In this 14 November 2025 episode of Friday Night Live, Stefan Molyneux dives deep into the intricacies surrounding the infamous Jeffrey Epstein case, alongside his callers who pose thought-provoking questions and challenge his views. The conversation starts as Stefan discusses the dire financial state of his show, emphasizing the need for listener support, especially as he reflects on the long-lasting effects of being de-platformed.
As the discussion progresses, Stefan provides a thorough background on Epstein’s rise from a math teacher to a billionaire financier, bringing attention to the dark chapters of his life, including the multitude of allegations surrounding sexual abuse and the significant leniency he received from the legal system. Through his recounting of the facts, Stefan expresses his outrage over the evident corruption in the justice system, pointing out the broader implications of Epstein's network, which allegedly included high-profile figures in politics and media.
Transitioning into caller interactions, the first participant seeks advice on discussing sensitive topics surrounding childcare with his wife, showcasing the personal nature of some inquiries. Stefan seamlessly connects these discussions to broader societal issues, suggesting that the inability to confront uncomfortable truths affects not only personal relationships but also discourse on a societal level. As other callers chime in, they raise broader philosophical questions about truth and morality, leading to a rich discussion about the nature of ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Delving further, Stefan invites a caller to inquire about the general concept of truth and whether individuals hold a moral obligation to seek it. He argues that simply following the majority's beliefs without critical examination leads to societal chaos. The episode’s conversation reflects on how people's adherence to mainstream narratives, driven by a mix of fear and cultural indoctrination, prevents them from having meaningful discussions about morality, especially with the Epstein case serving as a prime example.
An intense back-and-forth ensues surrounding the financial aspects of the U.S. debt and how historical technological advancements haven't alleviated economic burdens. One caller defends the notion that newfound technology and growth will likely rectify financial systems, to which Stefan responds skeptically, pointing out historical patterns of increasing debt regardless of technological advances. He passionately argues against the belief that growth can simply offset the upper hand given to systemic corruption within governance and the expansive power structures that arise from it.
Stefan briefly mentions possible libertarian solutions to dispute resolution in a stateless society, emphasizing that history has shown alternative methods of conflict resolution can exist outside of government control. This thread, woven throughout the episode, challenges listeners to reconsider long-held assumptions about authority and accountability.
As the episode wraps, Stefan urges listeners to donate to support his show while hinting at future discussions. He reiterates the importance of questioning mainstream narratives and holding powerful figures accountable, emphasizing that understanding complex issues requires a continuous examination of facts, historical evidence, and a commitment to personal integrity. The episode ultimately serves as both a critique of societal structures and a call to action for individuals to engage in communities with open, honest discourse.
0:05 - November Donations
5:12 - Justice Without Government
7:51 - Community Questions
8:32 - The Trump Delay
10:39 - Power and Control
20:15 - The Shadowy Puppet Masters
22:14 - The Cost of Silence
27:21 - The Cult of Belief
32:13 - The Search for Truth
43:23 - Hallucinations vs. Blindness
49:33 - Reflections on Truth
1:32:56 - The Conversation Begins
2:10:12 - Dispute Resolution Organizations
2:12:15 - The Role of Technology in Debt Management
[0:00] Good evening, good evening. Welcome. 14th of November, 2025.
[0:05] Freedomain.com/donate to help out the show. I don't mean to complain about every month, but November is a lean month. And I know the economy is bad. If you can't afford to donate, please enjoy the shows. Ad-free, guilt-free. If you can help out, I would really, really, really appreciate it. Still trying to get the finances back after the staggering half decade plus of de-platforming, I would appreciate that. And we'll get to your comments and questions in just a second. I see you there, JC, Jeffrey Epstein. So I want you to understand what Jeffrey Epstein means to the world as a whole. So Mike Cernovich and I did multiple shows on this like a decade ago, as before he was even married. And we talked about the Miami Herald and we talked about the lawsuit that they brought and that Mike Cernovich brought to unseal the Jeffrey Epstein records. So I'm.
[1:19] So, Fallout is wild. And, of course, a whole tranche of emails, 20,000 or so, have been released. And it doesn't look good. So, let me just, for those of you who don't know, I'll just give this really, really brief stuff. So, Jeffrey Epstein, of course, was a financier. He went from, like, a math teacher under Bill Barr's dad's school, if I remember rightly. And he just hit the rocket, hit the afterburners. Nobody really knows how he got his start. Nobody really knows how he was able to end up managing so much money. Nobody ever noticed him having particularly brilliant finance skills. But in Palm Beach, Florida, police investigated him after a parent reported that he had sexually abused her 14-year-old daughter at his mansion. So, the probe into Jeffrey Epstein discovered, or uncovered, a broader pattern. There were at least, hmm, sorry, as the father of a daughter, this makes me want to punch the bowels of the stars above, but...
[2:34] Federal officials identified at least 36 underage girls, some as young as 14, whom Epstein had allegedly paid for sexual acts disguised as massages. A 2005 police search of his property yielded evidence including phone messages from victims and photos of young girls. Detective Joseph Ricare testified to a 2006 state grand jury that Epstein recruited girls for a pyramid scheme, paying them $200 to $300 for sessions that escalated to nudity, touching or intercourse up to a thousand dollars for sex and encouraged them to bring younger friends, reportedly saying, the younger, the better. His houseman described the girls as very young, too young to be a masseuse. Despite this testimony, the grand jury indicted Epstein on only one count of solicitation of prostitution.
[3:29] In 2008, Epstein avoided a full federal trial through a controversial non-prosecution agreement negotiated by then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, later Trump's labor secretary. Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida State Court to two charges, procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution. He entered a no-contest plea on related solicitation charges. This deal granted immunity to Epstein and unnamed potential co-conspirators shielding them from federal sex trafficking charges despite evidence of abuse involving dozens of minors. Epstein maintained he believed the girls were over the age of 18.
[4:18] Now, the plea deal was brutal, and you're supposed to not be able to negotiate a plea deal, as far as I understand it, without talking to the victims, but that did not happen. Epstein was sentenced to 18 months in county jail, but served only about 13 months starting in July 2008. Thanks to extensive work release, he was allowed out 12 hours a day, six days a week, to, quote, work at his office, where abuse allegedly continued. He received special privileges, including an unlocked cell, permission to buy items like women's panties, and massages from staff. Upon release, he faced 12 months of house arrest and lifetime registration as a sex offender. Four victims filed multimillion-dollar civil lawsuits requiring Epstein to submit to an HIV test and share results with them.
[5:12] But you see, without the government, how could we possibly have justice?
[5:21] Dozens of children. Sexually assaulted. Statutory rape, I assume. He spends a year sleeping in jail. Allowed out to, quote, work at his office where he continued to abuse others allegedly. Unlock cell. Oh, and he can buy women's panties. Oh, he can also get massages from staff. The plea deal was widely criticized for its leniency given the scale of the abuse. Prosecutors knew of statutory rapes two years prior but presented misleading minimal evidence to the grand jury, portraying victims as prostitutes rather than trafficking survivors. Who gives a shit? Who gives a shit? Let's say that the 14-year-old girl was a desperate drug addict who was a prostitute. Does that mean that it's not statutory rape? I'm no lawyer, but from a moral standpoint, who gives a shit? They tried the same crap in England where they portrayed the girls who were the victims of the immigrant rape gangs as prostitutes and so on.
[6:43] Victim's attorney, Brad Edwards, accused the prosecution of intentionally downplaying the crimes. A 2020 U.S. Department of Justice review found Acosta exercised poor judgment, but no criminal wrongdoing. That's fine. The deal's fallout contributed to The cost of 2019 resignation. Transcripts from the 2006 grand jury, sealed until July 23rd, 2024, under a new Florida law, confirmed Epstein's predatory conduct but revealed no major new details on high-profile associates like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and or Michael Jackson, all mentioned in testimony but denying involvement. Epstein 2019 federal sex trafficking arrest echoed the 2006 allegations but ended with his death in custody before trial. Nice, tidy operation. Nice, tidy operation.
[7:52] Let me just get to your... Next month, someone says, it will be 12 years since I first wrote Into the Show, and became an active member of the community. I'm still entertained and finding value. Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. Ah, our good friend says, Stefan, why did you take that picture of my feet when I met you years ago and then try to play footsies with me under the table? Ha, ha, ha, ha. Megalomaniac men. It's okay. I enjoy it. So, I mean, that never happened, but it's funny, of course, right? Oh, why do you think that somebody asks, why do you think...
[8:33] Trump has been delaying the release of some of the real horrible stuff. It could possibly collapse the system if it's released. Yeah, I mean, yeah.
[8:43] So let's say, I don't know, obviously, I don't know. But let's just say that the general theories are correct. Let's say that Epstein was There's a spy gathering compromising information for obvious Voldemort, and there are criminal acts captured on film for hundreds of top-level business, political, media, possibly even religious leaders, although the data I would doubt a little bit more. But let's say that the luminaries, the constellations, the stars above, who organize and run our societies and are constantly lecturing us on the best and most virtuous and nicest and most positive and wonderful ways to live and castigating us for our meanness and our selfishness, for wanting to preserve our countries, our culture, our history, and so on. Let's say, just as a vague possibility. Let's say that all of those people are captured, controlled, bought, owned, and blackmailed with certain jail sentences for many years, and none of it's real.
[10:07] Let's just say, as a possibility. There's no proof. There's a lot of evidence, but there's no proof. Or what would happen to society, let's say, if the top couple of hundred people in the world, in terms of power, influence, and control, were revealed to be horribly compromised and under the thumb of X, right? Whatever. X, organization, group, person, whoever, right?
[10:40] What would that do? What would that do to people? What would that do to the legitimacy of the state? What would that do to the legitimacy of culture? What would that do to the moral authority of the overlords who claim that their only legitimate claim to endless power over us is that they're good and that we, and then we're bad, right?
[11:05] Without getting into names, without getting into names, if you've been on social media at all over the last couple of days, you're seeing these endless arrays, these endless flows of emails, that are coming out of people like, hey, Jeffy boy, Jeffy Jeff, Jiffy Jeffy Lube. If you could just get your head out of the used women's panties for five minutes, I'd love to come down and regale you of tales of this, that, and the other. And Jeff is like, hey, man, long time no see. I'd love to come down and jawbone with you. Oh, the freshly eviscerated corpses of children, uh, analogy. I would love to come down and, hey, chat with you. I got some wild stories, man. Mm. There's pictures of him chatting away with people, at dinner with people, People, socializing with people, virtually cuddling with people.
[12:11] After his conviction for the before and above mentioned crimes, they don't fucking care. See, they'll scream at you that you're a racist Nazi nationalist, white nationalist, white supremacist, but they don't care. They're very happy to hang with a predatory convicted sex offender, who got a sweetheart deal despite the evidence being very strong for dozens and dozens of children who were being trafficked. They don't care. They're fine with it. Totally fine with it. We all know the names. You can just go look it up. They're all fine with it. They got no problem with it. They got no problem with it at all. It's all a big club. No morals, no virtues, no ethics, no standards. words. They're fucking soulless psychopaths who use words of pretend morality only to wound and harm those who might be closing in on their bottomless den of iniquity and evil.
[13:40] I mean, of course there are some people who we know are absolute amoral or immoral or evil scumbags. I've talked about him before, you know, the rock stars who adopt a kid so that they can have their way with her across state lines. So we know, but you know, at least those people aren't lecturing us on morality. Oh, you must be good. You must be virtuous. You cannot be phobic or anything that we deem negative and satisfactory. Just not done.
[14:24] If the mask were lifted, if the bloody Hyman curtain were drawn back, sorry for that analogy, that's pretty freaking vivid. If people would, here's the thing, you know, this is a very true statement. He said, priming the pump. It's a very true statement that most people are about 30 to 60 seconds away from mental collapse. Most people are about 30 to 60 seconds away from mental collapse at all times. This is why people are so jumpy. It's why they're so depressed. It's why they're so anxious.
[15:04] I've certainly had it over the course of my life, maybe you've had this too, but I've certainly had it over the course of my life where I turn that high wattage perception brain and instincts of mine onto people. Sunlight to vampires, man. Sunlight to vampires.
[15:32] Most people. I mean, I write about this in my new novel, Dissolution, which I hope you will check out. You can get the audiobook, at freedomain.com just subscribe and you'll get the audiobook and a bunch of other goodies but most people you know the, women who screwed around in their 20s and can't, get a good guy in their 30s and 40s they are like 30 to 60 seconds away from somebody just taking their, illusions and horrible choices apart. I mean, I remember when I was in my late teens talking to someone I'd known for a long time and confronting them with the wrong that they'd done, and they fought me like hell for about 30 seconds, and from seconds 31 to 60, they were doubled down on the floor, barely able to breathe with horror at their life.
[16:42] You fucked up is true for just about everyone. And most people fight and resist that like a cornered, cocaine-addled, rabid Tasmanian devil, fighting for the future of the universe. They will do anything to avoid the simple syllables, that take down their delusions. That's why philosophy has to be banned. So you see, I'm banned, I'm banished, I'm suppressed.
[17:21] Oh, I've got my second retweet from Elon Musk today. Oh, sorry, not retweet, but a like from Elon Musk today, which was nice. So that's the world that we live in. People couldn't possibly handle it. I mean, the delusion that you live in a sane society that's interested in justice, is foundational to the corruption of humanity. And if, again, I have no idea what's going on with the Epstein stuff and all of that. But there were massive numbers of DVDs and videos, we assume videos, in his New York Brownstone, and I assume also in Florida, although I've heard more of them in the New York Brownstone, Jeffrey Epstein's, massive amounts of video, cameras in every room, come on. It's not complicated, right? I mean, everybody knows what that's all about. Everybody knows. So you know the deal right you you go to the famous Jeffrey Epstein's house it's like the playboy mansion but even more evil and you you, the disco is pounding and the lights are flashing and the drinks are flowing and the drugs are flowing and then there's this.
[18:39] Woman girl woman girl woman girl, and she's all over you. Have fun, man. Enjoy.
[18:53] And then you wake up the next day. Hey, man, have some eggs. Got some fresh brewed coffee for you, man. Espresso drip. It's really good stuff. We'll be in touch. And you take the plane and you scatter and you go. And then a day, a week, a month, a year later, you get the letter, right? You get the letter. And the letter is still images from the video of you having sex with an underage girl. And then at the bottom, I assume, is something like, we'll be in touch. And then you're like, I shred this, gotta burn it. Oh my God, they've got the video. And they say, this is the girl's actual age, by the way, here's the girl's actual age.
[20:16] And then you live in fear. There may come a time when I will ask you of a favor too. Don Corleone style. But without even the vestigial Sicilian dignity. And then there's some vote coming up. There's some power. There's some choice. There's something that you need to do for the shadowy political puppet masters back there in the shadows. Sorry, shadow in the shadows. Bit redundant. But hey, I used up all my good writing for my book.
[20:51] And then when you're about to make that decision hire that person fire that person cast your vote whatever it is that's going on you know someone comes up to you at a party you don't recognize him doesn't even look vaguely familiar and he says wow so i hear you've got this vote tomorrow Wow, that's wild, man. That's wild. I myself, I lean a little bit more towards voting yes than no. I mean, obviously, I don't have your power. I'm just some guy, right? I mean, I voted for you and all of that, but I would vote this way. You know. And I'm so sorry, do you look a little familiar? I think you do. I didn't, did I see you at Epstein's Island? Did I see you at that party? Ah, forget it, never mind. I mean, it was a crazy time, am I right? I don't think I've ever woken up with such a hangover. Anyway, listen, man, been great catching up. Maybe I'll see you on the island at some point again, because every now and then you just need to blow out to clear the pipes, right? And he wanders off, right? And you get the clear, you get the clear signal. You better vote yes, or...
[22:15] The video comes out. Is that how it's done? Could be. It's all just fiction. That's all just made up. I have no proof.
[22:31] But I think we all know. And what would happen to the legitimacy of our institutions if it was found that in academia, in entertainment, in politics, in business, in law, that nobody of any real importance had very much free will, or few people of any importance. I mean, there's something, right? That's why they're fine with it. All right, let me get your comments, then we get to the callers. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate it. Bum. Bum.
[23:12] All right. Why does the left all of a sudden want to release the files when it seemed like they didn't care before? Well, they think they're going to get the midterms, right? And, you know, they're probably right. At this point, they did a search and Trump's name shows up a lot. So they're just like, yeah, right? All they need to do, see, I mean, this is the two worlds that people live in, right? The one world is where people look at source documents and listen to arguments or perspectives that go counter to what is portrayed in the media, right? Right. So, I mean, the fine people hoax, right? The old chestnut at this point, right? That Donald Trump referred to neo-Nazis as very fine people, right? That's just a lie, obviously. It's a complete lie. So there are people who say, well, that seems kind of crazy. And they go look at the actual speech and they say, well, he says, yeah, the fine people on both sides, except the neo-Nazis, they should be condemned totally. But there's, you know, fine people on both sides of the debate about keeping the monument up. This is Charlottesville taking the monument down, right? So those are the people who go to the source documents and think for themselves, just a little bit, probably more than a little bit, but those people, right?
[24:41] And then there are those people who just listen to what the lying left-wing media tells them. Those totally different worlds. It's it's totally different worlds so the reason that they i would assume that they released all this uh stuff about epstein or emails regarding epstein is that they are perfectly completely and totally confident that their base will simply get out of the documents what the media tells them they should get out of the documents that's it.
[25:24] Because they know that their base, their supporters, are there for the free stuff, are there for the power and control over others, are there to exercise historical, made-up grievance hatreds. They're not there for facts. They're not there for reason-evident thinking, empiricism. They're not there for any of that. And so, if they say, well, in these emails, Trump is the number one-sided figure, and they make all these insinuations, and then people were just like, oh, Trump was doing stuff on Epstein Island. They won't go to the source documents. They won't think. They won't reason. They won't be skeptical. They won't care. They just going to be told to hate Trump, so they hate Trump. See, for those of us who actually think and go to source documents, it looks like a crazy strategy. Why would you release all of this stuff. I mean, it exonerates a lot of the sort of negative stuff about Trump, but that's because we're looking at the documents. But that's not what at least half the country does. Half the country doesn't ever look at the documents, will simply, honestly, and completely and totally believe that what's in the documents and what it means is exactly what the media says is in the document and what it means.
[26:47] So it looks like a risky strategy if people went to the source documents, but they don't. What they do is they go to the media and the media tells them, this is what's in the documents and this is what it means. And they're like, this is what's in the documents. This is what it means. And they can't think for themselves because their entire social circle is a cult. And I'm not using that term lightly, but I use it in my view in an accurate way.
[27:22] So it's kind of like, you know, when I was back in the day, when I first started hearing about this eschatology end time stuff, I'm sure you guys have heard about it too. You get, I mean, it was, it happens all the time, right? You get some crazy lunatic extremist cult and they say, well, the end of the world is three Saturdays from now and the members all sell their stuff and break up with their wives and husbands and, you know, they don't even make a will out because it's the end of the world. If there's nothing here, there's nothing to leave anything to people. And so they go and gather on a hilltop to one by one, the stars were going out, right? Six billion names of God, right? So they go up on the mountaintop, and the end of the world does not come. And what happens? Well, they just say, well, we got the date wrong. It's three weeks from now, four weeks from now, a month from now, a year now, and they just keep doing it, right? So for you and I, it would be like, oh, well, I doubt the end of the world is going to come, but let's say whatever Pascal's wager it is, then we go up, oh, well, the end of the world didn't come, and therefore.
[28:40] It's a false prophet. It's not true. It's not real. But people don't do that. They just reformulate. They just get, because once you're not thinking for yourself and you're told what to do, you have no capacity to get to the truth at all. In any way, shape or form, you have no capacity to get to the truth at all. The truth is only what you're told. So it looks like a crazy strategy to release all of these emails, except the Democrats, the people on the left have, absolutely no doubt that there's, they don't believe there's any danger because nobody's going to read the emails directly. They're just going to repeat what they're told. That's all.
[29:25] All right. Yeah, we've seen, as Joe says, we've seen what the deep state in Hollywood cheer for, such as Rome and Polanski. Yeah, for sure. What are your thoughts on Quebec and French Americans in general? I mean, Quebec is a kind of a traitor province in many ways. If someone said, oh, Zinf, yeah. When you state some basic truth or ask basic questions, People completely freak out. Not everyone, obviously, but the toxic types that are being referenced. Right. So, see, there are people like, why do people join these lunatic cults and these extremist things? And why do they get radicalized by the lying of their ass off mainstream media? Because when you don't think for yourself, you kind of don't exist psychologically. You're just an NPC. And if you're an NPC, thinking people don't want to be around you. So you have to be around other unthinking people. But the only way you can be around other unthinking people is if you all, like dawn drunkards, prop each other's false beliefs up. That's all. The only service that you can provide is, well, I'm an NPC. I don't think for myself, is what people say. That's what's going on. I'm an NPC. I don't think for myself.
[30:44] So no thinking people want to be with me because everything I say is boringly predictable and I barely exist in any foundational sense psychologically. And so why would anyone want to spend time with me? Well, the reason that people want to spend time with me is we all prop each other's beliefs up. Yeah, can you believe what Trump did now? Can't believe it. Right. Can you believe how crazy this person is? Can you believe how evil that person is? Just propping each other up. That's all. And if you were to raise one, like, I'm not kidding about this, man. We've all been there. If you raise even one stinking lousy question, badges, we don't need no stinking badges. If you raise one lousy stinking question, you're out. You're out. You're deplatformed. You're an unperson. Nobody wants to talk to you. And then you're alone. You can't really think for yourself. So the thinking people don't want to spend time with you, and you've just refused to participate in the mutual cookie-cookie masturbation session of propping each other's falsehoods up, so you're of no use to anyone, and you're isolated, and you're ostracized, and you've got nowhere to go. So you shut up, and you agree with all the bullshit spewed by the mainstream media, because that's the only possibility of any kind of social life you have.
[32:13] All right. I appreciate your patience. Let me just fondle my nurples and drop in my wee little $15 earbud. I took a photo the other day of my workout gloves, which are like bachelor three thread underwear thin. And I'm like, am I just cheap? Do I just not like buying things? Oh, well, it's a nice microphone. Okay. JC, thank you for your patience as a Yorble and warble i am thrilled to hear what you have to say and other people have come and gone, come back come back don't forget to unmute if you're still with us my friend hello stefan hello mrs.
[32:54] Weatherman would you tell me what's going on out there, Are you still jamming that song?
[33:02] Yeah, I like the song.
[33:05] It's funny because what that song is a lot about is about what is truth, how do we decipher truth. I want to use an example that I thought about when I was a kid for Christianity, or maybe Catholicism when I was younger. And there was a priest that explained this to me when I was like seven or six years old. And he said, you have within your lifetime to find God. And I asked, well, what if you're in some other part of the world and you don't have access to the Bible or the word of God? Well, then what? And he's like, well, you know, then, you know, if you don't find the word of God, you go to hell. And I remember that making no sense to me as a six or seven-year-old. And so I'm thinking now at the current state of the world. And when I was in Los Angeles during 2016, there was many people who were very adamant about the election. and you need to inform yourself and you need to do your own research. And I remember thinking to myself, well, how much time of my life do I need to sit down and devote to, quote unquote, finding the truth?
[34:10] Why can't I just look outside and see it? Just like I check the weather and I find out what weather is tomorrow. So my question, Stefan, is like, are people morally obligated to find the truth? And is it realistic for people to really be able to decipher what is truth? Or are some people just damned to stupidity or ignorance?
[34:37] The moment that somebody says this is true, they have a responsibility to know if it's true. Right? So there's an old line that you don't need the weatherman to tell you if it's raining. So it's people staring at screens. means, oh, and there's like, a whole wall of windows behind them, right? And they say, is it raining? Let's check the weather network. Is it raining?
[35:05] And they will look on the weather network rather than put their head on a 180 swivel and look out the window. Is it raining? So Ayn Rand called them social metaphysicians. We could call them low T. We could call them NPCs. The people who say not, is this true? But do people believe that it's true? Not, is this right, but is it acceptable and approved of by those around me? They do not have a direct relationship to reality. They only have a relationship to other people's opinions. And they live in fear. And that fear, they channel into attacking anyone who asks any questions. And so, yes, they absolutely have a responsibility. If you're going to say something is true, then you have a responsibility to know that it's true. And I mean, I don't know if this is still, I mean, you can tell me you're a younger man than me. I don't know if this is still a thing where, when I was a kid, you were never allowed to say because so-and-so told me to. Oh, and if he told you to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, you'd do that too, right? You would never, you would never give the excuse of other people were doing it. Other people said it. Other people told me to, you were never allowed to have that excuse. And I don't know if that's still a thing. Did you ever get that when you were a kid? You're not allowed to use other people said so or other people were doing it as an excuse?
[36:34] Later on in life when I was around more mature people, but I think growing up it was, you know, it was, you know, do as you're told, you know, because I said so. And I was very confused in that growing up as a kid. But so, look, I think I was very fortunate when I was 19 or 20 years old to stumble upon you. I had a roommate who said, hey, you need to listen to this guy. And I went down the rabbit hole of listening to you. And I read The Fountainhead, and then I read Atlas Shrugged. I was actually on the set of Atlas Shrugged. I was an assistant to Isai Morales, who played Francisco D'Anconia. And sort of ironically, I remember being at his house, and he was walking around reciting the money speech. He was reciting the money speech over and over and over again. And it dawned on me, you have no idea what you're about to say. That you're just saying lines, that you have no idea what it is that you're about to say and why it's important. So, I mean, if you don't stumble upon someone like yourself or you don't stumble upon, I'm going to use this as a metaphor, but God, if you don't stumble upon the word of God, like how is the average person, quote unquote, saved by reason and philosophy?
[37:48] Well, let's talk about, I think that the average leftist is further from reality than the average rightist. these days? Would you agree with that as a general statement?
[37:58] As a paradigm, yes, 100%.
[38:00] Right. So what is the epistemology of the left regarding Christianity? Not other religions. They seem to love other religions, but of course they hate Christianity for reasons that are kind of too obvious to get into here. So what is the general epistemology of leftists regarding religion. Well, they would say, look, just because a bunch of people around the world believe it doesn't make it true, just because it's written down in a book doesn't make it true. Just because you were told it by someone else doesn't make it true.
[38:33] So every single scrap of skeptical epistemology they bring to bear on religion, they can bring to bear on their education in the media. So if it's some, you know, pygmy savage who barely has 12 words in his vocabulary, that's fine. Like, I mean, we'd have sympathy and patience for that. Some kid raised by wolves, some kid locked in a cupboard who didn't have it. But all we're asking of the leftists is to say that same skepticism that you have about religion, you should have about media and the government and what you're told. Because it is a competing religion without objective responsibilities, right? So leftism is a religion in competition to Christianity, but without any objective requirements or responsibilities. And so if they say, well, you can't just believe in religion because that's what you're told. It's like, okay, well, you can't just believe that January the 6th was just an automatic insurrection where people tried to take over the most powerful and heavily armed government in human history by wandering around without any weapons. I mean, come on, that's not a thing. And so...
[39:48] It's simply saying you have this methodology which you believe and accept already with regards to religion, Christianity in particular. So just take exactly the same methodology of skepticism and not believing things just because you're told and not believing things just because they're popular, but believing things because they're actually true. Just take that exact methodology and toodle it on over to your belief in education, the media, and the government. That's all. In the same way that we would say to atheists, that skepticism that you have, about religion, well, take it to your new God called the state. No! Impossible. Impossible, right? So the reason why the people on the left are 100% responsible for the lies that they believe, is that they have been for at least a century and a half railing against Christianity using the exact same tools of reason and skepticism, but they refuse to apply it to any of their own most sacred beliefs, which makes them rank hypocrites.
[40:55] Mm-hmm. Are you familiar with Alan Watts?
[41:03] Somewhat.
[41:05] He has some very interesting Zen Buddhist perspectives, but he has this thing that he says. He says, look at the night sky, and we see these formulations of stars that we call constellations. And this one over here, this is the Big Dipper, and that's what it looks like from here. But if you looked at it from some other part of the universe, it would look completely different. Therefore, there is no such thing as the truth. It's just a perspective from which you view things. And while I do believe there is truth, I mean, like the whole Epstein thing, that just to me is a big, glaring neon sign that we are being lied to by the worst amongst us.
[41:49] Okay, hang on. Let's go back to the consolation thing.
[41:52] Yeah, yeah.
[41:55] So, we see the Big Dipper, and that's how it looks. And he's saying, because if you looked at the Big Dipper from another angle, it wouldn't look like a Big Dipper, therefore there's no such thing as truth.
[42:07] It's the perspective from which you view things. Now, I take that, you know, I think there's some truth in that.
[42:14] But... But nobody says it is the Big Dipper. It's just a nickname.
[42:18] Mm-hmm.
[42:20] You know, if... If I refer to my, let's say I'm 20 and my father had me when he was young and my father's 38 and I say, oh, the old man, my old man is like, he's not at all best. Like, it's just a nickname. Nobody says that it is a Big Dipper and everybody says, this is just kind of how it looks to us. So it is not a universal statement of truth that that constellation or Orion's belt or whatever is a big, it's the Big Dipper that just kind of looks, everybody knows that's just how, so it's not some big revelation that if you rotate it, Star Raider style, if you rotate the stars, of course it's going to look different. Like, is this Alan, I'm sorry, is this Alan Watt's big contribution to take a nickname for something and say, this defies objective truth as a potential, epistemological reality? I mean, that's just nonsense. That's not what anybody was ever saying about constellations. Of course, they're just saying how it looks to us, right? Orion's belt is just three stars. I get it. Nobody says that it's an actual belt.
[43:24] No, you're right. I guess I'm just really fighting with the idea of how does the average person really wake up and how do we really, how are we able to decipher what is true? How do we figure out anything with this Epstein thing, like what do we derive from it other than the fact that we're being lied to?
[43:47] Let's go back to Alan Watts. How did he die?
[43:49] Uh-huh. Oh, I'm not sure.
[43:53] Well, he was a chain smoker. He was a rampant alcoholic and he fucked anything with half a pulse.
[44:02] Oh, wow.
[44:06] How many marriages did Bro have?
[44:09] No idea.
[44:10] Three marriages. Married three times, nicotine addict, alcohol addict, sex addict.
[44:26] He sparked the big debris.
[44:29] Do you really think that stars from a different angle was a big problem in his life?
[44:39] No, and I think, you know, the metaphor he's talking about is just the perspective from which we view things.
[44:47] Well, but that's blindingly, oh, I love this picture because I made fun of him a couple of months ago on X. The picture where he's got his hipster beard and he's got his love beads and he's got his hipster pipe. And it's just like, what a pretentious douchebag. Sorry, I mean, if you like him and all of that. And, you know, it's not like I've read a whole bunch of his stuff. But I mean, it's cheesy cheesy ass pseudo philosophy it's deepities, I mean listen if you get things of value from him I would certainly love to hear it but this guy is like you know if we looked at the constellation it wouldn't look like how it looks to us ooh wow amazing right I mean that's, childish not you but that perspective You know, if you look at a cube from a different angle, it looks different. If you look at a sailboat from the top, you can't see the sail very easily. It's like, okay, is this like philosophy or what?
[45:55] No.
[45:59] And he certainly didn't solve any of the moral issues in his own life. He ran roughshod, breaking women's hearts. He fucked everything that moved. he had seven children, three marriages, one annulment, if I remember rightly, and was a triple addict. I mean, I would not consider that a man of great moral strength and character. He was a hippie and a pretentious hippie, in my humble opinion.
[46:30] I could see that. No, I definitely, I definitely, I think that's definitely a different way to look at it for me now too. One of the, one thing that he pointed out or maybe even not him, but just in the Zen perspective that just there are people who are just asleep and that's just the way life is. There's just, there's no reason behind it. It's just the way the universe has come about and we can try to make sense of it.
[47:02] But again, saying that there are people who don't think is scarcely a philosophical insight of the gods, right? It's not like UBB or something, right?
[47:12] Right, right, right. Let me take Alan Watts off the table for the moment and use my own thinking. Going back to this big idea of truth, if you had a microphone and you could speak to the entire world, Stefan, what would you want people to really consider with regards to truth and maybe how it relates to this Epstein thing.
[47:37] Sorry, if I had a microphone and could talk to the world?
[47:40] Yeah, if you had the world listening to you for a minute.
[47:43] I do have a microphone and I am talking to the world. I'm sorry, what do you mean? Stef, if you were bald and 59.
[47:49] No, no, no. I mean, like if you had, if you, like big brother, like you could force everybody to listen to you for one minute.
[47:56] Oh God, why would I want that?
[47:59] It's a hypothetical I'm just saying if there's something that you wish.
[48:02] More people would know that I don't want you know like to take a silly example like okay imagine you were a murderer it's like but I don't want to imagine that I you know what I mean I wouldn't want to force people to listen to me philosophy is something that you have to enter into voluntarily right mm-hmm.
[48:21] No, that makes sense. I hear what you're saying. I guess I'm just asking, what would you want more people to know?
[48:31] I mean, I'm not sure what the question is, because I talk about the things that I think are the most important in my 6,500 shows. So when you say to me, Stef, theoretically, what would you talk about people that would be the most important? It's like, well, I try to talk about what's important every time I do a show. So you're right. I'm sorry. I'm not sure. You think that there's more important stuff that I'm not talking about?
[48:58] No, no, you're right. You're right. I'm understanding now as a masochist.
[49:05] I don't think there are too many Zen Buddhists who are triple addicts. And I assume with three marriages and seven children, there was a fair amount of neglect towards his children, to put it mildly. And I don't think that he followed any objective moral standards.
[49:34] I don't know much about him personally. I've listened to some of his lectures. Right. They're soothing. I mean, they sound cool. And I get what you're saying now.
[49:44] He did experiment with psychedelics, mescaline, LSD, cannabis, and so on. I don't think he became an addict addict, but he definitely did a bunch of stuff. And the alcoholism is just really sad. I mean nicotine i can kind of get i guess but it's uh, it's pretty tough you know when you have seven children you kind of owe it to your children to take care of your health wouldn't you say yep so he was kind of an asshole that way, anyway sorry is there anything else that you wanted to mention i appreciate the call back and I hope that your singing is going well.
[50:32] Yes, no, I'm just in a big question of this whole Epstein thing and just what to make of it. So I appreciate the time and I look forward to hearing more about this.
[50:42] All right, well, thank you very much. All right. Drago, what is on your mind?
[50:53] Hello, Stefan. Briefly, yeah, that's interesting. It wasn't my main question, but I just want to observe how this implicit point that we've artificially separated a virtuous lifestyle from someone's ideas. And I think to your point, right, implicitly, if someone lives a lifestyle like that, we should question the ideas because a virtuous life should correspond on with good ideas.
[51:23] Well, he's an outright hedonist, right? I mean, so as a hedonist, he is not bound by any objective moral standards. He does what he likes. He does what he feels like, which is childish, selfish, animalistic. Animals do what they feel like without reference to any external moral standards because they can't process them. So either he was amoral, which is to say immoral, or he had objective moral standards that he completely failed to achieve. I mean, I don't take diet advice from people who were 300 pounds, and I don't take philosophical advice from triple addicts with three marriages who neglect their children.
[52:07] Yeah, absolutely. Well, my question here would be, if let's say there are two types of mistakes we can make, which one would be worse, if we can say? Is it the mistake of hallucinating something that's not actually there, or the mistake of being blind to something that actually was happening? And I know it can be very context dependent, but I'm just curious, just based on your intuition, how would you kind of rank, like which mistake might be more devastating, if we can even answer that.
[52:48] I don't know what you mean. Are you talking about hallucination, psychosis, when you see things that aren't there?
[52:53] Uh i mean that in our search for truth and just understanding reality uh when we die that you know they'll either be some things that we important things that we missed like wow i that thing was true and i was blind to it i just didn't even know so that's one kind of mistake uh the other mistake is i believe stuff that weren't true i i had these extra beliefs that It just, you know, I believe in, I thought something was there and it wasn't actually there.
[53:22] Are you talking about, sorry, what do you mean by after you die?
[53:28] Uh, I, I just, I, I, I mean, I just mean that, you know, is it worse to hallucinate or to be blind, right? What would be worse? Like if, if there's to not see something that's there or to imagine something there when it's not there.
[53:44] This is the big moral issue in your life.
[53:49] Uh, no, it's not a moral issue. I just, it's just an interesting question. I don't, I don't have like an angle.
[53:53] But there's no answer to it, right? Because it is so context dependent. Is it better to see things that aren't there or not see things that are there. I mean, I don't know what, I mean, it depends. I mean, if you hallucinate that there's a deer on the road and you drive off a cliff, that's bad, right? If you don't see that there is a deer on the road, when there is, then you hit the deer and that's also bad. Or if it's a moose or whatever it is, right? especially something big. So it's, I don't know, there's no philosophical answer to the question without context.
[54:34] Yeah, no, fair enough, fair enough. I appreciate that. Yeah, I guess it's more of like, I feel like our default states on average, like from a personality perspective, we, I guess it's more of like, is this a personality feature, right, where different individuals will lean one way towards the other. It's like the error, like a false positive versus a false negative, right? And to your point, in a context, right, it does make a difference. So false positives can be worse. In a situation, well, we'd have to think like of a medical situation, but right, it's the consequence of a false positive versus a false negative and then risk tolerance for making one or the other mistake.
[55:17] Right. Okay, is there anything else that you wanted to mention? Okay.
[55:22] Well, I guess, lastly, to tie it in, this was on my mind, but you have me thinking what makes this practical. I guess with the Epstein thing, that would be, as we run it through that lens, right? Is it a mistake for people to be blind to something that's actually going on? Or, you know, if they're hallucinating and imagining something extra beyond what was actually happening, what would be a worse consequence with the Epstein? Which I guess would mean the extent of the depravity, right? That the depravity is worse than we even realize, or do we overestimate the depravity, I suppose would be the one way to apply that principle to today.
[56:03] You're not depressed, are you?
[56:06] Am I depressed? No, not at all.
[56:08] Yeah, it's just, it's a very, I don't quite understand what the questions are about. Is it better to overestimate or underestimate Epstein's depravity? I'm not really sure. I'm sorry if I'm being dense and missing something. I just, I don't know what the question is. Is it, I mean, the whole point is like, is it better to go too far north or is it better to go too far south? You know, if you've got, you're supposed to be going east. Is it better to go too far north or is it better to go too far south? Like, I don't understand the question. I mean, I don't know. I mean, if to the south is a bunch of reefs and you're going to crash and sink and drown and be eaten by sharks, that's bad, right? I mean, is it better to veer off too much to the left or is it better to veer off too much to the right? Well, we just want to try and stay on the straight and narrow, don't we? I mean, why would an error on either side be better or worse than the other without further context? Sorry, again, I'm sorry if I'm missing something.
[57:02] Well, yeah, no, to your point. for that analogy, right? Left or to the right? So if to the left off of the road, it's like dirt road, it's like, okay, that's not ideal, but whatever. But if to the right is the cliff, we would say, ah, well, if you're going to make a mistake, might as well veer a little left. You know, it's not that big of a deal. Maybe there's some potholes, but you're not falling off the cliff. So I guess, yeah, is there an asymmetry, you know, in the road that we're navigating right now in society? Is there an asymmetry for like, if you're going to veer off, like you should stay straight, but you know, we're not perfect. So should you lean a little to the left or lean a little to the right based on the current topography of what's happening in society.
[57:41] Again, I still don't understand the question. It's like saying, well, there's something on the road. Should I drive to the left or should I drive to the right? I mean, it's impossible to answer that question without knowing what's on the left and what's on the right, if that makes sense.
[57:55] Fair enough.
[57:56] I actually can't believe that anything this abstract is your primary moral issue in the world.
[58:03] Well, I'm just a very abstract thinker in general, which maybe is one of my problems. But no, I appreciate it. I understand. It's not specific. Like I said, specifically, I suppose we could formulate it in terms of Epstein here, but I'd have to think about the question better. So it's fine. I understand. I'm not specific enough, so I'll hop off.
[58:22] Okay.
[58:22] Thank you.
[58:24] Yeah, it's almost a little surprising to me that if you get to talk to a fairly world-renowned moralist that you'd bring up things that are not part of your life at all. It just seems odd to me. All right. Ruben. Oh, man. now I want a sandwich. Somebody says, a simple question, why doesn't Stefan understand? Yes, that's right. Well, um, uh, Fidgeti guy, um, I guess you're just so much smarter than me. All right, Ruben, what's on your mind? Going once, going twice. Yes, sir.
[59:03] Hello. Hi. So, yeah, you know, regarding the Epstein files, I mean, I don't think, you know, there's much to be seen overall, you know, and I don't think anything is to be released. The Department of Justice already said that they're not charging anybody new. You know, if they start releasing information, it's not like citizens can go and do their own investigation. And if they say anything and they release anything that makes people look bad, people can sue, right? So many names will be redacted and are redacted and even if they release more need to be redacted because there's private information, that people can sue for libel and sue the government. And people have before, for releasing documents and private information. And so I think the whole Epstein thing is a big distraction.
[1:00:13] And yeah, I think two attorney generals of two different administrations have had access to information, and maybe there's new information, but I don't think so. So yeah, I think that the whole thing's overblown. And both sides use the unknown to their advantage, or all sides use the unknown to their advantage.
[1:00:38] So, why do you think people are interested or focused on the Epstein thing?
[1:00:44] Well, because, you know, a few reasons. I think it's a good question. Number one, I think, is what you don't know, right? It's like a mysterious thing. You kind of want to know. It's like, you know, who was on his list? Who was he speaking with? Who was, you know, X, Y, and Z? So, it's like, just out of curiosity, right? And then the second thing is that people want the perpetrators of potential crimes to be opponents of them, whether the Republicans, Democrats, whatever, or against a certain billionaire that they don't like or millionaire or movie star, who knows. But I think those are the two primary reasons. I think there's other reasons. And then obviously, I think a good moral reason is to find out what happened. But as individual citizens, if the Department of Justice did not indict somebody, we're not going to be able to indict them. We're not going to be able to dig deeper. And so we don't have that power. we don't have any mechanisms to do so yeah it's a good question that's what I think.
[1:02:08] So, I mean, curiosity is a generic trait. So why do you think it would be more focused on, like, why do you think people care about the Epstein thing? And I'm not really sure. I mean, wanting to see people go to jail, I mean, it could be just about anything. What do you think is the fundamental driver as to why people are so fascinated by the Epstein case or so invested in it?
[1:02:28] Well, I think that Epstein himself knew a lot of famous and powerful people.
[1:02:34] Oh, we know that. That's not a nice thing. We know that for sure.
[1:02:37] Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[1:02:38] I mean, we got video of them going in and out of his apartments and his home. So we know for sure that he hung out with us, pictures of him at dinners and people hanging out with him. And this is one of the reasons, I think, why perhaps Melissa Gates did not find Bill Gates to be so appealing to stay married to. So, yeah, we know for sure that he was.
[1:02:57] But maybe that had something to do with it. Maybe it didn't, right? So that's like a curiosity, right, about Melinda Gates' marriage. We don't know. Because many people interacted with him before he was convicted. He was indicted and convicted once and then indicted again where he was in jail. Before the first conviction, he interacted with many people. I think there's that curiosity. These famous people, Did Bill Gates have anything, did Bill Gates do anything wrong?
[1:03:38] Okay, so why are people fascinated as to, hang on, why are people fascinated as to why, let's say, Bill Gates did something, if he did something wrong, why are people fascinated to know?
[1:03:51] Because some people, many people don't like Bill Gates, right? That's one of the reasons, in my opinion. And it's also just, he's one of the most public figures out there. Used to be the richest man in the world for a long time and I think people are just interested and actually curious and some people want to see him fall you know.
[1:04:16] I don't, yeah, I mean, maybe for sure, but I don't think that, I don't think that that's the major reason.
[1:04:26] So, so what do you think? Is it, is it regarding Bill Gates? Is it regarding Epstein?
[1:04:31] No, no, I mean, why are people fascinated? I mean, and I'm happy to take answers from the audience here, but why are people fascinated about Epstein? Why is the story?
[1:04:44] Another reason is because some people believe that he was connected to higher powers, such as government organizations, foreign and domestic, right? Although there's no real proof to that yet, you know, if there will be. And I don't know, who knows? But that's another curiosity angle, right? Like when you don't know something, your mind can go everywhere.
[1:05:14] Yes, but there's so many things. Why do you think Epstein is a focal point? Because there's tons of things that we could want to know about. What happened to Amelia Earhart, where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.
[1:05:24] Oh, yeah, yeah.
[1:05:24] But there's people, like there's certain things that stick, right? Obviously, 9-11 is one. JFK assassinated. Okay, bro, bro, bro. Okay. Am I listening to you?
[1:05:35] Yeah.
[1:05:36] Okay. So how about when I'm talking, you don't talk in my ear?
[1:05:40] All right.
[1:05:40] Is that fair?
[1:05:41] All right.
[1:05:42] Because it's like second or third time I'm trying to, and I'm not dominating the conversation here, right? I'm asking you questions and listening to the answers. So do me a solid and just be basically polite and let me finish my thought before you start talking over me. Is that okay?
[1:05:55] That's reasonable.
[1:05:56] Thank you. So yeah, we've got JFK, we've got the assassination of JFK, we've got 9-11, and Epstein are big things. And the question is always, why are people very interested in these things? Now, the answer, I believe, and let's just take the Epstein thing. So, we have a bunch of people who are telling us that they're better than us. We have a bunch of people who say, I have the right to rule over you, I have the right to control you. I have the right to initiate force against you because I'm just so freaking good. And I'm just so freaking moral. And I'm just so freaking talented and all-knowing and good. And I have the right, as Bill Gates has done, to talk about you can't allow cows to fart and global warming is going to kill us all. And it's really, really important that we have gain of function research and all of this stuff that people say.
[1:06:49] And I think in general, if people have good expertise, then we listen to them, right? I hope people listen to me about philosophy and obviously think through yourself. But, you know, if there's some guy who's got a really great ripped viper ab physique or whatever, yeah, he can tell me. I remember, was it Adam Kokesh when I used to go down to the New Hampshire Pork Fest, right? I mean, I did some shows with Adam Kokesh and the guy was pretty ripped. And I remember I had a bag of chips because I was hungry and he wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole. And it's like, yeah, so if I want to get ripped, maybe I go talk to Adam Kokesh and he can tell me how to get ripped or something like that. But so when people put themselves forward as having...
[1:07:36] So much knowledge and virtue, and they're immune to the corruptions of power, and all of these great things that these people are doing, should we submit to them? It's a really, really important question.
[1:07:51] So let's say that you have a nutritionist who's just lost a bunch of weight and she says, well, you should follow this diet. And it turns out she doesn't follow that diet at all. She eats a bunch of crap and then snorts Ozempic by the pound or something, right? So then that would be something quite different. So I think people are willing to submit to those in authority if those in authority are genuinely moral, have their best interests at heart and can handle power.
[1:08:18] That's the social contract. And I'm not talking about how we would think of it as how most people think of the social contract. So then the question is, what if they're evil? What if they're compromised? What if people have images of them committing horrible crimes against children, and that's why they say what they say? You know, what if every actor who praises Biden and eviscerates Trump is just doing that because they want to have a career and they won't have a career if they don't pull off that sort of shit, right? But I mean, you got the bishops in America following the Pope's lead, talking all about how terrible it is that there's borders being enforced and immigration laws being enforced and so on. It's like, I mean, the Vatican is worth tens of billions of dollars has taken in, I think about 20 Syrian refugees over the last couple of decades. So yeah, I don't like what if the people who claim to be better than us are lying, broken, compromised, criminal, blackmailed, don't have free will, and kind of making all these moral pronouncements and laughing at us behind the curtain, right? You know, like all the people who were like during COVID, they're just yapping away and chatting with each other. And then the cameras turn to them. It's like, oh, put on your mask, right? You got to put on your mask. So I think people are interested in this because it is foundational to the social contract.
[1:09:37] It is foundational to the social contract. If it, this is why I was saying like our entire system rests upon a certain number of assumptions. And if those assumptions turn out to be false, the system is done. It's toast. Like we then come up with.
[1:09:52] With something new, hopefully. I mean, we will have to come up with something new. So those in power rely upon us looking up to them and voluntarily obeying them, because if they have to enforce all of their commandments, it won't work, because it's impossible to force hundreds of millions of people to do what you want them to do. So they have to look up to you and be willing to obey you, because they think you're hot shit in the moral realm and so good and wise and brilliant and educated and in the know and you can't be corrupted and right. So if it turns out that the people who are in charge of us are just a bunch of, compromise controlled hedonistic parasites who've committed horrible crimes and are being blackmailed the entire social contract as we know it breaks down which is why I think that there's not much coming out on the Epstein side. But sorry, go ahead.
[1:10:47] Yeah, so respectfully, I mentioned, you asked me why. I think, you know, I said that people may have animosity towards people like Bill Gates. And from what I've heard from you, and this is the first time I'm listening to you, it sounds like you have some of that animosity towards Bill Gates. And, you know, for the things he said regarding the cow farts and the gain of function, and other things like that. And then, you know, you would like to see him be part of this.
[1:11:20] Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. Hang on, hang on, hang on. So you think it's just like schadenfreude, like I just dislike Bill Gates and want to see him taken down a peg? Do you think that's the level of discourse that we do here?
[1:11:35] Well, it sounds like that's where you're...
[1:11:37] No, no, no. Don't give me a sounds like, because I didn't say any of that. So that's your...
[1:11:41] It sounds like you would like that.
[1:11:42] No, we're going to do this thing where I talk and you listen, right? You already agreed, right? Can you keep your word for five minutes at a time?
[1:11:50] Yeah, yeah. Okay.
[1:11:51] No, no, you need to not talk when I'm talking. Otherwise, it's not a conversation. Do you understand?
[1:11:57] Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.
[1:11:58] You sound all like, well, if you want this crazy thing where you don't want us both talking at the same time, I guess I'll do it. Kind of annoying, right? So we don't do the discourse here as in I dislike a particular individual, right? As the old joke goes, when Bill Gates was worth $100 billion, people said, Bill Gates is worth $100 billion. Apparently, a good haircut costs $101 billion. dollars. So I don't care about Bill Gates as an individual. I don't care about his wealth. I don't care about his marriage. I don't care about him as an individual. If he says that my daughter needs to be enslaved to the tunes of trillions of dollars of taxes and debt, and if he says that we should have more gain of function, which seemingly potentially unleashed a worldwide pandemic and the next one could be far worse, then he's directly threatening myself, my family, my interests. So taking it to like, well, I just don't like the cut of his jib is kind of crazy. If there are legitimate moral grievances against someone like Bill Gates, then there's a category called corruption and immorality, which I hate. I hate corruption and immorality because I'm a moralist, right? That's what we do. We love virtue and we hate evil. So if there's a category called corruption and immorality, and Bill Gates is in that category, we hate the corruption and the immorality, we don't hate Bill Gates as a person, if that makes sense.
[1:13:16] Yeah, it makes sense, but, you know, you putting that person as corrupt, right, that person, and I won't use his name, likes gain of function, likes preventing cow farts, that doesn't mean that they are immoral or corrupt. And so, I think, that's where I think you kind of made a jump on that. And so, yeah.
[1:13:39] Okay, so hang on.
[1:13:40] If we were to switch off that.
[1:13:41] Hang on, hang on. So, what is gain of function to you? What is gain of function research?
[1:13:46] Gain of function is where an organism is artificially gaining a function.
[1:13:55] But that's just repeating the phrase. What does it mean then?
[1:13:57] No, no, no. But okay, so it's changing the DNA of an organism to gain a, whatever you want to call it, a method that it does not already have. So that could be creating a new protein. It could be creating...
[1:14:18] Hang on, sorry, sorry to interrupt. What is the function that is being gained? What are they trying to do?
[1:14:26] In the case of COVID or just in general?
[1:14:29] Gain of function in general.
[1:14:31] Gain of function can be making something increase its viral load. It can increase its lethality. It can increase, you know, there's a lot of different, there's no one thing that it's looking for.
[1:14:54] Okay. So one of the things that happens with gain of function is they take a virus that does not easily infect human beings and they make it easily infect human beings. Correct. Okay.
[1:15:05] That could be one of the ways that gain of function is used. Yes.
[1:15:08] Do you think that could be a little fucking dangerous?
[1:15:11] Uh, yeah, of course.
[1:15:12] Okay. Do you think it could get millions of people or tens of millions of people or hundreds of millions of people get very sick or die?
[1:15:22] Yes. But I'd like to add another point that it could also be used as research to prevent those tens or hundreds or millions of people or tens of millions of people from dying. So, yeah.
[1:15:36] Okay. Has that, has that happened?
[1:15:41] Has gain of function ever been used?
[1:15:45] What? No, of course it's been used. Has gain of function ever prevented or solved, uh, any particular, uh, potential worldwide pandemic or illness?
[1:15:56] Uh, that I know of, not, not yet.
[1:15:59] Okay. So let me ask you this. Do you think in a free market, if scientists came along and said, you know what we're going to do, we're going to take a bunch of viruses and we're going to engineer them to much more easily infect and be transmissible between human beings. Uh, we're going to need you to fund this. We're going to need you to voluntarily send your money in, your PayPal or whatever, do you think that people would do it?
[1:16:24] Um, no.
[1:16:27] Right. So it is against the will of the people because it's enforced, right? People are, the taxes are forced out of them and handed over to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was co-built by the French and was dealing with some really satanic kind of bugs and viruses and had the same level of containment protocols as your average dentist office, right? So it is dangerous stuff that people would not voluntarily fund, which means it's predatory and against the will of the people. And has, of course, we saw this. I mean, I personally believe that the COVID-19 came out of the lab, right? The idea that it emerged 400 feet from the only level four bioweapons lab in China, where they wiped out all of the public databases immediately afterwards, the idea that it just emerged there by accident. And they've never found the pangolins, or they've never found any other avenue of transmission between animals and humans. And of course, it didn't slowly become better at infecting humans. It arrived fully formed, able to infect humans very easily and very deeply.
[1:17:37] So that fucked up the world, right? That destroyed people's human rights. It has destroyed fertility. It's harmed people's health along with the vaccine. It has been an absolute catastrophe for young people. It has shaved IQ points off. It destroyed people's social lives, their dating lives. There's infertility issues, myocarditis issues, you name it, heart issues of other kinds. It goes through the blood-brain barrier. This is just the vaccine. An absolute catastrophe. For the planet as a whole.
[1:18:12] I think I agree with you on the specific COVID-19 incident that happened. A bit more than an incident.
[1:18:24] Wouldn't you say?
[1:18:25] Yeah, I would say catastrophe. But that doesn't mean, and by the way, gain of function, for example, I said no, but I know that, for example, they've used gain of function on influenza, which is the common flu.
[1:18:42] Oh, you mean the influenza vaccine?
[1:18:44] Yeah.
[1:18:45] Yeah, but the influenza, sorry, the influenza vaccine has, the influenza vaccine has...
[1:18:49] You talked about interrupting.
[1:18:50] Yeah. The influenza, because you've got to, if you're going to say something that's incorrect, right? So if you say, hang on, if you say two and two make five, then I have to interrupt you because everything you say after that is not valid, right?
[1:19:01] So the influenza, hang on.
[1:19:02] Hang on. So the influenza vaccine, according to what I've read, actually has older people be more susceptible to influenza. So the validity of the influenza vaccine is highly doubtful.
[1:19:18] All right, well, it may be highly doubtful to you, but...
[1:19:22] No, no, not to me. No, but don't do it to me.
[1:19:26] I do think the stats show that the influenza vaccine is valid and helps people. So you can look up that. But yeah, I was saying gain of function. And just because something is negative, you could say, oh, well, when Oppenheimer was looking into his nuclear bombs, nuclear technology is really negative. But also there's nuclear energy. So with many types of technologies, there are pros and cons. But overall, I think my original point was not anything to do with gain of function. But I'm willing to talk about it. I do think that it's good for science not to be stopped and to continue. And with any technology that could be used as a weapon, there's also ways to prevent the weapon and research that can come out of it for the good.
[1:20:32] Sorry, sorry. Do you not believe that there's immoral scientific research?
[1:20:38] I do in regards to testing on, I would say, conscious beings. Yeah, I think that there is immoral things that you can do on conscious beings.
[1:20:57] Okay, so not all science is moral, right?
[1:21:03] Correct, yeah, yeah.
[1:21:04] Okay. So do you believe that the COVID vaccine was moral or not in terms of violations of the Nuremberg Code and other moral issues, the claims of safe and effective based upon data that was supposed to be hidden for 70 years and so on? Would you say that the COVID vaccine, and I'm not saying vaccines as a whole, I'm not even saying about its effectiveness or anything like that, But do you think that stripping people of their jobs and rights to travel and locking them up in their homes, unless they take what was, of course, a very experimental therapeutic, do you think that that was moral?
[1:21:48] Yeah, I mean, I don't think that was moral.
[1:21:54] Okay, so if the gain-of-function produced COVID-19, and COVID-19 produced an immoral rollout of the vaccine, then it was deeply wrong, wasn't it?
[1:22:07] The gain-of-function incident that the lab leaked the virus was wrong, yes.
[1:22:17] Well, but that led to the vaccine.
[1:22:18] Your analogy would be like Oppenheimer created the nuclear bomb, and because he created the nuclear bomb, if a country uses nukes on another country, then Oppenheimer is to blame.
[1:22:36] No, I don't need an analogy when we're making a rational argument. So if gain of function led to COVID-19, and if COVID-19, which we know led to the vaccine, and you consider the vaccine and COVID-19 to be immoral, then that would be bad, right?
[1:22:53] I would consider the vaccine mandates and the restriction of movement, not the vaccine itself, bad. But yeah, overall, from the start to beginning, the whole thing, I would say, was catastrophic.
[1:23:07] Okay. So if you had something, and I don't know whether this is true or not, because I'm certainly not an epidemiologist or a doctor or anything like that or any kind of specialist, but I've certainly seen people, and I don't know if they're right or wrong, saying it's one of the biggest catastrophes that's ever happened in public health, over the history of the species. But let's just take that as a possibility. So if gain of function and the compulsory nature in many ways of the vaccine were deeply immoral, then would you say that people who were pro-gain of function beforehand, particularly people who had a lot of money and authority and so on, people who either funded it or were very pro-gain of function, do they share some moral guilt in the resulting disasters?
[1:23:56] So I think there's a disconnect between gain of function and the specific incident that happened in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, where the virus was leaked. That, right, if that had not happened, right, gain of function would not be immoral. Right so according like I don't understand your train of thought because it's like, If gain-of-function in itself without creating a virus that leaks in a controlled setting and potential use cases that are improving people's lives and creating new medicine and combating future diseases and creating cures for future diseases or vaccines is not necessarily a negative thing within itself.
[1:24:55] So no the negative thing is forcing people to pay for that which they don't want voluntarily.
[1:25:02] Uh uh yeah I would agree regarding the the vaccines uh being forced so I think you're.
[1:25:09] Talking about two different things I mean even the funding for gain of gain of function comes from taxpayers who otherwise would not that's why I asked earlier would you voluntarily fund gain of function research right and you said no.
[1:25:22] But I I also wouldn't voluntarily fund weapons research also. You know, I wouldn't fund defensive weapons. You know, I wouldn't voluntarily fund anything.
[1:25:36] Sorry, so you wouldn't ever buy a gun or something which you, a pet a spray?
[1:25:41] A personal item.
[1:25:41] I'm sorry, sorry. Are you just, I'm just trying to finish my question, if that's all right. And I don't know if you're in the States or not, so you could be in a country where it is tougher to get. Okay, so you said you wouldn't buy a defensive weapon or you wouldn't fund a defensive weapon?
[1:25:55] No, a defensive weapon for somebody else. Not a personal defensive weapon, sure.
[1:26:01] Oh, so if you had a son and he couldn't afford a gun but lived in a dodgy neighborhood, you wouldn't buy him a gun? Or give him the money to buy a gun?
[1:26:12] I mean, if I trust it, I'm sure, but your analogy is not the same thing.
[1:26:18] Okay, don't tell me what my analogy is or is not. You said you would not buy a defensive weapon, and I asked you if you would buy a gun. Is a gun classified as a defensive weapon?
[1:26:27] No, I would buy a defensive weapon.
[1:26:29] No, no, you need to answer my question. That's how this works. Is a gun classified as a defensive weapon?
[1:26:36] Yes, and defensive, both.
[1:26:39] Yeah, sure, sure. But I mean, we're talking about defensive weapons. So I just wanted to, I just, I don't know if you're an extreme pacifist. I don't know, right? We're meeting for the first time. So if you say, I wouldn't buy a defensive weapon, I wouldn't fund a defensive weapon. I have to know if you're an extreme pacifist who wouldn't buy any defensive weapon, or if you're talking about something else. That's a reasonable question to ask, isn't it?
[1:27:00] No, because your original assessment was asking me, would I voluntarily support gain of function, right? And I said, well, there's many things I wouldn't voluntarily support and just give my money to, such as something defensive or offensive weapons for somebody else, right? Gain of function does not directly affect me, and I don't see the exact immediate, you know, use, right? Because future research needs to be done, right? So I wouldn't voluntarily, there's many types of technology that are in its early stages that I'm not just going to go and voluntarily fund.
[1:27:44] Sure. And I agree with that. And I don't think you should be forced to fund something. I don't think that guns should be put to your head and you should be forced to fund things. Would you agree with that as a general principle that nobody should be forced to fund things that they don't want to?
[1:27:59] I think that that logic would implement that no taxes should ever be taken from anybody.
[1:28:07] Yes, correct. That is correct.
[1:28:08] So I disagree with that. You know, I am on lower taxes relative, but not no taxes. So yeah, I disagree with your logic.
[1:28:20] Well, it's just a principle. It's not logic. It's a moral principle. It's a moral principle.
[1:28:25] It's not logic.
[1:28:25] It's a moral principle. It's a moral principle that says it is evil to initiate the use of force against others. So it's just a consistent moral principle. I mean, you can break that moral principle because you create this magic label called taxes, but it doesn't change the interaction or the morality of the situation.
[1:28:40] So I disagree with your moral premise that you should never initiate, what was it, violence or the use of force on somebody. I think that there are many reasons to initiate use of force on somebody.
[1:28:55] Okay, go ahead.
[1:28:57] Yeah, like self-defense, right?
[1:28:59] No, no, no, no, come on. That's not the initiation of the use of force. That's a response to the initiation of the use of force. So self-defense is perfectly moral and valid under the non-aggression principle. So we're talking about going up and belting someone with a baseball bat, not using force in self-defense.
[1:29:16] Okay, so you agree self-defense? Yep. Now, okay, so then I also think compliance for somebody stealing, for example. If somebody's stealing, right, use of force is warranted against them.
[1:29:37] Yes, but that is in response to a criminal action. So you can use force, but that's not initiating the use of force. Initiating is when you initiate the use of force without anybody having committed an evil against you or anything like that. So it's when you just walk up like some guy, he just walks down the street, he grabs some woman and he rapes her, right? So that's the initiation of the use of force. So yeah, I completely agree that you can use force to defend your person, you can use force to defend your property, but that's not the initiation of the use of force is when there's no crime that's been committed against you and you go and belt someone or kill them or rape them or steal from them, that's the initiation of the use of force.
[1:30:18] Yeah, but you said the initiation of the use of force in regard to taxes, right? That was the original part. And so, for example, if somebody's taking all the resources, every single resource, right, all the oil, all the copper.
[1:30:35] Sorry, I don't know what you mean. What do you mean taking? I don't understand.
[1:30:38] If somebody's collecting all, you know.
[1:30:41] What do you mean by collecting? i don't do you mean they're going to a gas station and they're stealing gas well that's theft no whether.
[1:30:46] Yeah yeah correct.
[1:30:47] So you would stop them.
[1:30:48] Yeah well no okay they're even they're even mining the copper from the ground right well.
[1:30:54] Okay hang on hang on hang on you can't just make these statements and then just go on like we're completely in agreement well.
[1:31:00] But i haven't finished.
[1:31:01] No no but no but if i don't understand at the beginning of your thought there's no point me continuing listening because i don't understand the beginning, so are you saying because i've actually done prospecting and gold panning i don't know if you know how it works but you have to establish a legal claim to the property before you start creating a mine and you do that by you first of all you stake around it and then you you register it and so on right so somebody can't just go and create a copper mine in your backyard or my backyard because they'd be trespassing and it would be illegal so well no hang on hang on i've got it i'm not just talking to you i've got to explain it to the audience as well right so if somebody has gone and staked out the claim and they've got a legal right to the land and they go and they pass the environmental audit to whatever they need to do, they're not stealing, right? If they create a copper mine.
[1:31:51] Yes. But the issue is, is there any legality and enforcement if there's no taxes? So your hypothetical doesn't make sense because there's no taxes.
[1:32:07] Okay, don't tell me what does and doesn't make sense just because you don't understand something. I've been working in this field for over 40 years. This is probably the first time that you've had, I mean, the arrogance is pretty wild, right? So this, I mean, it doesn't mean that I'm right. I'm just saying that I've written entire books on these subjects. I'm an expert, a world-renowned expert on the field of voluntary economics. So when you just tell me that my argument doesn't make any sense, it's pretty arrogant, right?
[1:32:35] It doesn't make any sense to me how about.
[1:32:37] Okay it doesn't make any sense to you but that's a very different matter isn't it.
[1:32:40] Uh to me it doesn't make sense i'll just i i'm not sure what you want.
[1:32:47] No no i just but it's if you say your argument doesn't make any sense that's an objective claim if you're saying i don't understand your argument that's a different claim right.
[1:32:57] Everybody's argument makes sense to them.
[1:33:05] Do you not understand the difference between your argument makes no sense and I don't understand your argument?
[1:33:11] Yes, there's a difference.
[1:33:14] Good. Okay, that's all I'm saying. Okay, so what is it that doesn't make sense to you?
[1:33:20] Your basis for this part of the discussion is to say that mining gold, If you apply for an area to mine gold, then that's your area according to the law. But your whole premise is to explain the situation without there being ever taxes. And in your utopian worldview, right, and your principle. And so there's no enforcement of these legalities without taxes.
[1:34:00] How do you know?
[1:34:03] Who would be enforcing it?
[1:34:05] I'm sorry, but how do you know? Are you saying that in the entire history of the world, there's never been any frontiers where people have divvied up land without a taxation system and a government to enforce their property rights? Yes.
[1:34:22] Uh, not that I know of. Do you know everyone?
[1:34:25] Sure, absolutely. I mean, it's in your own country. The wild west, you had settlers who were out there who were divvying up land and creating farms and creating mines and, and panning for gold and so on. Uh, long before there were governments out there, they created reciprocal agreements that were enforced through social ostracism. There's tons and tons of examples of ways in which, I mean, you, you do business all the time. I'm sure you get paid, you pay people, you do all of these things. Have you ever had to run to the government to enforce your property rights? Have you ever tried using the courts to enforce your property rights? Yeah. Okay, give me, if you don't mind, give me an example of when you've used a court to enforce your property rights.
[1:35:07] I sued somebody for stealing.
[1:35:10] Okay, so you sued somebody for stealing. Did you use small claims or regular court?
[1:35:14] Yes, small claims.
[1:35:15] Okay, right. So that's exactly how it works, right? So the way that it worked, I've got a whole presentation on this called the Wild West.
[1:35:23] Somebody paid the judge.
[1:35:24] I'm sorry?
[1:35:26] Somebody paid the judge in small claims.
[1:35:29] I don't know what you mean.
[1:35:31] Somebody paid the judge in small claims. So what I'm saying regarding taxes is to have any type of small claims or the whole system of small claims court would not exist without taxes and where I'm at in the United States.
[1:35:49] Um, well, so when the government has a monopoly on something, it is certainly true that it would not exist in that form if the government didn't have a monopoly on it for sure. But there are many ways in which people resolve their disputes without going to the government. And there are times when the government has been paralyzed or the government is not there at a particular, particularly in sort of, as people expanded to the West in America, where people were able to, resolve disputes without having to rely on the government. And they had their own charters, they had enforcement arms that everyone voluntarily paid into because they were the most efficient. And it works perfectly well without the government. In fact, if you ever try something that's not small claims court, like if you ever went to the government for a legal case to try and enforce something complicated, you would find that it's actually a very bad system. It's a very bad way to get your rights enforced as a whole. And of course, they could be taken away at any time. You know, another thing that I dislike about Bill Gates was that he was a huge fan of truly tyrannical lockdowns. And it's not like, you know, some guy in a diner saying, I like lockdowns. I mean, he's Bill Gates. He's got the ears of politicians and business leaders all over the place, right?
[1:37:07] So yeah, gold rush claims, people are pointing out California gold rush claims were resolved amongst minors before California achieved a statehood. And so, yeah, there's tons of ways in which people can resolve disputes without having to rely on the state. And a small claims court is relatively effective, but it's also very capped, $1,000, $2,000. If you have any larger claims to pursue, I mean, I just did this whole thing at the beginning of the show where Jeffrey Epstein got a sweetheart deal, I assume because of corruption within the legal system. So there's big problems with corruption within the legal system. Everything that is a monopoly becomes inefficient and gets politicized. You need competing systems to make sure that, efficiency serves the population. And most people who say the government can help you resolve conflicts have never used the government to try to resolve conflicts in any substantial way. And, you know, but small claims court, oh, yeah, oh, absolutely. Those things exist. There were prior to governments in Ireland and prior to governments in England, there were lots of ways in which tribes sat down and resolve things. You know, the government itself runs on corruption, right? Runs on lobbying and I'll give you money if you give me benefits. And none of those contracts are even written down or can be enforced, but they work pretty well.
[1:38:25] And so, yeah, there's tons of ways in which you can get your issues resolved in a far more efficient and cost-effective manner through using private arbitration than using, you know, incredibly clogged, slow, ridiculously expensive, and somewhat arbitrary government courts.
[1:38:44] But that's assuming that people voluntarily want to work with you, right? When people don't want to voluntarily work with you and don't want to take accountability, the government is there.
[1:38:55] Sorry, when people don't want to work with you and don't want to take accountability, I'm not sure what you mean.
[1:39:01] Yeah, if two people want to voluntarily have a dispute, if they have a dispute and they want to settle it, then that's fine. But in society, if, for example, somebody damages my stuff, right, and I go to their house and I say, hey, you damaged my stuff, please pay, there's no way of enforcing that on my end, right?
[1:39:26] You mean without a government?
[1:39:29] Without a government, it can escalate.
[1:39:32] Sorry, why would you say that there's no way to enforce it without the government?
[1:39:36] With the caveat of without me escalating the situation past just monetary issues.
[1:39:45] I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
[1:39:47] So if somebody, let's say, comes over, damages my plants in the front of my house, and I think they're worth $2,000. I just spent $2,000. They damaged all my plants. And I know that there are three houses down and I go over and I say, hey, I need you to pay for those plants you damaged. They're $2,000. Please give me the money. And they say no, right? What's the next step without government, right? It would only, that escalation of, like you said, force, or I'm not sure the exact phrase you used, there's not really anything to do with, Without the government, and that's not a good society to live in.
[1:40:39] Okay, so let's play this out. So let's say that your neighbor, you've got him on film, for some reason he just went over and ripped up all of your plants, whatever, right? So what do you do with the government? You sue him, is that right?
[1:40:53] Yes.
[1:40:54] And that would be probably more than small claims court, right?
[1:40:59] No, $2,000, but yeah. Yeah, I mean, if you want, you can increase the scenario, that's fine.
[1:41:04] Okay, so let's make it $10,000, right?
[1:41:06] Okay, sure.
[1:41:07] So somebody does $10,000 worth of damage, and you have to go to a full lawsuit because they won't pay, right?
[1:41:16] Yes.
[1:41:16] Okay, how long will that take on average, and how much will it cost?
[1:41:21] It depends. I mean, if you have enough evidence and everything, I think it's like, I'm not sure, $20-something to file. And if you feel confident and you don't need a lawyer.
[1:41:36] Well, sorry, it has to be something that he would fight. If you have pure evidence, right? So it has to be something slightly ambiguous because if you have pure evidence, it'll probably pay up, right?
[1:41:47] Well, that's the beauty of the court, right? So without a court, then even if you have pure evidence, what can you do?
[1:41:56] Well, I mean, you would have, in civil law, it is the preponderance of evidence, right? In criminal, it's 98, 95% plus. It's the overwhelming proof beyond reasonable doubt. In civil lawsuits, it tends to be the preponderance evidence more likely than not, 51% versus 49%.
[1:42:14] Yeah, in the United States, but yeah.
[1:42:16] We'll talk about the US.
[1:42:19] And if there's no government, what is the next step?
[1:42:22] Hang on, hang on, hang on. We're not going to that yet. We're just trying to figure this out, right? So if you go to the, um, so we're looking at, uh, so filing and service one to four weeks, hearing and trial 20 to 70 days after filing judgment and enforcement, zero to 60 days post hearing total resolution, uh, one to one to six months. If you are in a big city, um, it's, uh, slower, significantly slower, and if there are appeals, you add one to three months. So it could be four to nine months, to deal with that, if that makes sense.
[1:43:12] Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, four to nine months.
[1:43:14] Okay. Do you think that's efficient?
[1:43:19] I think it's efficient in comparison to a lack of government.
[1:43:28] Do you think it is as efficient as it could be?
[1:43:31] No, I think same day could be the most efficient.
[1:43:40] Okay. So how do you think that, how much do you think, sorry, let me, I'm just getting some stuff here. And also, sorry, go ahead.
[1:43:55] Just a side thing. Once, once there's a verdict, the government also would be needed to enforce it. So that's another thing.
[1:44:04] It's pretty hard to get enforcement I just think about the OJ thing but it's pretty hard to get enforcement without you know it's just not that easy if that makes sense.
[1:44:18] No but, sure I'll go with your premise it's not efficient it's not easy it's not ideal yes we'll go.
[1:44:27] With your premise, let me just see here I'm just looking at the cost I mean I've known a few people who've tried to take the legal route and it's pretty brutal, I mean every single one of them has regretted it I'm just pointing it out I mean small claims is a different matter because that tends to be it's not jury it's judgment write-up there's not usually discovery and things like that.
[1:44:50] Well I know many people have been in a car accident right and the damage to their health exceeded 10,000 and they were able to claim their damages and successfully Yes.
[1:45:04] But that can be dicey, right? So if you are trying to do 10,000, if you're trying to get 10,000 back, it's $1,000 to $5,000 with attorneys.
[1:45:23] Yeah, that's the fee. I mean, that's 5,000 seems very high to me.
[1:45:30] I'm just giving you the Grok estimate here. So I, you know, that certainly is the high end for sure.
[1:45:35] Okay, sure. Yes. And yeah, you're using somebody's labor and they're voluntarily, you know, willing to accept that for their labor. And I think that's fine too.
[1:45:48] Right. Okay. All right. And so the way that it would work in a free society is that everybody, like a stateless society, everybody knows that there's going to be disputes and everybody knows that there are going to be people who can't resolve their own disputes, right? I don't know what you mean by utopia. It's kind of a negative term, but it is recognizing that people are corruptible, people can be mean, they can be selfish, and they don't always do the right thing when it comes to resolving disputes. So somebody might, you know, drive a car into the side of your house, cost $10,000 worth of damage and tell you to F off if you ask him for the money, right? So we are in an intractable situation where people cannot resolve their own disputes, right? Do we agree that that's a reasonable scenario, that people aren't going to be able to resolve their own, they're going to need a third party, right?
[1:46:38] Yes.
[1:46:38] Okay, so in the free market, when there is a demand for a fee, sorry, when there's a demand for a good or service that people desperately need, is it generally fulfilled?
[1:46:51] Yeah, for the most part, not always, especially when it comes to the tragedy of the commons.
[1:46:57] Well, but the government is the most subject to the tragedy of the commons than anything else, right? because the government is literally the commons. So if people pillaging that which is not owned by anyone in particular, well, the treasury is not owned by anyone in particular, and the government has no, you almost get no repercussions for overspending. So the government is the most subject to the tragedy of the commons than anything else in society. So we can't quote the tragedy of the commons as the reason for the government because it's the most subject to that problem.
[1:47:23] I disagree. I think that there's many resources, physical resources, that can be taken by individuals, and there comes the tragedy of the commons. And so, yeah, I disagree. I think both can attribute individuals or groups or governments. But, yeah, I disagree that it's not just exclusively or more likely to be from the government.
[1:47:52] Don't reframe what I said. That's rude.
[1:47:54] I don't think it's a bigger issue from the government than it is people.
[1:48:00] From the government? The government is people. What do you mean?
[1:48:05] So, or individuals or groups of people.
[1:48:07] So you're saying that people tend to pillage that which is not privately owned?
[1:48:17] Correct, or what is privately owned can be pillaged also.
[1:48:23] No, no, the tragedy of the commons refers to things that are not privately owned. It's literally the commons, right?
[1:48:31] Well, no, because for example, if somebody pollutes into a river, right, or pollutes into the air, that's their own private property that they're polluting. but it affects other people.
[1:48:48] The tragedy of the commons, just for those of you who don't know, the tragedy of the commons is an economic situation where you have a bunch of farmers who have their own land. They've got a bunch of sheep, say, and then there's a bunch of unowned land, let's just say, in the middle. Nobody owns it for whatever reason. Then people, the farmers have a great desire to have all of their sheep graze on the unowned land rather than on their own lands because it's a way to get the sheep free food. I've summarized it somewhere and then it all ends up stripped bare. Does that sort of make sense? Is that roughly in accordance with how you view the tragedy of the commons?
[1:49:22] Yes, but it can also be environmental where they never leave their property.
[1:49:27] Let's just deal with the tragedy of the commons as it is commonly described because we can't run off in every direction at once, right?
[1:49:34] I think commonly it's described in an environmental term, but sure. I mean, I'll go with there's a lot of overlap between them. So I'll go with your understanding.
[1:49:43] Okay, we can deal with the environmental stuff in a sec. Okay, so is the government privately owned?
[1:49:50] Is the government privately owned? Is that what you asked? Cut out for a sec, my bad. The government is not ideally privately owned, no.
[1:49:59] Okay, so the government is not privately owned. Therefore, the government is, in this analogy, the commons, right? In other words, people would rather get the government to pay for things than to pay for it themselves, right?
[1:50:12] Yeah, I mean, that would make sense, yeah.
[1:50:14] Okay, so the tragedy of the commons affects the government the most because the government is the largest and most powerful financial institution that has the ability to create currency by typing whatever it wants into its own bank account. And everyone pillages from the government, which is why there's a national debt and why there are unfunded liabilities that are 10 to 15 to 20 times larger than the entire U.S. Economy and why children are born into well over a million dollars of debt and tens of millions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. That's why I'm saying that the government is the most subject to the tragedy of the commons because it's the most powerful entity that can create money at a whim that is not owned privately by anyone.
[1:50:52] So I would say that the government is, yes, I agree with you when it comes to debt and regarding currency, yes.
[1:51:04] Okay, so corporations don't have the capacity to take out endless loans and treasuries and T-bills on your behalf, right? I mean, they can issue their own stocks, but they can't put you into debt. The government can put you into debt for its own current spending, right? I mean, you and I were both born into massive amounts of debt that are impossible to pay off.
[1:51:28] I wouldn't categorize it impossible. You say it's impossible, but...
[1:51:33] Okay, what are the unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government? In other words, things that they have promised to pay that they do not have the money to pay?
[1:51:42] The national debt?
[1:51:46] No, no, unfunded liabilities.
[1:51:47] Well, unfunded liabilities has a lot of assumptions. That's like saying somebody estimating how long people will live and future incomes and growth. So I think that, you know, calculations on that.
[1:52:04] I get it. It's imprecise. It's imperfect. But what are they in general economic terms?
[1:52:08] I would say $200 trillion, $150 trillion. something around there.
[1:52:13] Okay, I think it's around $200 trillion, right? And what is the U.S. GDP?
[1:52:20] Currently, as it sits, I think, if I'm not mistaken, like 29, are you talking about per year? 29 trillion, maybe 30, I'm not sure.
[1:52:29] Is it that high? I mean, it's been a while since I've, last time I looked at it, it was sort of 15 to 18. But what is the U.S. GDP? It's been a while and it changes the U.S. And of course, the U.S. GDP brings a whole bunch of stuff in, which I would not consider to be very productive to the economy, like healthcare and so on. But let's see here. It's just chugging away here. It's funny how AI seems slow, right? Because, of course, it's much faster than anything else. You could be right. I'm sure you're right. But let's see here.
[1:53:03] No, I could be wrong. I could be wrong.
[1:53:05] Yeah, 30 trillion. Okay.
[1:53:07] Okay. So I was close.
[1:53:09] Yeah, yeah.
[1:53:09] I think I said 29 or 30.
[1:53:12] Okay, so that's the gross domestic product, which, of course, is the amount of goods and services produced across the entire economy, right? Not all of which, of course, would be available. So we have unfunded liabilities, not counting the national debt. That is, ironically, if you're a believer in the devil, 6.666 repeating times the size of the entire U.S. economy, right?
[1:53:38] A lot of assumptions there. We're going to have a whole discussion on that. I don't think that that's...
[1:53:46] No, but it's big.
[1:53:49] Unfunded, yeah.
[1:53:51] Have you seen over the course of your life the national debt and the deficit go up or down?
[1:54:04] Or the deficit has gone up and down for sure up and down? The deficit is is not the same thing as debt no, yeah so I mean the deficit's been I think about equal under Bill Clinton I think for a couple years I could be wrong on that but yeah I mean I've seen it in general, yeah the deficit is there yes and I don't know, I think it just depends on the year. Some years it's more than others, depends on the administration, but yes, the debt has been increasing.
[1:54:43] Okay, and it has been increasing exponentially.
[1:54:49] To what exponential power? Like to the power of two per year? No, I'm not sure. I think I wouldn't say exponentially, no.
[1:55:00] Okay, but the debt has been accelerating.
[1:55:03] The debt, yeah, depends on the year, but yes, yeah. For the most part, it's been increasing. I wouldn't say accelerating. I'm not trying to be nitpicky. I'm just trying to be honest with you, but yeah.
[1:55:14] You don't think that it accelerated under COVID?
[1:55:18] I think it increased. I wouldn't say accelerated because if you look at the same rate, like the national debt added maybe $4 or $5 trillion, and then it didn't add $4 or $5 trillion twice more. So, yeah, I wouldn't.
[1:55:35] Do you think that the debt and the unfunded liabilities will be paid off?
[1:55:41] Yes, yeah. Well, not entirely, not entirely. And I hope never to have it completely paid off. I think some debt is good.
[1:55:53] Okay. Do you think that the U.S. will escape the general curse of currency, which is to collapse after two to 250 years, which has happened? The only exception is the British pound, which has been 400 years, but it's lost 98% of its value. So do you think that the U.S. is going to escape every other currency throughout human history that collapses between two and 250 years after its founding? Oh, it'd be 275.
[1:56:17] Yeah, for sure. I believe in the U.S., yeah.
[1:56:20] Why?
[1:56:21] Well, the U.S. is, you know, this is the modern world. We're the oldest, you know, constitutional democracy in the world standing. You know, we have the same constitution, you know, since 1789. And, you know, we're very powerful. We have the strongest military.
[1:56:45] Yeah, all that was true of the Roman Empire, as you know. So why is it different?
[1:56:48] Well, I think that we have checks and balances.
[1:56:52] So did the Roman Empire. Go on.
[1:56:54] And democracy, right?
[1:56:56] So did the Roman Empire. Go on.
[1:56:57] And we have better technology than the Roman Empire.
[1:57:02] Yes, but the Roman Empire had better technology than the rest of the world. So just regarding annual... Sorry, go ahead.
[1:57:08] No, but I don't see... I think that the U.S. Dollar is strong right now. If you look at it compared to other currencies, the reserve currency of the world, You know, the SWIFT banking system uses the U.S. dollar. I think that the U.S. dollar loses its value of about two, three percent per year. And I think that's actually a great thing because it causes people to not hold on to their dollar and cause issues like deflation.
[1:57:39] Okay, but let's not talk the generalities. How specifically is the U.S. Debt gonna be paid off? Are taxes gonna go up? Or is spending going to go down?
[1:57:49] Well, I think you didn't consider growth, right? So there's that third option, which is growth.
[1:57:54] No, but the U.S. has been having growth, and all that's happened is that the debt has increased. So growth doesn't, you can't grow your way out of debt. Because I'm looking at these, hang on, I'm looking at these numbers in terms of annual debt increases, right? And 2010, I assume that these are all normalized. 1.6 trillion, 2011, 1.2, 2012, 1.2. And when we start to get around the pandemic, 1.2 2019, the pandemic, 4.2 trillion. 2021, 1.4, 2022, 2.5, 2023, 2.2. It's going nuts. I mean, honestly, it's going nuts. And you know, was it 40 cents of the dollar now is just servicing debt. And so the economy, of course, the US economy has grown over the course of my lifetime, but the debt has only increased. It hasn't grown its way out of debt because when the economy goes up, the government has more money to use its collateral to buy and spend and buy votes and have its military adventures all over the world and so on. So can you at least understand that it's a credible position to say the debt cannot be paid off and it's going to go the same way as every other single major civilization in human history.
[1:59:15] Not to be too nitpicky, but you said impossible. I disagree. And I actually think it's probable that it's going to be paid off. I think that there's a lot of technology we haven't thought about and don't even know about. And I think that the future is going to be able to pay that off.
[1:59:35] Okay. So hang on, hang on. Let's go back in time to when I was a kid in the 1970s. So we're talking 50 years ago, right? So in the 1970s, Was there a huge amount of technology coming down the pipe that didn't exist yet?
[1:59:54] Yes.
[1:59:54] Okay. And was that technology used to pay off the debt or have the debt and unfunded liabilities gone way up since then?
[2:00:02] Well, from the 50s to the 70s, right? Or whatever.
[2:00:06] No, no, just answer my question, then we'll get to yours, right? Because we can't just both have monologues or it's not a conversation, right? So in the 1970s, pre-computers, pre-internet, at least pre any kind of business or household computers in any regular way. So in the 1970s in America, was there a lot of technology and amazing technological developments still to come over the next 50 years?
[2:00:29] Yeah.
[2:00:30] Okay. And did that work or serve to pay off the debt or did the debt and unfunded liabilities massively increase?
[2:00:38] They increased. I wouldn't say massively, but yeah, increased. Yes.
[2:00:41] Pretty massive.
[2:00:42] Okay. It's all relative, but yes, they've increased. I'm not denying anything you're saying.
[2:00:48] Okay, so you understand that there's a reasonable case to be made that the debt won't be paid off.
[2:00:53] I think there's a reasonable case that it will be.
[2:00:56] Well, you haven't made it yet because you said, well, there'll be new technology, but this is why I went back to the 70s. There's new technology since the 70s and the debt still hasn't been paid off. In fact, it's only worse now.
[2:01:06] Yeah. So in general, right, the debt is $38 trillion. The GDP is $30 trillion. People take loans against their house which is five, ten times, their income and they're able to pay it off and so I think that the amount of debt we're talking about is significant but it's not, doom and what you're referring to is the total, what is it future And funded liabilities. Yeah, I think it's referred to as the fiscal gap, if I'm not mistaken. And yeah, I just disagree with the concept because liabilities can be taken away and they're not concrete, right? The debt is concrete unless you fall.
[2:02:02] Sorry, liabilities can be taken away, but a lot of the U.S. government spending is mandated. It's not subject to change.
[2:02:08] No but for example if they raised the social security I'm not suggesting this to a higher amount then, that your fiscal gap let's just call it all the you know liabilities we'll call it fiscal gap make it easier the fiscal gap would decrease so you know, Just these calculations that people try to make, like $200 trillion or whatever it is, are not, it's just speculation. And yeah, I'm overall not worried. I think the future is right.
[2:02:43] No, but you don't, I mean, you have magic, right? Honestly, I don't mean to denigrate your position, but historically the debt has done nothing but increase. And the unfunded liabilities are way up, and a lot of it is mandated spending that the Congress would have an almost impossible time trying to overturn. And you're saying, well, no, no, no, we can pay it off, even though the debt's getting worse and worse and worse. We can pay it off because of the magic of technology, but magic is not an answer. Like, the magic doesn't, like, we've already had magical technology relative to the 1970s. The debt's only gone up.
[2:03:15] It's not magic technology. You know, like, for example, if in the future, they're able to cure, I don't know, cancer, for example, right?
[2:03:28] I'm sorry, say again?
[2:03:30] In the future, if we're able to cure cancer, right, the unfunded liabilities would go down significantly.
[2:03:36] Oh, no, no, no, not at all. Are you kidding?
[2:03:38] Yes.
[2:03:39] No, not at all. Why would they go down?
[2:03:43] Because you wouldn't have to treat people for cancer, right? Cancer's...
[2:03:47] No, but come on, man. You know economics. What's the other side of that coin?
[2:03:52] Oh, the upside is that people... The downside you meant?
[2:03:56] Okay, I get that you'd save money by not having to treat people with cancer if you had a cure, but what's the other side of that?
[2:04:03] Well, the other side is that people would live longer and be more productive, but also have more medical expenses in the future, which is, I understand if that's the point you're trying to get at, but...
[2:04:17] It's not the point I'm trying to get at, it's a fact that if you cure cancer, people will still die of other things. I mean, heart disease is number one, cancer is usually number two. People will still die of other things, which they'll need a lot more treatment for, but of course, people would live a lot longer, which means, because cancer tends to hit the elderly, right? So people would live a lot longer, and therefore you'd have much more to pay out in terms of old-age pensions and healthcare costs and housing costs and social security and all that kind of stuff.
[2:04:43] But those people could be more productive. A good example, you mentioned something about Ozempic. I don't know, you made an analogy. Like Ozempic, right? That causes people to be more productive if they're not overweight and less healthcare costs associated to them. So that also messes with the numbers of the fiscal gap. So, I mean, everything...
[2:05:06] You mean if we put the old people back to work?
[2:05:09] Yeah, or people who are too obese back to work and they're able to...
[2:05:15] No, no, we're talking cancer. Cancer generally hits the old. It certainly does hit the young, but in general, it's an old person's illness.
[2:05:20] You know, I'm a cancer survivor. I'm fine, but I'm young. But yes, in general, many cancers do hit old people. Some don't.
[2:05:28] Some are specific childhood cancers. You're relying on not math or historical examples or the general trends of history. you're saying magic will happen.
[2:05:39] Not magic.
[2:05:40] It is magic. Saying we're going to cure cancer and that's going to solve the US debt problem is magic. It's magical thinking.
[2:05:46] I'm talking about growth and also...
[2:05:49] But the growth has been happening, bro. You can't just say the growth has been happening from the beginning of the republic to now and the debt has only gone up. So growth does not cause people to pay off debt. Growth causes people to borrow more. That's the historical example that works across history, across the world. And throughout the entire history of America, particularly the post-war period, growth causes debt to go up.
[2:06:14] No, because the Industrial Revolution, right, when it happened in the United States, we gained new technologies. Our debt did not.
[2:06:24] Okay, let's just say post-Second World War has the amazing growth in the economy caused the debt to go down or go up.
[2:06:32] Um i don't think the uh growth has caused i think it was just um bad spending habits well.
[2:06:42] Of course it's bad spending habits but are they consistent yeah.
[2:06:46] Are they correlated? Is that what you're saying?
[2:06:50] No, no.
[2:06:50] Okay.
[2:06:51] Honestly, I really can't go. I don't think you're arguably good faith. I think you're just holding on to a position here. Because I mean, everybody, like I'm just looking at the chat here, like, come on, this is just ridiculous. The idea that there's going to be a magic intervention or some magic technology that's going to solve the US debt, it's not true. Anything could happen for sure. I mean, somebody might not save for their retirement and they might reach down and pick up a winning lottery ticket from the ground. Yeah, yeah, but that's not how you plan things in the world. It's not how you plan things in society. So throughout the entire history of the world, societies have grown and collapsed. And that's the government. That's the state. The state is the most subject to the problem of the commons. States commit war. States.
[2:07:38] Create massive debt enslavement to the population as a whole. And I asked AI to put it in terms of a household, the US debt, right?
[2:07:56] And basically, it's a family earning 83,000, but has 1.05 million in total debt.
[2:08:04] They cannot, they cannot pay it off. Now you can say, oh, well, but no magic is going to happen or something's going to happen that can't possibly be predicted that it's going to pay things off. That's not reasoning. That's just crossing your fingers because we have, we have massive, no, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not going to entertain this. Like, I'm just not, I'm sorry. Like I've just done this for too long to entertain this kind of silliness. I'm sorry. I really am because I was hoping to have a better conversation, but I've been kind of patient, right? And I've said, okay, well, look, we've had all of this amazing new technology over the last 50 years. The debt has only gone up. And you say, no, no, no, but new technology is going to cause the debt to go down. Like, it's just not, it's not how it is. It's not how reasonable people look at history and understand these things. So once you get a government at the center of society, you get corruption, you get debt, you get vote buying, you get the absolute misallocation of funds, you get debts, unfunded liabilities, you get governments that prefer foreigners over their own citizens. You end up with socialism. You end up with a dependent underclass based on the welfare state because it's all coerced. You end up with horrible weapons that are often used against the domestic population. And because you can't figure out how someone can repair your hedge, we have to deal with all that shit. Because you can't say, ah, okay, so if somebody does some damage to my house, is there any way that I could find a way to resolve these situations or to resolve these conflicts in the world.
[2:09:26] Is there any way that this could possibly be solved? No. Therefore, we have to have this giant government that indoctrinates everyone, that throws everyone into debt, that menaces its local population because the American government can be quite dangerous towards its domestic population. And certainly, well, I'm willing to spend the lives of half a million fucking Iraqis because of an invasion in 2003 because I can't figure out how to get my neighbor to pay for a hedge he damaged. Like, that's just lunatic, bro. And listen, I understand this is like you're new to these ideas and arguments, and I get all of that, and I really do sympathize. Sorry, I can't, because you're not debating in good faith here, so I'm going to not continue that.
[2:10:09] I'm trying to be patient, but this is all just ridiculous stuff.
[2:10:12] So the very brief answer is that, and this is why I asked earlier, when there is a demand from people, is there a...
[2:10:22] Is there entrepreneurs who will try and find a way to provide that good or that service? And the answer, of course, is yes. So everyone knows that there's going to be people you're going to have disagreements with who aren't going to be reasonable, who aren't going to fix your hedges or fix the dent in your car or whatever it is. So everyone knows that. And so entrepreneurs will come up with a huge number of different ways of trying to have these issues be solved. And the best way to do it, the cheapest way to do it is through economic ostracism. So there would be, I imagine, I've got a whole book. You should read them in sequence. One is called Everyday Anarchy, talking about how anarchy works in our lives as a whole. The other one is called Practical Anarchy, about how we would deal with things like courts and prisons and national defense. There's tons and tons of answers and arguments. And really, it's, you know, to people who want to talk about this stuff. Like if I don't know something about a topic, I tend not to be certain of it, right? So I don't know much about quantum mechanics. So if somebody has got 40 years experience in quantum mechanics, I'm not just going to say to them, well, your idea makes no sense. I'm going to, you know.
[2:11:31] Try to be humble. I'm going to try to listen. You know, I've had tons, I've interviewed hundreds and hundreds of experts over the course of this show. And when they're experts, I try to listen and I'll ask them questions and so on, but I don't lecture them that they don't make any sense because I'm not an arrogant guy that way. And it is just arrogance. If you don't know stateless solutions to state-ist problems, then that's fine. You should just say, oh, I don't know the answer to this rather than there is no answer to this. That's just ignorant. And really it's picnic or it's lazy and it's indoctrinated. And I'm sorry to be harsh, but it just is.
[2:12:04] So if you've said, look, I've read Hoppy, I've read Rothbard, I've read Molyneux, I've read Kinsella, I've read, you know,
[2:12:12] the people who are really great and the machinery of freedom.
[2:12:15] And I've read David Friedman and like people, some of whom I've actually had on the show. If you've read those arguments about how society can provide goods and services without a state, And you've got, you know, good rebuttals, fantastic, right? But if you haven't read that stuff, you really shouldn't say it doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, you can say it, but you're just coming from a place of ignorance. And look, the fact that I or other people have made these arguments doesn't mean that the arguments are true and valid and all of that, but you need to be aware of the arguments. It is really a shameful thing to do. And I'll be straight up about this. It is a shameful thing to do intellectually to just say, well, it can't be done and it's impossible and so on. And magic is not an answer. Magic, oh, there'll be magic technology that will have us pay off the debt. It's like we've already had. We've had over the last 50 years in the West, more magic technology than the rest of human history all put together. And everywhere, everywhere, the debt and deficits and unfunded liabilities are going up and up and up.
[2:13:22] And of course, as you know, or as I'm sure you know, innovation is slowing down. So the idea that they're, oh, it's okay, we're going to pay this all off. But he needed to say that because if he said, I have doubts about the debt being paid off, then he'd have to say, well, maybe there's a better system. But I am not going to surrender the world to war, lies, indoctrination, bullshit, invasions, debt, and unfunded liabilities in financial enslavement because bro here can't figure out how to get his neighbor to pay for his hedge. This is really what it comes down to.
[2:13:58] And there are solutions. I call them dispute resolution organizations. People have a need for a third party to help resolve their disputes. And the free market will provide it. The free market will provide it because it's an absolutely essential human requirement. And the free market will provide it in a way that is more efficient, more user-friendly, and more just, more honorable, more moral than this government monopoly on force that's been the entire standard and default position for all of human history, just as slavery was, just as slavery was. I mean, yes, we don't know. Of course, nobody knows exactly how society is going to look when we finally achieve genuine human freedom. We don't know, but so what? It's the initiation of the use of forces immoral. Don't blame me, blame logic and morality.
[2:14:49] In the same way, we didn't know how society was going to look down to the last detail when we ended slavery. It was just wrong. So saying, well, I don't know, the slaves pick all of the cotton. How's cotton going to be picked in the absence of slavery? It's like, I don't know, but it's wrong. So asking for these kinds, I mean, I think it's interesting to theorize about these answers, but it fundamentally is a moral question. So, you know, it's been a while since I've talked to a turbo normie regarding these issues. And listen, I mean, I enjoyed the debate. I enjoyed the conversation, but I just, I cannot accept that there's just this magic thing called growth, that is going to solve all of these problems when all of the growth that has been extraordinary over the past 50 years have only made these problems worse. So there is no way in which it's just going to suddenly reverse. And of course, you know, graduate degree in history, I've studied a lot of this stuff in the past, got entire presentations on the Roman empire and other historical things. It is just the way that it is. And human beings cannot.
[2:15:51] Human beings cannot handle power. And of course, if you say, well, excuse me, people can't resolve their issues amongst themselves and third parties can't resolve their issues because human beings are so corrupt and selfish. It's like, okay, well, then if human beings are so corrupt and selfish, we can't give them the awesome and infinite power of government. So, all right. Thanks, everyone. Have a great, great evening. We will talk to you Sunday. I might go a little bit early because I have something to do later in the day. So I think we'll do 10 a.m. on Sunday, if that's right with you guys. I really appreciate that. Have yourself a lovely, lovely evening. Freedomain.com/donate to help out the show. Really would appreciate it. And if you subscribe, you get tons of goodies. You've heard them before. Take care, my friends. Lots of love. Bye-bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
