in
• 1:48:36
  Speaker 1: their heads You can dictate the actions, but you can't dictate,
• 1:48:40
  Speaker 1: you know, you can say you forfeit the stock if
• 1:48:45
  Speaker 1: you steal. You forfeit the stock if, I don't know,
• 1:48:51
  Speaker 1: you do something, right? But you can't say you forfeit
• 1:48:53
  Speaker 1: the contract because you change your mind. You have certain ideas.
• 1:48:58
  Speaker 1: I mean, I'm interested in anybody can think of an
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 1: example where that would be valid. I'd love to think
• 1:49:03
  Speaker 1: about it. All right. So I don't know. I don't
• 1:49:16
  Speaker 1: think the ownership, I'm not sure it's the same idea.
• 1:49:19
  Speaker 1: And we'd have to think, look more about what Hoppe
• 1:49:25
  Speaker 1: means by covenant and what do these communities look like?
• 1:49:29
  Speaker 1: And if there's a so-called anarcho-capitalism, why would you have
• 1:49:33
  Speaker 1: a community, right? I mean, there's all kinds of legal
• 1:49:36
  Speaker 1: entities over one community. The whole idea of Anarchy is
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 1: there's more than one police force in one community. So
• 1:49:42
  Speaker 1: is there more than one covenant in one community? How
• 1:49:44
  Speaker 1: do you define that? You know, what's outside of the community?
• 1:49:48
  Speaker 1: What's inside the community? I mean, there's a lot of
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 1: questions you would have to ask even to figure out
• 1:49:52
  Speaker 1: exactly what he means by it. I think it's all corrupt,
• 1:49:55
  Speaker 1: but to actually dig into what he means by it,
• 1:49:58
  Speaker 1: I think you'd have to ask a lot.
• 1:50:01
  Speaker 2: I'll direct to people where it is, where he has
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 2: this discussion in Democracy, the God that Failed. It's around
• 1:50:11
  Speaker 2: page 200 and something. So this would be the chapter.
• 1:50:18
  Speaker 3: On government and.
• 1:50:24
  Speaker 2: Oh, wait.
• 1:50:24
  Speaker 1: Hmm.
• 1:50:30
  Speaker 2: Weird on the errors of classical liberalism and the future
• 1:50:33
  Speaker 2: of liberty anyway it's around page 200 you'll find it
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 2: you'll find it somewhere there.
• 1:50:40
  Speaker 1: Okay um all right uh remote remo remo asks best
• 1:50:47
  Speaker 1: movie starring christian bale and how many stars.
• 1:50:54
  Speaker 2: The third batman seven out of ten The first Batman,
• 1:51:02
  Speaker 2: 6 to 6.5. Batman Returns, 6. And the big short,
• 1:51:10
  Speaker 2: 8 for his performance, 6 for the Keynesian premises.
• 1:51:19
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I'm just looking at a list of
• 1:51:26
  Speaker 1: his movies. But this is iconic and acclaimed movies. So, yeah,
• 1:51:30
  Speaker 1: I mean, the Dark Knight trilogy, he's exceptional in it.
• 1:51:35
  Speaker 1: I think he's very good in it. You know, let's see.
• 1:51:42
  Speaker 1: The Prestige, he's very good in The Prestige, and I
• 1:51:44
  Speaker 1: like that movie. So it's another, it's probably another seven
• 1:51:48
  Speaker 1: in the movie list. And he's very good in it.
• 1:51:54
  Speaker 1: You know, he's good in The Big Short. Ford versus Ferrari.
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 1: He's pretty good in that movie.
• 1:51:58
  Speaker 3: Oh, yeah, yeah.
• 1:51:59
  Speaker 1: That's a good movie. It's also another seven, I think,
• 1:52:01
  Speaker 1: in terms of movies. And then a movie that I
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 1: really like that is underrated, I think, out there is
• 1:52:09
  Speaker 1: a movie called Empire of the Sun. And it turns
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 1: out that he was the child star in that movie.
• 1:52:20
  Speaker 1: So he was the child actor in Empire of the Sun.
• 1:52:24
  Speaker 1: I didn't know this. I'm just reading it here. He
• 1:52:26
  Speaker 1: played the lead character of a child who survives the
• 1:52:34
  Speaker 1: Japanese attack. He's English or American who lives in China
• 1:52:39
  Speaker 1: when the Japanese attack. And he goes to concentration camps
• 1:52:44
  Speaker 1: that the Japanese set up. And it's a very, very,
• 1:52:48
  Speaker 1: it's a Steven Spielberg movie. I think it's one of
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 1: his best movies. Usually it's not listed, but it's a
• 1:52:54
  Speaker 1: very good movie. it's a very good movie recently I
• 1:52:59
  Speaker 1: liked him there was a movie called Amsterdam kind of
• 1:53:01
  Speaker 1: a weird movie which I liked yeah I mean he's
• 1:53:05
  Speaker 1: a good actor he's a good actor but he really
• 1:53:10
  Speaker 1: shines in the Batman movies but I think all those
• 1:53:13
  Speaker 1: others I think Ford vs Ferrari is very good.
• 1:53:18
  Speaker 2: And in the other where he plays the boxer that's
• 1:53:21
  Speaker 2: also a good one the fighter Yeah, one of these.
• 1:53:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and Prestige. I don't know if you ever saw Prestige.
• 1:53:28
  Speaker 3: I haven't seen it.
• 1:53:29
  Speaker 1: The Magician. It's a good movie.
• 1:53:31
  Speaker 3: I'll have to check it out.
• 1:53:33
  Speaker 1: He plays the two magicians, rival magicians. I think in
• 1:53:36
  Speaker 1: the 19th century. It's really good. All right. Let's see. Neo.
• 1:53:45
  Speaker 1: How can Israel allow Arab leaders in the government if
• 1:53:48
  Speaker 1: they cite an existential threat if they site and existential
• 1:53:53
  Speaker 1: threat from Arab nations. Do these leaders put Israel first? So,
• 1:54:00
  Speaker 1: you know, they're not going to be in the government. So,
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's really stunning. I haven't commented on this
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 1: because the results, as I reported to him yesterday, were
• 1:54:11
  Speaker 1: not real. I warned you about exit polls, and I
• 1:54:15
  Speaker 1: warned you doubly about Netanyahu. I told you he always
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 1: outperforms the polls. And he has blown away the polls.
• 1:54:24
  Speaker 1: He's way outperformed the polls. But what's really outperformed the
• 1:54:27
  Speaker 1: polls and outperformed history is the Arab vote. The two
• 1:54:32
  Speaker 1: Arab political parties in Israel have 19 mandates. That's almost 15%,
• 1:54:38
  Speaker 1: or it's more than 15% of the Israeli parliament will
• 1:54:44
  Speaker 1: be Arabs. Arab political parties, not just Arabs. One of
• 1:54:49
  Speaker 1: the political parties, which is more of a, Islamist political
• 1:54:52
  Speaker 1: party in the sense of religious and the other secular
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 1: nationalist Arab political party, which is more socialist Marxist. Uh, and, um, and,
• 1:55:02
  Speaker 1: and they, they have 19 votes. And I mean, I'm
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 1: going to say a lot more about that next show
• 1:55:08
  Speaker 1: I have, because there's a lot to say about that.
• 1:55:11
  Speaker 1: It's an interesting phenomena, but I think the fact that
• 1:55:14
  Speaker 1: you have two Arab parties that gain 19 votes, 19 votes, I, I, Again,
• 1:55:22
  Speaker 1: it's an election. You can vote for who you want
• 1:55:24
  Speaker 1: to vote, and Israel is a free country. But the
• 1:55:28
  Speaker 1: fact that these parties are so bad, they're both bad,
• 1:55:33
  Speaker 1: is a failure of the Israeli state. The Israeli state
• 1:55:38
  Speaker 1: has failed to assimilate its Arab population. It has failed
• 1:55:46
  Speaker 1: to address their needs, their legitimate needs. For example, for
• 1:55:50
  Speaker 1: safety and security. Crime in the Arab community is much,
• 1:55:54
  Speaker 1: much higher than the Jewish community, partially because it's not
• 1:55:57
  Speaker 1: policed and the police don't have the resources to deal
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 1: with it because the state allocates it towards the Jewish communities.
• 1:56:05
  Speaker 1: They've alienated through racist rhetorics of people like Ben-Gurion. So
• 1:56:11
  Speaker 1: the Israeli state has failed its Arab citizens. And what
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 1: you saw in this election, stunningly, I mean, was the
• 1:56:23
  Speaker 1: Arabs basically saying enough's enough and going out into polls
• 1:56:27
  Speaker 1: and voting. And turnout in the Arab community was unprecedented.
• 1:56:33
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's probably over 80% of eligible voters voted.
• 1:56:38
  Speaker 1: And they voted for people who they believe will stand
• 1:56:41
  Speaker 1: up for them. I don't think they care about Marxism
• 1:56:43
  Speaker 1: or this or that, but they voted for people who
• 1:56:45
  Speaker 1: they believe will stand up to get their security and
• 1:56:49
  Speaker 1: to stop the discrimination against them, property sales and discrimination
• 1:56:54
  Speaker 1: against them in education, because it exists. And our Israel
• 1:56:59
  Speaker 1: deals with this because a big chunk of Israeli population
• 1:57:03
  Speaker 1: would just evade that fact. Um, you know, ignore it. And, and, and, uh,
• 1:57:08
  Speaker 1: but you know, and a lot of this is a
• 1:57:10
  Speaker 1: result of Ben Greer. Ben Greer has brought them out.
• 1:57:13
  Speaker 1: They hate him justifiably and he brought them out. So
• 1:57:17
  Speaker 1: will they be in the next government? I doubt it.
• 1:57:19
  Speaker 1: The next government is going to be led by Netanyahu.
• 1:57:23
  Speaker 1: He won, right? His political party is the largest. Uh,
• 1:57:28
  Speaker 1: what combination it has, I think it's going to be
• 1:57:31
  Speaker 1: the combination. that I actually have been advocating for, that
• 1:57:35
  Speaker 1: is a center-right combination. I think that's the only viable combination.
• 1:57:39
  Speaker 1: I think people like Lieberman and Bennett and Isingard are
• 1:57:43
  Speaker 1: gonna have to suck it up and they're gonna have
• 1:57:45
  Speaker 1: to be junior partners in a Likud-led government. And Netanyahu
• 1:57:52
  Speaker 1: is gonna have to suck it up and not have
• 1:57:55
  Speaker 1: the ultra-Orthodox and the religious fanatical nationalists on his side.
• 1:58:00
  Speaker 1: And you're gonna get actually Other than the fact that,
• 1:58:03
  Speaker 1: you know, one of the theories is they're going to
• 1:58:06
  Speaker 1: cut a deal. Here's the deal. The deal is they're
• 1:58:09
  Speaker 1: going to make Netanyahu president. They're going to convince the
• 1:58:12
  Speaker 1: existing president, which is ceremonial role, to leave early. They're
• 1:58:18
  Speaker 1: going to all agree to vote for Netanyahu as president.
• 1:58:21
  Speaker 1: He leaves the political stage that way, but he remains
• 1:58:25
  Speaker 1: immune from persecutions. And he gets this ceremonial role of respect.
• 1:58:34
  Speaker 1: And now they can form a center-right government and nobody
• 1:58:36
  Speaker 1: has violated their commitment not to be under Netanyahu. So
• 1:58:40
  Speaker 1: that's one. Now, I will believe for a second Netanyahu
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 1: is going to go for that. But I think that's
• 1:58:45
  Speaker 1: one of the plans that people are scheming around. But
• 1:58:48
  Speaker 1: I think at the end of the day, you'll have
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 1: a Netanyahu-led government that is right of center, maybe without
• 1:58:53
  Speaker 1: the ultra-Orthodox. you know, with some kind of deal cut
• 1:58:57
  Speaker 1: between their center-right political parties. You will not have a
• 1:59:00
  Speaker 1: government with 19 Arab... Well, it's not going to be
• 1:59:04
  Speaker 1: 19 at the end because they're counting soldier votes now.
• 1:59:08
  Speaker 1: And believe me, the soldiers are not voting for the
• 1:59:09
  Speaker 1: Arab parties. So they'll probably land up with 17 in
• 1:59:14
  Speaker 1: exact distribution to be determined. But you won't have 17
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 1: members of the Israeli parliament sitting in a government. That
• 1:59:20
  Speaker 1: will not happen.
• 1:59:23
  Speaker 2: In the unlikely situation when there's going to be a
• 1:59:25
  Speaker 2: second election, go and bookmark people that video that Yaron
• 1:59:31
  Speaker 2: made the clip out of the show where he talks
• 1:59:33
  Speaker 2: about each and every party, what it represents, who will
• 1:59:37
  Speaker 2: cooperate with whom. I watched this twice and I kept
• 1:59:40
  Speaker 2: notes and this is how I could follow the exit
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 2: polls and I could follow the results. You anyway do it,
• 1:59:47
  Speaker 2: but this was God's work for us.
• 1:59:49
  Speaker 1: Good. All right, Kim, thank you for the sticker. Jeremy, $ 50.
• 1:59:55
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Jeremy, for the sticker. And wait a minute.
• 2:00:00
  Speaker 1: Wes did $ 100, right? I saw that. Yeah, Wes, thank
• 2:00:04
  Speaker 1: you for the $ 100. Really appreciate that. So thank you, Wes.
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Kim. Thank you, Jeremy. And thank you, Bonnie.
• 2:00:14
  Speaker 1: All right. I'm going to speed it up here because
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 1: I need to leave soon. Hope is understandable as a German.
• 2:00:22
  Speaker 1: But what made Rothbard so hateful? Much of Rothbard work
• 2:00:27
  Speaker 1: is so good, I find it puzzling. Well, I mean,
• 2:00:30
  Speaker 1: Rothbard is a good economist. He makes some really, really
• 2:00:34
  Speaker 1: important observations economically. And he's a good critic of kind
• 2:00:39
  Speaker 1: of the state, the welfare state, the regulatory state from
• 2:00:43
  Speaker 1: an economic perspective. But Rothbard is more ambitious than just
• 2:00:47
  Speaker 1: being an economist. This is the problem with all these
• 2:00:49
  Speaker 1: Austrian economists. They're good economists, Mises included, Hayek included. But
• 2:00:56
  Speaker 1: when Hayek goes into sociology and philosophy and history, he's terrible. Oh,
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 1: he's conventional, put it that way. When Mises goes into philosophy,
• 2:01:07
  Speaker 1: he's Kantian. And when Rothbard goes into philosophy, he's just awful.
• 2:01:11
  Speaker 1: He's a subjectivist, and he can't do it. He can't
• 2:01:16
  Speaker 1: do the work. So what makes them hateful is that
• 2:01:21
  Speaker 1: they get sucked into a philosophical discussion that they have
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 1: no clue about. And look, and this is the other
• 2:01:34
  Speaker 1: thing that's true, I think, of Rothbard. At some point,
• 2:01:37
  Speaker 1: and maybe this is their motivation from the beginning, I
• 2:01:39
  Speaker 1: don't know, but at some point, hate becomes the dominant
• 2:01:44
  Speaker 1: feature of everything that they hold. They're motivated by hate.
• 2:01:49
  Speaker 1: And the hate of the state is really what's driving them.
• 2:01:52
  Speaker 1: And maybe there's a deeper hate, but let's just say
• 2:01:54
  Speaker 1: hate of the state. So everything is now through the
• 2:01:57
  Speaker 1: prism of hatred of the state. And the best states
• 2:02:01
  Speaker 1: of the United States and Israel and Western Europe, they
• 2:02:04
  Speaker 1: must be the worst. So if you hate the state
• 2:02:07
  Speaker 1: and there's some good states, you know, successful states, you
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 1: hate them more than any other state. So everything then
• 2:02:14
  Speaker 1: gets funneled through this prism of hatred. I think he
• 2:02:20
  Speaker 1: can explain a lot of Rothbard's. He wants to form
• 2:02:24
  Speaker 1: an alliance with the left in the 60s. It's the
• 2:02:28
  Speaker 1: radical left.
• 2:02:29
  Speaker 2: He has an alliance with the Maoist party, and he
• 2:02:33
  Speaker 2: tries to persuade the Maoists while rent control are bad,
• 2:02:37
  Speaker 2: but they agree on the Vietnam War.
• 2:02:39
  Speaker 1: Because they agree on the Vietnam War, they hate America.
• 2:02:41
  Speaker 1: They hate the state. Then he has an alliance with
• 2:02:44
  Speaker 1: the paleo-right because You know, they hate the state. And
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 1: so it's always what unites people around Rothbard is hatred
• 2:02:54
  Speaker 1: of the state. Not, you know, we want to make
• 2:02:56
  Speaker 1: the state better. Not, we want more freedom. No, hatred
• 2:03:00
  Speaker 1: of the state. We want to abolish the state. And
• 2:03:03
  Speaker 1: that's what drives him. And that's what makes him ultimately
• 2:03:05
  Speaker 1: hateful is the fact that he hates, that he's motivated
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 1: by hatred.
• 2:03:10
  Speaker 2: The other day I wrote on Twitter, there are two
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 2: types of people who can become a libertarian. The one
• 2:03:14
  Speaker 2: is I love humanity so much that I want to
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 2: see it flourish in freedom. The other is I hate
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 2: the world so much I want to show it the finger.
• 2:03:23
  Speaker 2: And libertarianism is a vehicle for this hatred that I
• 2:03:26
  Speaker 2: have and for my contrarianism.
• 2:03:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that's right. And I think Rothbard
• 2:03:31
  Speaker 1: is the finger, right? Philip, thank you for your work.
• 2:03:35
  Speaker 1: Hope it's terrible. Yes, he is. Thanks, Philip. Cook, go Pistons. No, no, no.
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 2: What did I tell him last year? Pistons are doing
• 2:03:46
  Speaker 2: great in the regular season. Wait to see them in
• 2:03:49
  Speaker 2: two rounds in playoffs. They didn't last for two rounds
• 2:03:51
  Speaker 2: in the playoffs.
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I shouldn't talk as my Celtics didn't last
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 1: one round in the playoffs. Remo, best movie starring Richard Gere?
• 2:04:02
  Speaker 1: I would say Primal Fear with Edward Norton. god I
• 2:04:06
  Speaker 1: can't remember Primal Fear.
• 2:04:10
  Speaker 3: Not an officer and a gentleman that's a fun.
• 2:04:13
  Speaker 1: Movie it's a fun movie alright let's see.
• 2:04:19
  Speaker 2: Oh and also Unfaithful he plays the role of the
• 2:04:21
  Speaker 2: cucked guy with much dignity.
• 2:04:25
  Speaker 1: Well I mean there's his performance in Days of Heaven
• 2:04:30
  Speaker 1: which is one of the biggest flops in cinema history
• 2:04:34
  Speaker 1: Terrence Malick, massive. Well, no, Days of Heaven is not
• 2:04:37
  Speaker 1: a flop. Days of Heaven is a really good movie.
• 2:04:41
  Speaker 1: It's visually stunning. So if you want to see a
• 2:04:43
  Speaker 1: movie that's visually stunning with Richard Gere in it, very
• 2:04:46
  Speaker 1: little dialogue because the whole story is told through visuals.
• 2:04:50
  Speaker 1: So it's a really, really beautiful movie from 1978 called
• 2:04:54
  Speaker 1: Days of Heaven. And if you know anything about Terrence Malick,
• 2:04:57
  Speaker 1: his movies are always worth watching even when they're super weird.
• 2:05:00
  Speaker 1: This one's not weird. It's just stunningly beautiful. He did
• 2:05:03
  Speaker 1: American Gigolo. He was good in that in 1980. Officer
• 2:05:06
  Speaker 1: and a Gentleman was fun. Pretty Woman. He was good
• 2:05:09
  Speaker 1: in Pretty Woman. Primal Fear. I don't remember Primal Fear.
• 2:05:13
  Speaker 1: I'm sure I saw it, but I don't remember it.
• 2:05:15
  Speaker 1: He was in Chicago. Yeah, I mean, I can't say
• 2:05:22
  Speaker 1: there are any great movies among these. Pretty Woman's fun.
• 2:05:27
  Speaker 1: And all these movies he's good in. He's just not...
• 2:05:31
  Speaker 1: He's not a great actor. He's not one of those
• 2:05:33
  Speaker 1: iconic actors. I don't think. Um, yeah, I'm sure there
• 2:05:39
  Speaker 1: were others. Um, so, uh, let's see if I asked
• 2:05:45
  Speaker 1: for a complete list. All right. And we need a,
• 2:05:49
  Speaker 1: all right. Uh, da, da, da, da, da, da, da,
• 2:05:54
  Speaker 1: da days of heaven. I said, American Judy reported with breath, breathless. Okay.
• 2:06:00
  Speaker 1: The Cotton Club is pretty good there. What else? He
• 2:06:08
  Speaker 1: did a lot of movies. God, a lot of movies.
• 2:06:11
  Speaker 2: Wasn't he also a Buddhist? There was a time when
• 2:06:13
  Speaker 2: being a Buddhist was fashionable.
• 2:06:16
  Speaker 1: Could be. He did Red Corner. He did The Jackal.
• 2:06:20
  Speaker 1: Those were also pretty good. Chicago was when he was older. God,
• 2:06:29
  Speaker 1: he did a lot of movies. Some of these I've
• 2:06:30
  Speaker 1: never even heard of, never mind, never seen. So probably
• 2:06:35
  Speaker 1: not very good movies. Yeah, I think we hit the peaks.
• 2:06:42
  Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Remo. Friend Harper, is this one
• 2:06:45
  Speaker 1: of the best arguments for non-initiating force out there that
• 2:06:49
  Speaker 1: isn't objectivism? No, it's not an argument. It's a silly
• 2:06:53
  Speaker 1: syllogism that is not related to reality. So there is...
• 2:06:59
  Speaker 1: There's no argument there. Not that I can tell. So no,
• 2:07:02
  Speaker 1: not in my view. It's an attempt. Hell for liberty.
• 2:07:12
  Speaker 1: Hoppe's actual teacher is Jürgen Habermas, who developed discourse theory,
• 2:07:19
  Speaker 1: which is the intellectual ancestor of argumentation theory. which is
• 2:07:24
  Speaker 1: what you said, right?
• 2:07:25
  Speaker 2: That's literally what I said, yes. Habermas was the PhD
• 2:07:29
  Speaker 2: supervisor of Hoppe, but Hoppe still today, when he talks
• 2:07:33
  Speaker 2: about argumentation ethics, he recognizes the contribution of Habermas and
• 2:07:38
  Speaker 2: of a second person who is not that well-known and
• 2:07:40
  Speaker 2: he was not part of the Frankfurt School. And this
• 2:07:43
  Speaker 2: is why yesterday on Twitter, there was a bit of
• 2:07:46
  Speaker 2: drama between people who said it's critical theory who is
• 2:07:49
  Speaker 2: to blame for Hoppe's Holocaust staff, And then some leftist
• 2:07:54
  Speaker 2: professor who actually has debated Yaron some years ago, Matt McManus,
• 2:07:59
  Speaker 2: he said, no, this is ridiculous. You cannot blame critical
• 2:08:02
  Speaker 2: theory for Hoppe.
• 2:08:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Ryan says, great show, guys. Thank you. Thanks, Ryan.
• 2:08:09
  Speaker 3: Thank you.
• 2:08:10
  Speaker 1: Jamie from Canada says, do you think the fact that
• 2:08:12
  Speaker 1: Alex Epstein has received money from fossil fuel companies ruins
• 2:08:17
  Speaker 1: ruins or limits his credibility. Why or why not? No.
• 2:08:20
  Speaker 1: I mean, he is defending fossil fuels. They should pay him. Absolutely,
• 2:08:24
  Speaker 1: they should pay him. He is doing work that benefits them,
• 2:08:28
  Speaker 1: a trade, right? I don't think it ruins his credibility
• 2:08:33
  Speaker 1: because it doesn't, I mean, he presents facts. He presents arguments.
• 2:08:39
  Speaker 1: He presents evidence. He wrote a whole book. If somebody
• 2:08:42
  Speaker 1: wants to refute the book, refute the argument, I don't
• 2:08:46
  Speaker 1: think getting money from a source makes you, you know,
• 2:08:51
  Speaker 1: I get money from the Ironman Institute. Does that make me,
• 2:08:54
  Speaker 1: I don't know, incapable of talking objectively about Ironman? I
• 2:08:58
  Speaker 1: have to defend her because I get money from them. No,
• 2:09:01
  Speaker 1: I mean, the reason I get money from them is
• 2:09:03
  Speaker 1: because I actually, you know, defend Ironman. So they have
• 2:09:08
  Speaker 1: a strong interest in paying me. So no, I think
• 2:09:13
  Speaker 1: the whole idea is, Pharmaceuticals pay doctors and therefore doctors
• 2:09:17
  Speaker 1: are biased. Yeah, some people are motivated by money above
• 2:09:23
  Speaker 1: all and you have to... But yes, but then you
• 2:09:25
  Speaker 1: can catch them on the fact that they make lousy
• 2:09:27
  Speaker 1: arguments and you can challenge them and see that they're shallow.
• 2:09:31
  Speaker 1: But who else would pay Alex if not the fossil
• 2:09:34
  Speaker 1: fuel industry? And good for the fossil fuel industry for
• 2:09:36
  Speaker 1: doing it. And good for Alex for taking their money.
• 2:09:38
  Speaker 1: I mean, I always say, people say, oh, you're just
• 2:09:40
  Speaker 1: a mouthpiece to the billionaires. You're probably on their payroll.
• 2:09:44
  Speaker 1: And I go, I wish. I mean, if there's a
• 2:09:46
  Speaker 1: billionaire out there, I am happy to be, you know,
• 2:09:49
  Speaker 1: to take your money and let the world know that
• 2:09:52
  Speaker 1: I'm taking your money and I'll defend you and I'll
• 2:09:54
  Speaker 1: defend you better than anybody else. But these ideas that
• 2:09:58
  Speaker 1: I hold because they're true ideas, not because you're giving
• 2:10:01
  Speaker 1: me money.
• 2:10:03
  Speaker 2: The only thing that can hurt someone's credibility is being wrong.
• 2:10:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Rios Spock says, please talk about the head-on train
• 2:10:11
  Speaker 1: crash in Spain. I mean, this is a huge tragedy.
• 2:10:14
  Speaker 1: 60 plus people are dead. Uh, maybe many more. We,
• 2:10:18
  Speaker 1: we don't know yet. This is a second train wreck.
• 2:10:21
  Speaker 1: I think this year in, in, uh, in Spain with
• 2:10:24
  Speaker 1: major casualties. Um, you know, I'm tempted to say Atlas
• 2:10:28
  Speaker 1: is shrugging, uh, in a sense that this is what
• 2:10:30
  Speaker 1: happened when the, when the state runs things and, and
• 2:10:33
  Speaker 1: this is a socialist government. And that's probably true. I'd
• 2:10:36
  Speaker 1: have to do a little bit of research to validate that,
• 2:10:39
  Speaker 1: but I'm, I'm pretty sure. Yeah. The, the, the state
• 2:10:42
  Speaker 1: is screwing up the rail system. Um, But it's, you know,
• 2:10:46
  Speaker 1: it's horrible and tragic. And, you know, I can say
• 2:10:53
  Speaker 1: this is what happens when the state runs things. But,
• 2:10:56
  Speaker 1: you know, in China, they have electric trains. They have
• 2:10:59
  Speaker 1: the same kind of fast trains and the state has
• 2:11:03
  Speaker 1: a role and they don't have these accidents or maybe
• 2:11:05
  Speaker 1: they do. I'd have to do more research about the
• 2:11:07
  Speaker 1: relationship between train crashes and state regulations and the correlation
• 2:11:12
  Speaker 1: between them. But it does... feel like an Atlas Schwab
• 2:11:15
  Speaker 1: kind of moment, sadly.
• 2:11:17
  Speaker 2: The only time I've been in the last many years
• 2:11:19
  Speaker 2: in a protest was in a very massive protest in
• 2:11:22
  Speaker 2: Greece some years ago after a similar and even more
• 2:11:26
  Speaker 2: tragic train accident because the omissions from the state and
• 2:11:31
  Speaker 2: the continuous omissions still today are so mind-boggling that it's
• 2:11:36
  Speaker 2: worth taking on the streets for that.
• 2:11:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Utica says, I'm still to hear from you concerning
• 2:11:44
  Speaker 1: the product I'm developing for YBS. I've sent you a
• 2:11:47
  Speaker 1: follow up email. Check for the name. I'd appreciate that
• 2:11:51
  Speaker 1: meeting soon. Yeah, I mean, I'm traveling for the next month.
• 2:11:56
  Speaker 1: So nothing's going to happen before Thanksgiving in America, which
• 2:11:59
  Speaker 1: is late November. I just don't have the bandwidth to
• 2:12:03
  Speaker 1: do anything, given the travel and the amount of lecturing
• 2:12:06
  Speaker 1: I'm doing and trying to do shows and all of that.
• 2:12:09
  Speaker 1: So I've seen the email. I will respond to it.
• 2:12:12
  Speaker 1: It's in my list to respond to, but it's just
• 2:12:17
  Speaker 1: going to take time. It'll probably be late November, early
• 2:12:19
  Speaker 1: December before I get back to you. But I appreciate
• 2:12:24
  Speaker 1: you developing something. Roland, how does he even arrive at
• 2:12:27
  Speaker 1: the idea that hedonism are bad for the libertarian order?
• 2:12:33
  Speaker 1: I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. Well,
• 2:12:36
  Speaker 1: the libertarian order is related to family and to the
• 2:12:40
  Speaker 1: family unit and i you know i don't know you
• 2:12:42
  Speaker 1: know maybe i don't know if you have more to
• 2:12:44
  Speaker 1: say about that.
• 2:12:44
  Speaker 2: But what he would say no no i'm just talking
• 2:12:47
  Speaker 2: about a covenant of people who like family values for whatever.
• 2:12:51
  Speaker 1: Reasons but it's about libertarian order.
• 2:12:56
  Speaker 2: Like again don't try to find answers when they're not
• 2:12:59
  Speaker 2: there it's not that it's somewhere there and we didn't find.
• 2:13:01
  Speaker 3: It it's yeah it comes yeah You could say.
• 2:13:04
  Speaker 2: Also it's some libertarians. They are intuitive libertarians.
• 2:13:11
  Speaker 3: That's how they would describe themselves.
• 2:13:13
  Speaker 2: We kind of get that liberty is good and violating
• 2:13:16
  Speaker 2: other people's rights is not good.
• 2:13:18
  Speaker 1: Yep. All right. Enric, since you mentioned a corporation to
• 2:13:26
  Speaker 1: a collection of people, what is the idea of corporate personhood?
• 2:13:31
  Speaker 1: like the corporation can initiate or defend a lawsuit? Well,
• 2:13:34
  Speaker 1: it's basically, it's not a person. I think it's wrong
• 2:13:39
  Speaker 1: to think of it in terms of corporate personhood. I
• 2:13:42
  Speaker 1: have a whole course on this. You can find it online,
• 2:13:44
  Speaker 1: by the way. But the idea is that the corporation
• 2:13:48
  Speaker 1: is an amalgamation of people. And the corporation in their name,
• 2:13:52
  Speaker 1: in the name of the shareholders, can sue somebody else.
• 2:13:56
  Speaker 1: And person can sue the corporation. What he's basically suing
• 2:13:59
  Speaker 1: are the owners of the corporation. But these owners are
• 2:14:02
  Speaker 1: being represented in the lawsuit. Their agent is the corporate entity.
• 2:14:06
  Speaker 1: So there is no corporate personhood. There's nothing beyond, corporations
• 2:14:11
  Speaker 1: don't have rights other than the rights that they get
• 2:14:15
  Speaker 1: from representing people, individuals. And again, there's a whole course
• 2:14:22
  Speaker 1: on the corporation that's available out there. All right, Cook.
• 2:14:28
  Speaker 1: But the ANCAP agree with objectivism like 90% of stuff.
• 2:14:32
  Speaker 1: Can't we just get along? It turns out it's a
• 2:14:36
  Speaker 1: lot less than 90. You know, maybe it's a lot
• 2:14:39
  Speaker 1: less than 10. They don't agree with us almost on
• 2:14:42
  Speaker 1: anything at the end of the day.
• 2:14:43
  Speaker 2: And again, not this free speech, which supposedly, come on,
• 2:14:46
  Speaker 2: we all agree on that. Turns out you don't have
• 2:14:48
  Speaker 2: free speech in your own home if it's in their
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 2: own covenant.
• 2:14:53
  Speaker 1: Yep. Yes. And, and, and think about not just freedom
• 2:14:57
  Speaker 1: of speech, freedom of action in your own home. You,
• 2:15:00
  Speaker 1: you can't, you can't engage in homosexual activity, uh, uh,
• 2:15:06
  Speaker 1: you know, in your own home. According to open, right.
• 2:15:11
  Speaker 2: Or maybe you can, if you are quiet and they, they,
• 2:15:14
  Speaker 2: they can't hear you.
• 2:15:15
  Speaker 1: If you hide it. If you hide it. Yeah. Um,
• 2:15:22
  Speaker 1: Mary Eileen, based on what's been said, libertarians remind me
• 2:15:25
  Speaker 1: of medievalists arguing about how many angels can dance on
• 2:15:28
  Speaker 1: the head of a pan. Totally detachment reality. Yeah, I mean,
• 2:15:31
  Speaker 1: that's rationalism. There's definitely a relationship between different rationalists.
• 2:15:38
  Speaker 2: To be fair, there are many libertarians, even anarcho-capitalists, who
• 2:15:42
  Speaker 2: disagree with the whole physical removal and covenant stuff. And
• 2:15:47
  Speaker 2: there are also libertarians who are even worse, like the
• 2:15:51
  Speaker 2: ones who say, if you leave your kid to a
• 2:15:54
  Speaker 2: park and you shout to the people, hey, I'm leaving
• 2:15:56
  Speaker 2: my baby here, you don't violate anyone's rights. I think
• 2:16:02
  Speaker 2: that was actually Rothbard.
• 2:16:04
  Speaker 1: Yep. All right. Thank you, Mary Eileen. It's a terrific dichotomy.
• 2:16:10
  Speaker 1: Patients and trademarks, patents and trademarks are manageable, but copyright
• 2:16:14
  Speaker 1: lasts so long. Could abandonment apply when firms achieve franchises
• 2:16:21
  Speaker 1: or merchandise for decades? Well, I mean, even there, it
• 2:16:26
  Speaker 1: only gets renewed for these very long times that you
• 2:16:29
  Speaker 1: described if the business takes action to renew it. A
• 2:16:33
  Speaker 1: lot of these copyrights have indeed been abandoned, not being renewed,
• 2:16:38
  Speaker 1: and as a consequence expire way before the kind of
• 2:16:41
  Speaker 1: 80 years or 90 years that exist today. But look,
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 1: the 80 or 90 years is a consequence of of, um, of, uh, cronyism.
• 2:16:49
  Speaker 1: I mean, uh, the, the original law does not, uh,
• 2:16:53
  Speaker 1: does not have, you know, uh, that kind of light,
• 2:16:57
  Speaker 1: that kind of time span. That is a consequence completely of, uh,
• 2:17:01
  Speaker 1: in this case, it's called the Disney law, right? Walt Disney,
• 2:17:05
  Speaker 1: the company lobbying to get, uh, to get these things extended.
• 2:17:09
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't think it's particularly rational to extend, extend, uh,
• 2:17:13
  Speaker 1: you know, the, uh, the copyright laws to the extent
• 2:17:17
  Speaker 1: that they indeed have been extended.
• 2:17:20
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 2:17:21
  Speaker 1: Let's see. Lone dissenter. The argument against force is that
• 2:17:25
  Speaker 1: it severs man's organ of survival from the activities of
• 2:17:28
  Speaker 1: his survival. Yes. No word salad is one of the
• 2:17:32
  Speaker 1: best arguments. No word salad is, yes, I agree with you.
• 2:17:35
  Speaker 1: It's in terms of the best argument, the question that
• 2:17:40
  Speaker 1: was asked earlier. All right. Last question. Ananam A conflict
• 2:17:47
  Speaker 1: of interest is a big topic these days. I think
• 2:17:49
  Speaker 1: it is an overused concept. At what point is someone
• 2:17:53
  Speaker 1: genuinely guilty of conflict of interest? Is it a valid concept?
• 2:17:56
  Speaker 1: Many calls for recusal. No, I mean, I think it's
• 2:18:00
  Speaker 1: almost always not a valid concept. Almost always it is
• 2:18:05
  Speaker 1: used as a vague accusation against somebody who's doing something legitimate.
• 2:18:11
  Speaker 1: You know, there's always a conflict of interest. I mean,
• 2:18:13
  Speaker 1: there's a conflict of interest all the time in a
• 2:18:16
  Speaker 1: sense that my interest is not the same as yours,
• 2:18:18
  Speaker 1: where that's a conflict defers. Now, if you engage in
• 2:18:23
  Speaker 1: behavior or you advocate for ideas you don't actually believe
• 2:18:28
  Speaker 1: in because you're getting money from somebody or because, I
• 2:18:32
  Speaker 1: don't know, so you engage in lying because you're going
• 2:18:37
  Speaker 1: to become rich by being a liar, you know, Conflict
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 1: of interest is too mild of a description of what
• 2:18:45
  Speaker 1: you are, right? So, yeah, I think it's a way
• 2:18:52
  Speaker 1: to undermine. Look, the way conflict of interest is used today,
• 2:18:56
  Speaker 1: if there's a monetary interest, you have a conflict of interest, right?
• 2:19:01
  Speaker 1: If you have a monetary interest in advocating for some
• 2:19:03
  Speaker 1: kind of idea or product, there's a conflict of interest.
• 2:19:07
  Speaker 1: That's absurd. But that's because they hate the profit motive.
• 2:19:11
  Speaker 1: That's because they hate monetary interest. That comes from the
• 2:19:17
  Speaker 1: hatred of money, of self-interest. All right, guys, I have
• 2:19:24
  Speaker 1: to run. Thank you, Nikos. Thank you to all the
• 2:19:28
  Speaker 1: super chatters. We will have another Yorana Nikos show November 8th. Uh,
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 1: that'll be from home and then there'll be a week gap.
• 2:19:38
  Speaker 1: And then, uh, two weeks later, we'll have another show.
• 2:19:41
  Speaker 1: Next show is on a Suez crisis and that'll be
• 2:19:43
  Speaker 1: on November 8th. So, uh, looking forward to that. Have
• 2:19:47
  Speaker 1: a great week, everybody. And, uh, a week and a
• 2:19:50
  Speaker 1: half before we see you again. And, uh, Nikos, I'll
• 2:19:54
  Speaker 1: see you in a week and a half. And then
• 2:19:55
  Speaker 1: in San Francisco. Thank you guys. Bye. Bye everybody.