 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. Come everybody, the Iran Brookshow. We're having some great weather here, although it's raining right now. In Puerto Rico, I just got back from dinner at a restaurant. Really nice restaurant, things slowly coming back to normal. It's really nice to see beaches are open. They've got umbrellas out and chairs. For a while, beaches were open, but you went to a lot of sit-in and a chair. Now they've got the chairs out, they've got the umbrellas out. Everything is really coming back to normal. So, you know, postpone my return to California a little bit because I think she was too nice. But I will be spending July and August, most of July and August in California. But for now, I'm still here in Puerto Rico. All right, today... Okay, tomorrow we've got a show, same time. I think it's also going to be at 8 p.m. in the evening. Tomorrow I'll definitely go to the beach. So today I didn't, but tomorrow we'll definitely go to the beach. Jim's not open in Santa Clara. Well, I hope, but I hear Orange County where I'm heading, the gyms are open. So I'm counting on that. So I'm going to do my high intensity, super slow, which I can do in Puerto Rico. But I can do in Orange County. So I'm looking forward to that, to doing that once or twice a week. And because I hear my gym is opening in Orange County. All right, today we're going to talk about two topics somewhat. Well, we'll see how bit related they are. But our first topic will be the rule of law, you know, seeing people pulling down monuments and rioting and violence in chairs and just everything else going on. The craziness and insanity that's going on. I thought it would be a good time to remind us of what the rule of law is, why it's important, why it is the basis for a civilized country. And how us losing it, you know, has real significance. And it seems we're clearly abandoning the rule of law. And then I want to talk about, I was on Twitter and I saw Brett Weinstein was on Joe Rogan. And Brett has this proposal for an independent party, an independent candidate to run against Trump and Biden. And I just thought the whole approach was interesting and different. And there's certain things that are certainly attractive about what he says. But then there's a certain emptiness to the whole thing as well. We will, I want to talk about that. I'll show you the video of Brett Weinstein on Joe Rogan. And we'll try to analyze what is being said. So, all right, so let's talk about the rule of law. And it's abandonment, I think. Abandonment, not so much of a way you live. It's who is violating the law, you know, under what the context is, what the pretence is, who it is, how important they are, anyhow where it is might count, but it's across the board. Well, you know, I want to talk about it not just in a sense of chairs or monuments and stuff like that, but also the president, previous presidents, Supreme Court rulings, insider trading for politicians. You know, there's a lot of this. This is not isolated. What you see in the streets is the most visual part of it, but there is a breakdown. And has been a breakdown for a while now in the application of the law and what it means to live under the rule of law. And you can see it, if you listen to my show about the Federal Reserve the other night, you can see it in the Federal Reserve's actions, which are, you know, what law exactly applies to that, by what standard are they doing anything that they're doing. Clearly, again, a breakdown in the rule of law. So, yeah, there is a sense in which some of these writing and so on is just one aspect of a much broader phenomena that we are experiencing in the culture today and experiencing it at multiple levels. And I think a lot of people focus on the thing that's most evident and most visual. But in some regards, that is the least important. It's the things behind us that are so much more, so much more important. So why is the rule of law important, right? And what does it mean, the rule of law? Does the rule of law mean the rule of laws? So first the rule of law is to separate from the rule of man, right? The idea of the rule of law is that there are certain objective, knowable, predictable laws out there that one can live by, that they're not dependent on the arbitrary whim of a ruler, a dictator, authoritarian, a judge, a policeman, whoever, whoever has a gun, whoever has power. So the whole idea is to subordinate society to objectivity, to objective laws, rather than to subject society to, subjugate society to the rule of human beings, the rule of people, the rule of a system. And the idea of the rule of law is that the laws are not just arbitrary, they're not just whatever, but they're guided by particular principles, that there is a reason for them, justified not in arbitrary whim, justified not in the whim of any one person or in the whim of many people, in the whim of the majority. The idea of the rule of law is that the laws are there to achieve a certain purpose, really a certain moral purpose. Law should be grounded in morality, you don't legislate morality, but laws have to be grounded in a certain view of morality. And in the case of America, in the case of a free country, those laws should be grounded on the idea that your life belongs to you, in order to live your life you must attain property which belongs to you and the laws are really there to protect you, your rights, your right to your life, your right to your property, your right to liberty, your right to act based on your own judgment, based on your own reason, in pursuit of the values that are necessary for your happiness. So laws are supposed to be in the American legal system, at least the way I see it, I'm not sure many people in the legal system see it this way, laws are supposed to be grounded in the protection of individual rights. The justification is or should be the protection of individual rights, property rights, rights to liberty, right to your life. Laws are not objective when they violate those rights, when the consequence of the majority imposing itself on the minority, and we know Ein Rand always said the smallest minority on earth is the individual, so when the majority imposes themselves on the individual, when the majority violates the rights of the individual, that is not objective law, that is not the rule of law, that is the negation of the rule of law. So law should be grounded, must be grounded in morality, in must apply to all. We have equality before the law, all of us have rights. All of us have the right to life, liberty, property in the pursuit of happiness. And the law must apply to all of us equally, the same. In must be protecting our rights equally and the same. And finally these laws must be knowable, predictable, objective. Objective both in the predictability and nobility, but also in the fact that they are grounded on something real, on the protection of rights. Now, to some extent, you know, America has always failed in this regard, or for much of its history has failed. Starting with slavery, Jim Crow laws obviously were not grounded on the protection of individual rights and were not applied equally to everyone, laws that discriminated, or laws that don't constitute the rule of law, the anti-the rule of law, the negation of the rule of law, because the negation for the purpose of law, which is the protection of rights. And remember that this idea of the rule of law, this idea of individual rights, even when it's not fully understood, even when it's practicing consistently as it was in America, but even in places like Europe and elsewhere where it was certainly practiced inconsistently and to a large extent not even known, it was implicit, it wasn't explicit, there wasn't, the theory of individual rights did not motivate the legal agenda in Europe the way it did early on in the United States with a declaration and a constitution. European countries did not have that kind of constitution that was centered around this concept of individual rights, but implicit because the modern world in which we live is a world based on enlightenment ideas, based on enlightenment philosophy, based on enlightenment political theory, even when they don't know it, even among people who don't recognize that who are not aware of it, who didn't do it consciously, the actual reality is that our system, our modern system, even system in places like Japan or in parts of Asia that are relatively free politically, they're based on ideas of enlightenment, they are based on ideas of individual rights whether they know it or not, and almost all these systems have some protections for the individual against the majority, have some protections of those rights, not consistent, not systematic, certainly not as good as they have been at their best protected in the United States, but what dominates the free world of these enlightenment ideas and the enlightenment ideas of the sanctity of the individual and the enlightenment political idea that the world of the state is to protect the rights of that individual, to leave them free, to pursue his own happiness, to pursue his own life, to pursue his own values, to pursue property and to protect that pursuit from physical coercion. I mean that is the foundational base of all countries that today call themselves democracies because none of them are absolute democracies in a sense that the majority can vote on anything, all of them have some principles by which limit the power of the majority. So they're all inconsistent applications of the will of law, they're all inconsistent applications of the idea of individual rights, but it's still the foundation for all of them. Now what separates this modern era from previous eras? What makes, what's obvious about this era as compared to previous eras the last 200, 250 years is that we live in a civilized place. We live in a civilized world. We live in relative safety. We live in places where, for the most part, again with exceptions, right, we had communism and we had fascism, which were the exception, but for the most part, we live in places where you can mostly do what you want to do, say what you want to say, live your life according to your values, people don't intervene, people don't interrupt and generally the police are there to protect you and to put away criminals, put them in jail. And the difference between living in such a civilized environment where the laws are predictable, you know what's going to happen, you're not at the whim of the majority or the dictator, you're not at the whim of the people in power and the mobs don't control the streets and the criminals don't run things so that you can live life, not perfectly because we know the rule of law in the West is not being perfect, we have compromised on it forever. Vanda, thank you, that's very generous. But for the most part, we have lived in a world in which the rules were no objective, predictable and applied equally before the law with some exceptions around Jim Crow laws and other things, but even that is somewhat behind us, although now we have other things like affirmative action, imperfectly as it is. We've managed to build businesses, create wealth, own homes, live relatively safe lives, safe from violence. We can walk in the streets, drive around. It's civilized. And a lot of what civilized means is this peace. We're not fighting in the streets and we don't have to arm ourselves to the teeth in order to protect our property and we're not constantly in fear of our own government or gangs or for the most part of the police themselves. But that is a thin line between civilization and barbarity. It's only 300 years ago where this did not exist anywhere. I mean, there were better places and worse places, there were better kings and worse kings, but generally it was a king and you were susceptible to his whim and the whim of those that he controlled and the whim of those who controlled him depending on the place and the time. And before that it was roving gangs and little towns and the church and just barbarity everywhere and violence and a threat to everything and there was no preserving and maintaining your property without being armed to the teeth and wealth was associated with buying firepower and buying protection. That's what you use your wealth for. There's nothing much to buy with wealth in those days. The rule of law is what allows us to live a civilized life. It allows us to live in safety, not fear of our lives and our property constantly. So it's something to monitor. It's something to be aware of. It's something that's important to make sure we don't lose. So when you see people smashing storefronts, rioting in the streets and the police doing nothing, there is real reason to be concerned. When you see people knocking down monuments, look, I am a proponent of getting rid of monuments to the Confederacy. I don't believe there should be monuments to General Lee in public spaces. I'm not big on public spaces to begin with, but if we have them, we shouldn't be celebrating. The Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, these are the most anti-American people. These are people that committed treason and sedition. These are people who fought against the legitimate government of the United States of America. And these are people who did it in the name not of freedom, but in the name of slavery and in the name maintaining other human beings as their property. And yeah, I would like to see every one of those statues toppled by the authorities, by the people who own the property, not by mobs, not by gangs, who then cannot differentiate between Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Davis, between Lee and between George Washington. It's a mob mentality. Thinking is not strong in a mob. History is not strong in a mob. Violence, fear, anger, destruction. That is what mobs are for. And this is property. And you think it's public property, so it's no big deal, but once you abandon public property like that, then they're gonna come after your property. They're gonna come after private property, and they have, right? The riots smashed private property, and nobody seems to carry them. So I'm all for the monuments coming down, all of them. The names of the forts being changed. The fact that secession was considered okay back then, which I am very dubious of, sounds like rewriting of history, doesn't matter. These are bad people. Evil people, evil people who maintained the right to cede in order to secede to maintain slavery. Secession is only valid if you're succeeding to increase freedom. It's never valid if you're succeeding in order to reduce freedom. So these are the enemies of the United States of America, the enemies of the Declaration of Independence. The enemies of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the enemies of the equality of man. Quality before the law, quality of rights. And finally, we got to the point in American history where we were gonna apply the idea of rule of law, equality before the law, and these people objected. These people rejected the Declaration of Independence, and if you read the intellectuals of the South during this period, they were anti-American, anti-declaration, anti-constitution, anti-founding fathers. They were influenced heavily by German philosophy. They were Hegelians. They were really bad folks. So monuments to them. Now put them in a museum where you explain how evil and bad they really are. Alex, wow. That is very, very generous. Thank you. A lot of really generous contributions on Super Chat tonight. Just terrific. Thank you all for supporting me. A good chance to stop and say, you know, you can support me in a variety of ways. Super Chat is one way, very much appreciated. You can also do it monthly on Patreon or subscribestar.com or on my website through PayPal, youronbrookshow.com slash supports and also on locals. Locals use Stripe. So you can do it Stripe, PayPal, credit card, you know, and of course Super Chat. So thank you all. So monuments should go. But there was a way to get rid of them. Petition, demonstrate, write letters to your congressman or state senators, state congressmen, get them to do their job. You know, I talked about chas, chop, chas, whatever the hell they want to call it. Which is a six block area in Seattle that has been taken over by the modern equivalents of the hippies. And those of you who think the hippies were all about love and no violence and you know, you guys don't know what you're talking about. Some of love in the 1960s was not exactly free of violence. You can't have anarchy without violence. You cannot have no rule of law and no violence. Violence comes right in with it. And I think we got the first casualty in the chas area in Seattle and somebody wounded. And I don't know what the police are doing. I haven't tracked it today to see if they're going in and doing anything about it. But I mean, this is a complete breakdown of the rule of law. The police are standing by and they're letting this just mayhem happen. They've given up their precinct. They've walked away. So if you're an armed hippie with a sign saying black lives matter and you seem to care about black lives matter and you're protesting police brutality supposedly everything is okay. You can get away with anything. Nobody is going to stop you. The law doesn't apply to you anymore. You can do whatever you want in chas. This is still the United States of America. And the fact that the police will not go in there. The fact that the mayor of Seattle thinks this is cool. I mean again, I don't think the federal government needs to go in there but I hope the citizens of Seattle learn from this and vote these bastards out. Because this is another little break in civilization. Riots. Monuments being ripped down. Autonomous zones being created that are patrolled by armed men. By the way I'm not a big fan of the fact that in Michigan when they were protesting the lockdowns armed men appeared in the state house and walked into the state house with arms. That too is a form of the breakdown of the rule of law. That is threatening. That is the equivalent of insurrection. Nobody was calling for the federal troops to go in to Michigan state house to get rid of them. There's something about when it is appropriate to carry a gun and when it is not. If you're going demonstrating into a state house with an armed gun, you're basically declaring that you're in a revolution. I mean the whole lockdowns. How about the half of rule of law? Let's get to the big violations of the rule of law by government. How in lockdowns part of the rule of law? How are lockdowns on the scale and the scope that they will practice? Not massive violations of the rule of law. By not authority. By what authority? The state government is shut down a whole state and prohibit you from exiting your home. Or prohibit you from walking along the street or from going into a park. By what authority? By what legal theory? Can they lock you at home when you have no disease, you're not a risk to anybody as far as they know? Aren't you presumed innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't that have to be some reasonable doubt? Sorry, some reasonable cause before they suspect you and maybe lock you up for a while? But no. They can pass whatever the law they want. They can do whatever they want if they can lock us down. Like they did during this pandemic. They can just lock everybody down. Every county, every town, every city, every village, what can't they do? What can't they do? I'm not sure there's ever been anything more outrageous than these lockdowns. I mean obviously slavery. But at least in the last 30, 40 years what's been more outrageous than the government basically telling tens of millions of Americans you cannot leave your home. And one of the stunning things about it is that Americans just complied. They didn't resist. I mean I don't want to talk about resisting with guns. I'm just saying no. We can't go out. Leave us alone. Arrest us. Or even complaining. Writing letters to editor. And will they vote these bastards out? About lockdowns, yeah. So lockdowns will of law. But there's more than that. The police violence in and of itself. The police abuses. Where prosecution is selective. Where you know, police unions get their police sometimes off the hook. New show, new chat. I don't know how we got a new show there. Still on the same thing. Anyway. I don't know how YouTube does that. But okay. And police persecution is also above and beyond that. It is also the same thing. Think about this guy in Atlanta. This policeman in Atlanta that's being prosecuted. Would he be charged for murder if not for the riots, the demonstrations? Is he being selectively chosen to be prosecuted because there is an uproar right now? So by the way, if you ask the super chat question I copied and pasted it. I should have all the super chat questions. So don't want it. I have the super chat questions. So I again, I don't have a strong opinion about whether he should be prosecuted or not. But you get a sense that the only reason or the primary reason they're prosecuting is because of the uproar. A policeman somewhere else does something similar or does it to a white person and he won't get prosecuted. See get no equality before the law. The Federal Reserve. I talked about the Federal Reserve a couple of nights ago. I mean where are they getting their authority from? Authority down. Completely destroy our financial markets. To buy whatever assets they want. And every week they do something different. Every financial crisis they announce new programs that they pluck out of the air. They have at this point unlimited authority. There's no limitation. There's no idea of the rule of law. There's no idea of legal limitations, legal limitations. There's no idea of individual rights. There's no idea of the proper rule. They're just whatever. Whatever they think will work. Whatever they think will achieve their goal. And it's getting worse and worse and worse. The Fed never used to be like this. Never used to be like this. And even the federal government which is we redistributing our wealth and regulating and controlling you know forever. Definitely it's definitely worse. They can print money as much as they want. They can redistribute as much as they want. Laws don't have to stand up to any particular scrutiny. If the Supreme Court doesn't like a particular law then they knock it down. If they like it they make up law in order to justify it. Remember Roberts calling the you know the Obamacare mandate attacks and therefore it's okay. It's constitutional. I mean they can make out of us they go. There's no standard. There's no rule of law. I mean it's not clear this ruling on DACA where they made any sense. I support it in a sense that I think it's good to not have to take these kids and throw them out of the country. But is this the right way to do it? Was that really objective? What they ruled? How they ruled it? Standards they used? I mean I don't know. I'm not an illegal expert but it strikes me that I at least have lost all respect for the Supreme Court of being guided by principle. By a principle of rights. By principle of the Constitution. There is no Constitution. They make it up literally as they go along. They apply what they want, when they want it, how they want it. And then you look at politicians. And this goes back a long time but the selective way in which they apply the law. To whom they want, how they want it, when they want it. I mean, Trump probably worse than anybody. But look at Obama. Obama was terrible. The IRS scandal which I've talked about before. Just one among many or how they use the FISA courts, secret courts. In the United States of America we have secret courts. So you could be, somebody could be listening into your phone calls. Somebody could be tapping your lines. Not by getting a proper warrant in front of an open court. By a regular judge. No. But by some secret court that you can have a question. That you can have a challenge. Clear Bridge thinks Obama was the worst. No, I think Trump is worse than Obama. Taking a one step further. Because Trump does it openly. He just doesn't care about the law. But FISA courts which are under Bush, invented under Bush used and will be used for political reasons, political motivations, I believe for every one of our presidents moving forward. So I really think we are under precipice. By the way, one of the examples of a lack of law is when the Supreme Court says that it's basing its standard for making a decision based on what it thinks that a majority of Americans want. Democracy, pure democracy, unlimited majority democracy is anti the rule of law. Because it divorces law from any principle. And of course what characterizes the kind of state in which we are living in today is no principle. No principle. And therefore no nobility, no predictability, no objectivity. And this is how civilizations die. This is how we descend into authoritarianism and barbarism. It's when you lose respect for the courts and the police which all of us have to some extent. When the powers to be can do pretty much whatever they want. You know, I've got one of my examples inside of trading. You know, the senators who got a briefing about COVID from the intelligence agencies didn't make the briefing public, didn't let the rest of us know. I don't know what's going on with bandwidth today. Didn't let the rest of us know what was going on with COVID. But they traded on the information. They made money off of it. So the rest of us are supposed to live by the rule of law, but not them. Yeah, bandwidth is struggling. Didn't know what's going on. That's what happened before I think, too. I think it's my internet access is struggling here. Usually I have well over 100, 200 megabytes per second. And right now it's struggling. It's struggling. Alright. Well, hopefully it'll come back. It seems to be going in and out and that's the impact. But I hope it's not affecting sound. Can you guys get the sound? Or if I lost you again. Now is when I want you to chat and you stay silent. Alright. Alright. Nobody's hacking me, don't worry. I doubt that anybody thinks I'm a big enough threat to be hacked. Are you guys are we on? Sound is good. Picture comes in and out. Alright. It looks like we're okay. So these are things to watch for. These are things to be aware because civilization is too precious to just walk away from it. We need to be aware and concerned about unlimited majority rule about real democracy. We need to be concerned and aware about unequal application of the law. We need to be concerned and aware when police stand back as people clearly commit violence and the police do nothing about it. These are warning signs of the beginning of the end. Hopefully just a phase we're going through and there'll be a rebound. But how are we going to get a rebound? When the two presidential candidates in 2020 are Donald Trump and Joe Biden where is the savior? Where is somebody even marginally sane who can help us over the hump that we're in right now help this country find its bearing, return us to a more civilized civilized state. Not these two. It truly is a tragedy that this is the choice we face in November. And on that note I want to begin Brett Weinstein. So Brett Weinstein was in Joe Rogan. Let's find Joe Rogan. Here we are. There we go. You can see Joe Rogan. And so he had some things to say about the choice we've got. Joe Jorgensen is the Libertarian candidate. She's not going to win. She's not going to get a lot of votes at all because America doesn't want a Libertarian. America's not Libertarian today. I just want a little bit of sanity. Forget free markets. Just a little bit of sanity. Just a little respect for the founders. A little respect for the rule of law. But and Joe Jorgensen is too radical for America today. And she's part of a Libertarian party that is completely in dispute. Completely in dispute. So she has no chance and the party cannot win. So let's let's look at Brett Weinstein. He's got some proposals. He put my headphones on. He's got a proposal on how to give us more choices when it comes to November. The Joe Rogan experience. Right. How did we get here? It's 2020. We are facing a global pandemic which incidentally I do want to talk to you about. We are facing a global pandemic. We are facing rioting in the streets. It's a movement that's showing signs of a Maoist challenge to the most fundamental aspects of the West. Maoist challenge which is great. I mean Maoist challenge in a sense of complete rejection of individual rights and communism. Kind of a kind of complete control over our lives. It's good to see somebody like Brett Weinstein recognize that that is what is being asked for that is where we are. Right. And we are going to have to choose between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Perfect. I love the way he says that. And he's so right because it is so disgusting that that is the choice. 21st century in America we're facing all these challenges and what do we get? We get Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Unbelievable. Right. Neither one of these people is capable of or inclined towards the kind of leadership that you have just described we would need. Absolutely. Absolutely. Great. And I don't know what leadership Rogan mentioned. I mean Rogan was going to vote for Bernie Sanders so Rogan is questionable on all of this to begin with but there is no capacity for leadership anyway in either political party right now. So that means at the very least if we do not divert our course if November comes and we are choosing between those two then that means we're putting off any solution at least four years because the president would be essential to changing our course. I think that's right I think you need at this point leadership you need a voice you need somebody to articulate some ideas articulate a vision and I was going to do a show on leadership today maybe we'll do it next week but you need leadership and right now Donald Trump is not a leader to be a leader you have to have principle you cannot be a fly by night shoot from the hip whatever you feel like whatever whatever your whims are just change day by day and cannot for the constitution of the rule of law in this country which is what Donald Trump is and Joe Biden is just he's just incompetent can barely get two sentences out neither one of these are going to inspire which is what leaders must do neither one of these can motivate which is what leaders must do neither one of these have an agenda which that's what leadership is about it's about bringing to reality an agenda, vision a goal and neither one of them has this they're truly truly incompetent I can't think of two more incompetent individuals to be running for president of the united states of America we're not talking about some third-rate banana republic somewhere right and this is just built into these parties now right Obama I can't figure out why it's the case I really like Obama personally he seems like the right guy to me but his administration at a policy level was indistinguishable from Bush in some ways it was worse so what we've got is parties that decide what we get to choose from and the game is to prevent us from having any choice that could possibly solve the problem so we have to fix that we have to address that problem and we have to break their stranglehold and you know in fairness Trump was a challenge to that two-party duopoly he's not really a republican but he's also not really an alternative but he is a republican now because the republican party has basically shifted itself to become trump he wasn't a republican the republican party wasn't trump but today today he is the republican party and the republican party is him that is where they are so it would be a completely different world today if the republican party had actually rebelled against trump if the existing republican party actually had presented a nominee to go after trump but they can't because what is it 90% of republicans support trump of registered republicans support trump he is one of the most one of the most respected or admired or supported republican presidents by republicans ever they love him he is the republican party today he's not an outsider anymore third crime family you've got the republicans, the democrats and now the trumps they sort of co-opted their ideology to fit his needs yeah but it's not a solution so we have to get that solution which means we have to get by the parties trump proved that was possible I think if there was ever a time where an independent party has a chance, now is the time if someone steps in and has a real solution and also in terms of the distribution of that information, now is the time I agree with that, I think now is the time because I think we're back here we go someone was a person with a substance that we really believed in we said that person can really do this, this actually could happen let's vote independent it could happen they don't have a monopoly on the distribution of information anymore and that's terrifying to them because they used to be able to count on the shills on the left and the right to get the word out for them but they don't have that anymore you have so many people that really don't have an ideological foundation and either one of them that are talking and they're reaching millions of people that's a rare moment in time and this is in my opinion the very best time for someone to step in that's not compliant they don't have to give it, they don't need that policy machine behind them or the political machine behind them well I've got a plan but we'd have to find a really big podcast I think to get enough momentum there's none of those out there though so Brett's going to propose his plan so let's just analyze his plan alright, you want to hear the plan? the rock and Jocker Willink get them together let's put that to the side it's not part of the plan but it actually could fit so here's the plan this plan needs a better name but the working title is the dark horse duo plan and the plan looks like this we draft two individuals we find two people one of them is center left and one of them is center right so two individuals who have no principles and no plan because they're just in the center center left and center right they're going to agree on what on more violations of rights and they're not going to be crazy granted but what are they going to agree on exactly and what are we going to get what are the principles they're going to guide them what is the leadership that they're going to project leadership towards what I think electing Trump is the worst of all worlds and these people have to have certain characteristics a minimum set they have to be patriotic they have to be courageous and they have to be highly capable but that's it center left and center right and we pair them together with the following plan that they will govern as a team that is to say every important decision will be discussed and they will decide what to do as a team and only in cases where they cannot reach agreement or where there's something has to be whenever something has to be decided on a very short time scale like a military decision does the person who inhabits the role of the president govern alone we draft these folks and then four years down the road they switch and the one who had run for president now runs for the vice presidential spot and the one who was vice president now runs for president and they continue this way until one of two things happens either we vote someone else in or one of them has inhabited the office of president twice and is no longer eligible and then that person has to be replaced so we have a patriotic team governing together from center left and center right when you say drafted that's the problem like someone has to be motivated to ruin their fucking lives to try to run this country because that's what happens to everybody that does it so here's the problem you have two respectable people one from the center right and one from the center left now I would vote for any duo pretty much that Brett Weinstein is going to propose because they're better than the people running right now they're going to do less damage than the nutty people today in the republican and democratic party but this isn't a solution this is just a way to buy some time and look I'm for buying time because I don't think there is a solution other than buying time at this point so I'm all for this plan I'm even for the people he's got he's going to nominate in a minute the actual people to do it I would vote for them in a heartbeat over the options we have today the problem I see is that Brett is putting way too much hope in this because he thinks the solutions are somewhere in the middle and yet the solutions somebody says online this is great this is the path of least destruction I love that that's perfect yeah it's the path of least destruction because the solutions are not in the middle the solutions are radical as they always are they're so radical they mean a return to the founding fathers they mean a return to the founding documents of this country they mean a return to the founding principles of this country it means a return to the rule of law in this country and I just don't think two people from the center can do that they can't because they don't believe in it they have no concept of it so I'm great with this plan as long as it's understood as the path of least destruction not a path to liberation not a path to freedom but a path to buying us time and anything that can prevent us from electing Donald Trump or Joe Biden buys us time because I think both Trump and Biden are accelerating us towards disaster they're accelerating us towards authoritarianism they're accelerating us accelerating us towards the end of this country Brett is not a principal thinker and see this is the thing that he's not advocating any principles and he's not a principal thinker he doesn't believe in real principles in politics everybody out there almost everybody out there is a pragmatist now Trump is a committed pragmatist in a way and committed to emotion and committed to his narcissism in a way that nobody else is but everybody is a pragmatist not like Joe Biden as a philosophy or guiding principal he's a pragmatist I mean Bernie Sanders is closer to having principal Brett in his politics is a complete pragmatist and both of them are Brett Hall mentions that both Weinstein's are kind of philosophy king types and yes they are they're smart intellectuals who think they have all the answers well they think they have all the answers to some things but they don't really and they don't have any principles to guide their answers they're wishy washy they're pragmatists when it comes to politics they don't have principles they just think that because they are smarter than everybody else their pragmatism would actually work and other pragmatists and other people's won't but there's no principal behind their views but then that's an obstacle you're spelling out an obstacle that I would argue is solvable that we know these people that's the plan so far we can talk about what problems it solves as much as you want you're welcome to have it it's probably a good idea but here's my proposal so the plan could be right and my proposal for who we draft could be wrong and I'm happy to see other people swapped in but my proposal would be Admiral William McRaven on the right you know who that is? he is a navy seal former navy seal he was until 2018 the chancellor of the university of Texas he is a very cogent center right republican so I don't know anything about this general although he sounds like an admirable guy he was special operations leader on many many many important missions from capturing Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden to many many other things I mean he is clearly one of the great you know military men of his generation he was the chancellor of the university of Texas so he's run a big organization he is now kind of a leadership management consulting type and probably a good guy I don't know what his politics are to say that he's center right I don't even know what that means no it's not the guy with the eye patch so it's you know I don't know anything about his politics so it sounds like a decent guy I probably vote for him over anybody in the field right now but I can't comment I tried to look him up a little bit couldn't find much on his politics so I have no real views but he sounds like a decent human being which is can't say about the common crop of candidates he was the lead on the Bin Laden raid and he is I think universally respected by people who know him I've never heard anybody say negative things about him on the center left let me see this gentleman I'm going to look at his face yeah you're going to know oh yeah I have seen that guy before I like it he was like a president to me yeah he looks like a president to me too you know who else looks like a president to me Andrew Yang I like what you're saying now good I'm not sure what they see in Andrew Yang I mean he seems like a nice guy he's kind of mellow but he doesn't look presidential he doesn't sound presidential he's not particularly motivating he's not particularly he's a geek his ideas you know as a central planner there's another philosopher king I guess he fits the Brett Weinstein model because he is he's really smart and he thinks he can run our lives like Brett and his brother do but I don't think he can win he couldn't even win the democratic nomination why would you take a loser why would you take a loser and run a loser my point those two guys together is that Cameron yes Admiral your country needs you it really does there's an appeal it's time to sacrifice some more never more than now and I know that the job of president is a sucky one I'm sure the job of vice presidents even worse but please consider this plan because the republic is in jeopardy now we already know that Andrew Yang is up for the job because he ran for office you know faced appallingly stupid obstacles my opinion may be the reason that he's not the nominee so here we got two people one of them I think will do so out of duty the other is crazy enough to want the job in the first place and what are they well they're both patriots they're both courageous and they're both highly capable alright well I know I think that's enough if you want to watch the rest you can go watch it on Joe Rogan I think the point here is that there's no proposal here other than let's get some people who are relatively sane now I would vote for Andrew Yang over Biden and over Trump in a heartbeat I don't think he could get half of his proposal passed because most of them are nutty and he'd get stuck in a congress that was fighting against each other and I like the Navy Seal Navy Seal guy, the Admiral I guess or the General sounds like an interesting choice and yeah that's great but what is the goal other than sanity now sanity is a good goal I'm not going to slam sanity sanity is better than insanity and what we have today is insanity and what we're looking at in this election is insanity so I'll take sanity but let's be honest this isn't a solution this is again a philosopher smart people who he thinks can run things well but they know there's no principle what is the principle that can save America what is the principle that can lead us out of this darkness what is the principle by which we solve the problems that we face what is the principle by which we should legislate or eliminate legislation in the future nobody has a principle Andrew Yang certainly doesn't I mean he's bought into the Luddite's ideas about jobs he's got a weird view of we should pay everybody and you know but at least he's got some ideas I'll give him that he's better than 90% of other politicians because at least he's trying but again no principles and the principle of course is individual rights but they don't know it certainly those guys don't know it certainly Joe Rogan and Brett Weinstein wouldn't know it I mean I would be surprised that Brett Weinstein recognized that there was such a thing as individual rights alright so somebody's asking who would you draft a team that could actually win you know I don't know it's a hard one I think Nikki Haley could win I would support Nikki Haley again I don't think she's a individual rights loving principled capitalist but she at least lip service to capitalism said some really good things about Fran Posse when she was at the UN and has won a state as being a governor can do the job and is respectable and seems like a straight shooter who else would I draft I don't know there are probably some senators that say I mean many of them are too religious for my liking but at least they're human beings somebody like Ben Sasse I think from Kansas too religious but some decent views on other stuff and seems like a good human being somebody mentioned Ben Shapiro Ben Shapiro and Amy Klobuchar I like that I like that or Nikki Haley and Amy Klobuchar women and Nikki Haley is not even quote white Senator Rick Scott which one's Rick Scott which states he from so I think you've got people I think you've got better people out there can they win I don't know they probably cannot win their party nomination that's part of the problem yeah Nikki Haley is way too friendly with Trump unfortunately and she's figured out that at some point there was a rumor that he was going to dump Pence and make her his VP and set her up for the next election so I think she's played nice oh Rick Scotty used to be the former governor of Florida I don't know maybe he wouldn't be harmful probably just a center right middle of the road Peter Schiff can't win somebody said they wanted a realistic Peter Schiff can't win he ran for the Senate he couldn't win his nomination he's not going to win we're looking at people who could win not people who would be our ideal candidate I mean I think what's his name Justin Amash again I disagree with him on foreign policy and I disagree with him on abortion and certain religious issues but relative to the field yeah but he can't win he's too good a lot of teams out there that are better than what we have and I wish I said this years ago I mean there's a group Ted Cruz is horrible not only is he religious but now he's become a Trump you know complete sell out a complete sell out I used to have a little bit of respect for Ted Cruz I have zero now I don't like Rand Paul is the same way no respect for Rand Paul Crenshaw no respect for Crenshaw anybody who is just licking Trump's boots I was going to say I said any worse than that Mark Cuban is a complete socialist sell out he's an anti-capitalist they did a show on Mark Cuban complete completely horrible Mark Cuban Rand Paul is a complete disappointment Crenshaw is terrible anybody who is an apologist for Donald Trump maybe with the exception of Nikki Haley is out do you have any all time favorite politicians what the founders I'll take any of the founders even the ones who made horrible mistakes like John Adams as president I would take over everybody David French he's an intellectual he's not a politician he's not going to run and he can't win French is mixed he's very religious very religious and intellectually so I get his newsletter by email and on Sundays oh my god he goes into all this religious Catholic stuff founders what's his name Cleveland Grover Cleveland is a great president Coolidge was a good president Coolidge is the best in the 20th century what's his name Cleveland was probably the best in the 19th century but you know Goldwater you asked about politicians not presidents do you have any all time favorite politicians Goldwater was somebody I respected and could vote for right I mean he lost in a landslide lost in a landslide but he was a you wouldn't call him a centrist Republican because he was centrist on social policies he was liberal on social policies and was a about as capitalist as they come on capitalism and I'm hoping that somebody like Nikki Haley can be somewhat of a Goldwater I don't know that you can there's no really anybody in the Republican party today who is a Goldwater like person alright let's go through some of these Super Chat questions and we'll call it tonight Joko was on Rogan we hashed the meme we need to make things again Joe loved it if only you could teach Joko and Joe economic facts to challenge it well I mean we do need to make things again I don't know what we hashed the meme but what does make things mean it doesn't mean we have to bring manufacturing back to the United States that's just silly and as I've said many many times we manufacture things today in the United States then we ever had somebody says Nikki Haley and Tulsi Gabba no no no you can't give Tulsi the presidency even for half a day she's a nut and she's a pacifist she's crazy on foreign policy and Nikki Haley and Tulsi would butt heads on foreign policy oh my god there's no way they could get along together so yeah we don't need to make things but you know we make more things today than we've ever made we didn't lose manufacturing we actually we're only manufacturing the only thing we lost was jobs in manufacturing because computers and robots not because of China right so yes I wish I could go on Joe Rogan and talk to him about ethics about economics about politics about the world about reality it would be phenomenal I mean what an audience he has I mean that would be the biggest thing I've done bigger than bigger than Dave Rubin or Ben Shapiro when I was on Ben Shapiro's show so I don't think the interview and plus he does it for three hours I love I mean I don't like doing shows for three hours because I'm just talking I have to make it up as I go along but to be interviewed for three hours to have a conversation with somebody for three hours with Joe Rogan I mean that would be a treat it would be so much fun and I think I mean I think he's worried about having me on but I think we'd actually have a good time I think we'd have a good time I've emailed him I've again what's his name Dave Rubin has suggested me to be on a show nothing's working he's not doing it it is what it is interviewer asked Jordan Peterson how can he pump the rights of the transgender not to get their feelings hurt why don't rights apply to feelings well because rights apply to freedoms of action rights are freedoms of action rights mean you are free to act in a particular way rights of the recognition that you are free to act in pursuit of your happiness without coercion without somebody forcing themselves on you without an authority telling you what you can and cannot do and that's what rights mean now emotions you have a right to your emotions you have a right to live and then it includes your emotions but you can't be given anything rights don't give you stuff other than the space the freedom to go live so I don't know what you mean by why don't rights apply to feelings rights apply to actions to your freedom to act and that includes your right to act on your emotions as long as you're not interfering with other people's rights it's not the purpose of rights to protect your actions that are based on whim but it's the consequence of rights to have it but hurting somebody's feelings is not hurting is not violating their rights maybe that's what you mean by the question because you're not stopping them from acting you're not the fact that somebody feels hurt doesn't change their ability to act in reality they can overcome their emotions and they can act force physical force on somebody is what rights are protecting you from insult emotional hurt feelings is not what rights are protecting you from because feelings can be overcome they do not stop you from acting and they're subjective that is they're not you know I can see show when I apply force to somebody it's clear when I insult somebody they just saying there's no objective way of determining it but the core is that rights only pertain to actions they do not pertain to a state of mind or a state of emotion you're on shift recently tweeted something about the private sector can do it better in regards to the police he never struck me as someone who didn't understand the role of government thoughts I don't know the dominant school of thought among Libertarians even among the better Libertarians but among Libertarians generally is anarchy many of them don't make a big deal out of it because they don't want to pee a cookie and they want to they want to be respectable so I don't know if Schiff is an anarchist or not but many Libertarians even ones that I respect and admire their economic ideas and their economics are anarchists they just don't make a big deal out of it so I wouldn't be surprised if Schiff was an anarchist which would be sad but I mean it wouldn't surprise me at all it is the dominant approach to you know a dominant approach to politics among certain Libertarians somebody says Schiff is not an anarchist I hope not you never struck me as an anarchist what are you saying about the private sector could do it better right about policing because that's anarchy if you think that's a private sector job but I'd have to ask Schiff I don't want to speculate and there is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism so I don't I try not to use that term an anarchy and capitalism a contradiction in terms anarchy and capitalism cannot live capitalism requires government there is no capitalism without government the right kind of government the government that is there to protect individual rights and nothing else but you have to have government otherwise there is no capitalism so anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms alright hi from Canada used to think of going to US to pursue R&D work in space tech not so much anymore you got me into Atlas Shrug changed my life great that is great for me to hear my goal ultimately is to get you all into Atlas Shrug and to change your life if you haven't had that experience yet finally last super chat question are there Christian undertones overtones to cancel culture yeah there is I mean heresy and these religious overtones cancel culture is very religious there is dogma there is what's acceptable and everybody else gets burned at the stake this is Catholic dogma and Catholic heresy so cancel culture is very Catholic in this sense very Christian in the ancient sense right there is no disagreement there is the word there is the truth and the word and the truth cannot be proved they are the word and the truth because they are and then if you disagree with them you're committing blasphemy or one of them if you're leftist and committing them then you're an apostate and you know they treat apostates worse than they treat people from other religions at least the Muslims do right so that's why the left treats its own leftist worse than they treat me for example or somebody opposes them diametrically opposed somebody says my ability to defend myself is proof anarchy works no it's proof it's the most horrific barbaric conditions and that's what anarchy is it's a horrific barbaric condition in which you can defend yourself until you have to face 10 people or 100 people who blow you out from your home and you can't defend yourself anymore so you can't actually defend yourself not against a mob not against a nuke doing whatever you feel like doing is horrific is horrific you want to murder your neighbor that's doing what you want can be horrific you want to have sex with children that's doing what you want and yet it's horrific so doing what you want is often horrific it depends on what you want so you don't want to but what if your neighbor wants to kill you and they say hey I'm allowed to do what I want and you said it's not horrific so any system has no objective standards no objective legal system no objective principle no rule of law which is how we started this well if you don't have a monopoly over the use of force then all you have is gang warfare you have the mafia, you have the cartels you have gang warfare you have violence in the streets and there's nothing worse than that that is the equivalent of communism and fascism life is as horrific as a situation like that as it is under communism or fascism so no it's anarchy is about as bad as the worst forms of government and they always lead to that what you need is an objective government guided by objective laws based on the principle of individual rights where your neighbor cannot kill you where you if you feel like having sex with children can't because it's against the law and you will go to jail which is where you belong if that's what you act on so no I mean why anarchy always comes up it's because it's such a dominant idea you know among libertarians particularly young libertarians but among libertarians generally and it's so anti-conceptual for every reason it's so anti-morality that it's sad I guess it's sad alright thanks everybody hope you enjoyed it don't forget to share like share like and subscribe we're trying to get to 20,000 just because it's a wrong number and it's a good launching point for 100,000 we're trying to get to 20,000 I think we'll do it in a few weeks the faster the better as always if you know if you know people who should be subscribed who are not please encourage them to subscribe if you encourage your followers to subscribe that's good as well and of course if you want to support the show if you value the show thank you for all the superchatters who supported the show very generous today you can do so on subscribe star on Patreon and of course on your own book show dot com slash support and I'll see you all tomorrow tomorrow we've got a live Q&A with some of my supporters hopefully bandwidth will be better tomorrow talk to you all then bye everybody