 The evils of free market capitalism. Oh you! Shut your mouth and look at my wad! Loads of money! This is a journey into money. Loads of money. It's loads of money. Loads of money is used as a negata. This is an insult to our intelligence. Shut your mouth! Hey probably, I'm all money stock. I can steady swam and put together. Manchester United nil. Loads of money, United loads. But that's a part of the school there. Football. Hey, shit this out! Sorry mate, don't take checks. Ah, just loads of money. Sing a song of sex, but it's a bucket. Inequality, aristocracy, people has made me so to speak. Those people has made me so to speak. The state has made me so to speak. There is more to it than just this. So to speak, monarchy, private property. So to speak, inequality, aristocracy. So to speak, libertarians. So to speak, people. Hello fellas. Aren't you all lucky you've had a video and two live streams all within a month of each other? What have you all done to deserve this? It's not Christmas. Alright, so we all know, we all should know what the deal is. I'm glad everyone was tuning in, singing along to the classic songs right there, especially Hopper, Our Boy. Hello fellas, hello, hello, hello. Glad to see everybody here. How are we all doing? Everyone been to church today? Oh you're fucking absolutely. As soon as I say that boogie-o, just got back from church feeling well, good man. Alright, let's crack on with this, shall we? Let me just figure out my keybinds. No, that's not what, that's the one I want. Alright, keydokes. Alright, so usual order of business fellas. I'm gonna read off the questions in a row from the post that I put up two days ago. And then we're gonna hop over to the chat and just go for as long as normally my voice can last which is around about an hour. So I can see some burning questions in chat already, especially thoughts on twerking. So just hold your horses, see if you can last till the end. And I might be able to answer your questions then if you've already missed your opportunities to submit us a question. So I'm gonna kick off with Riton Balayur. I'm sure I've answered some of your questions before. Can I make you a list of the best Libertarian slash ANCAP projects and experimentations, brackets, FSP, Free Private City Projects, Seasteading Institute, et cetera? You've heard of and tell us which one gives you the most hope for the future. But what I can tell you is that after I did my video on Gospaya, which I'm sure is what inspired this question to be asked, Praxben, if you've got TikTok, so I mean like if you're under the age of 15 and you have a TikTok you might know Praxben. And he's got a huge following over there and he's a very, very good intelligent hoppium and defends anarcho-capitalism a lot of the time. He's also got a YouTube channel and he reached out to me and said he was, he wanted to start a project where himself and other YouTubers after me do their own video just like I did on Gospaya. So let me find the creators that are involved so you can all go check them out. So I'm in a group chat with them all. It is Springtime of Nations, LiquidZulu, MentisWave. Not sure if that, oh well, okay, let me start again. Springtime of Nations, fantastic channel, check them out. LiquidZulu, my boy, check him out. Now, I don't know if this is the channel names or if this is these guys Discord names but the other two people are MentisWave and MRH Legacy. I don't know if I'm supposed to be telling you all this because it is like a collaborative effort. Now I don't know if I've spoiled it. But keep an eye on those channels. I won't tell you, yeah, I'm not gonna tell you what they're gonna be. I don't wanna spoil that, I'll leave the creators to do that themselves. Unless they reach out to me and say, hey, no, please tell people I'm gonna work on this particular community, in which case I'll promote it. But I don't wanna assume that. I don't wanna assume that they want me spoiling all their videos. So, can I make you a list? No, because these other content creators are going to make some videos about it. Which one gives me the most hope for the future? In terms of modern ones ongoing, it's still gotta be the Free State Project, for reasons that I said at the end of Michael Spire video, which, wow, like, the FSP loved that video. Guy whose name I'm not gonna drop again, I don't wanna assume he wants his name given out. Post it on Twitter, tag the FSP. I don't know why I didn't think to do that. And it got retweeted by them. And a bunch of people were very supportive of it. Which is, it's interesting. It turned into more of like an FSP promotional video than just the history lesson of Kostpire. But I wasn't just gonna make a purely history lesson video. I wanna talk about how it applies to the modern day. Where it indicates our focus should be. So, I mean, that's that Free Private Cities run by, is it Titus Gebel? I think I've mentioned it on a couple of live streams before, haven't made a video about it. Don't know too much about it, to be honest. Last I heard they were looking to procure some land in Southern America, South America, Latin America. It might have been Honduras, which made me go like, are you sure, dude? Have you seen the crime stats there? But apparently they've got a lot of stuff sorted out. Stuff sorted. And then C-studying Institute. I don't see C-studying any, ah, get it. I don't see C-studying going very far. It's been attempted and not done a great job. And I don't think there's any reason to imagine it would. It's just too tricky. It's way too tricky compared to this tried method that we already have to build on. So, Rusty Shackleford. So, is that from King of the Hill? Cause I've met lots of based people called Rusty Shackleford on the internet. I'm gonna assume it's a King of the Hill character. If it is, I'll finally get around to watching it because there's some great libertarian quotes I've seen from King of the Hill and never watched it. Asking me, what are the best arguments you've heard against anarchism and capitalism? So I've been asked this before on a previous Q&A. I wish I remembered what my answer is because right now it's hard for me to think of one. And I know I sound like a douche when I say, oh no, my philosophy's got no good arguments against it. But ultimately, if I thought that there were good arguments against it, I probably wouldn't be that. So it's a, I find it a difficult question to try and think about. I suppose the only one could be that it fails. Especially anarch, like, I made it clear in my video that I'm pretty much happy to focus on localism when it comes to anarcho-capitalism. Cause I don't care what the rest of the world is doing. They can cannibalize themselves all they like. As long as I've got a decent community that shares my philosophy, like, Galt's Gulch. Like if you've read Atlas Shrugged, you know about Galt's Gulch. Be happy to just have my own one of those. Don't care about everyone else. So arguments against capitalism. I suppose, so what I've been thinking about a lot is distributism. Now that this is another update I'll get to, I'm becoming Catholic, like proper Roman Catholic. I said in my Journey to Christianity video, I was gonna be Anglo-Catholic, as in part of the Church of England. That's changed. The reasons I didn't want to be Roman Catholic are gone. So anyway, there's a lot of distributism in Catholic communities, and it's, distributism is very varied. A lot of people like to think it's some sort of quasi-socialism. There is a lot of anarchy surrounding previous distributist thoughts. Look up a lady called Dorothy Day, she's currently being considered for sanctification to be recognized as a saint in the Church. She was an anarchist distributist. She was a socialist, and distributism is quite socialist. So the only, I would say again, not a good argument, lots of holes in it, but a moral distributist argument, to say that morally the means of production ought to be distributed widely, not redistributed, that's not necessary. You will find some distributists who do want state intervention and redistribution. But in terms of people like Dorothy Day, an anarchist, you won't. So this is tricky. This is where you get into ideas of moral self-regulation rather than government-imposed regulation. But arguments that there are greater things than just GDP growth that need to be considered, I would say could be the best arguments against capitalism. They don't work because I think a lot of the objections people bring up, such as quality of life and equality, either non-issues or best answered by capitalism still. So there's that. Now Jacob, what's your thoughts on martial arts and have I ever trained in any martial arts? I did Taekwondo when I was a kid, and I believe I was one or maybe a couple belts before black belt. I was a blue belt with a red stripe towards the end, I think. I had a lot of fun with it, but I was a kid. I never did any sparring. Who we got? Blood and Blade Super Shattered $5. What are your thoughts on the greatest thread of our time? The World Economic Forum. All right, I'll finish answering this question and then I'll get to you, Blood on the Blade. So yeah, I did Taekwondo as a kid. What are my thoughts on it? Well, I would like to do Brazilian jiu-jitsu if it wasn't so ridiculously expensive, at least in my city where I am now, which I'm moving from soon, thank fuck. It's crazy expensive. So for now, I'm just, I'm getting a lot into weightlifting and bodybuilding fitness now. Really looking forward to when I can get to a good gym. That's gonna be my physical outlet. Martial arts, I wouldn't say interest me too much, but if I was gonna do one of Brazilian jiu-jitsu or just regular or boxing, but I'm not particularly keen on getting punched in the face, so I think that's why I'd rather just lift weights and try not to drop them on my face. All right, Silver Sword Studio. Oh, sorry, no, I need to read the donation question. What are my thoughts on the greatest thread of our time in the World Economic Forum? You know what? Probably not much that Alex Jones hasn't already said. The best Twitter accounts right now are the ones that are called like Alex Jones was right and just prove all the things he's been right about. The World Economic Forum, man, I didn't even know where to begin. I actually, you will own nothing and you will be happy headasses. I just, I feel like I wouldn't be able to put into words any sort of unique opinion, just like anyone you've ever heard say any shit about World Economic Forum. I totally back, fuck them all. It's very funny. Whereas, no, it's depressing to see things like Coinbase is listed as a partner with the World Economic Forum. It's a fact, man. It just proves it's not your keys, it's not your crypto. Don't put your crypto in a cold wallet. All right, username. What do you think about climate change, deforestation and other environmental issues and how they would be dealt in an archo-capitalist society? I think this would just be the regular externalities argument. If it become, if something is unsustainable, there's no reason to believe a market is going to keep doing it. So if deforestation becomes, if forest and trees become so hard to come by that nobody has them, then it gets expensive. What happens when things get expensive? People start using substitutes. So natural resources are there to be cultivated and used. They can be abused especially when you have the tragedy of the commons. I don't have a specific video on the tragedy of the commons. I've talked about it many times before, though. I'm trying to think what video it might be in. Let me just look at my previous videos from before. I'll see if I can recommend one that I think I talk about it in. I think it's in the video called the biggest lie about libertarians from September the 4th, 2020. Fucking hell, I've been doing this for a while. Otherwise, check out the Mises Institute for issues to do with externalities. One, how do you even measure them? It's a pseudoscience. Tragedy of the commons. I don't particularly have a horse in the race of trying to disprove or prove climate science, as it's called, which is such an obnoxious name. But you can find really good Mises Yu lectures on YouTube from Bob Murphy, taking a lot of the air out of this balloon that we're told is about to pop and bringing up a lot of the economics statistics that we're told about climate change and showing that nearly every time you hear a report in a headline, it's that they've got a huge data set and they've picked the most disastrous estimation from that data set and ran with it as the science, which is settled, which is just, if you know anything about science is a fucking nonsensical phrase. So I don't wanna pretend that I know if it is an issue or isn't an issue. I'm not gonna thump on about it in either way. But I know that markets know how to deal with externalities if they even exist. The only ways externalities can really exist is through government intervention. Pollution is a very, I think Zulu described it on Discord the other day as a baby and cap issue and he's kind of right. If someone has a factory that's producing loads of smoke and soot and this soot starts to damage your land, well then someone else has used their property to damage your property without your permission. So you are entitled to compensation. That's how it'd be dealt with. And in fact, it is the way that it was dealt with in America, up until they built the largest navy in the world and polluted so much and created so much soot that they undid that rule so they could just get away with polluting as much as possible. So thanks, government. All right, Grapsy, we got a new channel member. This boy gives me money now. How cool is that? Asking me, what's my thoughts on Orthodox Christianity? All right, if anyone doesn't know, I have a Discord server that I've called the Ecumenical Council. It's about Christianity. Don't please don't join it if you just wanna talk about politics. And you can find the link for it in the description of my video called My Journey to Christianity. So it's called the Ecumenical Council. If you are Orthodox or Catholic, you probably know what that means. Ecumenical is a word that means like worldwide. And back in the days of the early church before Orthodox and Catholic split, all the councils were called Ecumenical, which meant like all the bishops around the world that were Christian met together and had councils. And so I call myself very Ecumenal, I think is actually the right term, not Ecumenical. Very Ecumenal in my ecclesiology. I truly believe that there is one church founded by Christ and it is the Orthodox and Catholic Church, the one church that existed for 1,054, well, no, not actually, for about 1,000 years until the Great Schism. That's the one church where two halves of the same whole, although not equal halves. I do believe the question of which one has the most authority out of the two, which one is the most, I don't wanna say authentic because it's not like Eastern or Western versions of worship and liturgy are ones better than the other. But in terms of ecclesiology and in most matters of theology, I do believe the Catholic Church comes out on top. But that being said, I think any Catholic or any Orthodox Christian should desire unity in their heart to recognize that we are one church in Schism, we're not two different churches, that we have a lot to overcome to get there first. But I love my Orthodox brethren provided they're not anti-reason. You can find a lot of Orthodox people who believe that philosophy, well, I would say specifically natural theology, but it often does turn into philosophy in general. Think that it is evil and something you shouldn't do. And that just runs into so many problems if you, I would say, do know about philosophy and you understand why being anti-reason is so self-defeating. You have to give reasons to be anti-reason. Like that's not a platitude that shows a contradiction in method. Anyway, I believe there are some issues with the Orthodox Church, all Orthodox people will believe there's some issues with the Catholic Church, so we need to figure that out. But that's what I think about it. What are my views on methods of public transportation like trains and buses? Well, I can only speak from my experience, buses in my city are really good. And while they do have, they don't quite have a total monopoly. There's a bus company named after my city, and I'm not gonna go ahead and dock to myself. That runs most of the buses here, and they're pretty good. There is another company, which shares the same bus stops, and they're pretty good too. They're just not very common. So a lot of the times you'll find with public transport, they're run by private companies but are licensed to the government. If you talk to a lot of English people about politics and economics, you'll hear about how the privatization of the railway system was a complete farce and has fucked it. And it's not even half true. Like, there are lots of private rail companies here. Like, I think Southern Rail is one. London Midland is another one. I'm sure there's a Scottish rail company, but there's a good like, I think six to eight companies that operate train services in the UK, but the government owns all the railway lines. So if these companies want to operate, they've only got one choice, and that's all the lines owned by the government who they rent it from. And there are so many issues with this. If a company doesn't use a railway line because companies shouldn't use things which aren't economically viable, if there are no passengers on a railway line, they will lose that line plus others unless they use that one. So all lines have to be in constant use. So there'll be ghost trains going up and down the country with no passengers in them because even though that's expensive, it's worth more to the company to send out ghost trains than to lose the license for a bunch of lines. And so that's just so wasteful. And it's precisely because, no, the railway lines have not been privatized. Our railway system has not been privatized at all. Quite frankly, it's just the age-old question. Now, the age-old statements, if you privatize it, it's gonna be the most efficient. Like, oh, our trains and buses, I'm really inefficient. Oh, I wonder why that is. Yeah, look at who actually owns them. Look at who actually controls it and owns the underlying infrastructure. That clears up a lot. Okay, Benjamin Wardham. Assuming we don't get rid of the state and still maintain some form of state issued currency or central banking, what is your opinion on the gold standard and do you think we will ever end up backing currency with a decentralized currency like crypto? Well, gold standard for without any question is preferable to fiat. If we never left the gold standard, we would be in such a better position we are now. Thanks fucking Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon. They're screwing us doubly on that. And I say us, given that I'm not American, but no, those guys changed the entire world's financial system of what they did and not for the better. So going back on the gold standard, absolutely. I've heard people saying that Russia has gone back to the gold standard. I imagine that could be quite a big over-exaggeration, but I don't know, I haven't had enough time to look into it. If Russia has actually gone back onto the gold standard, that's extremely based. Speaking of extremely based. Good question. Will prevail or suke? SUCC, it took that as suke. All right. So if Russia truly has gone to the gold standard base, do I think western countries will do it? Not as they are. Not unless like there's some serious fucking total upheaval all across the world. And do you think we'll ever end up backing currency with a decentralized currency like crypto? Well, I assume setter is parable basically, I'll phrase this question as. All other things are mainly equal, so not saying like if I could have my way and have my own sort of communities. No, there will be central banks where they're talking about, they have been talking about for years, making their own cryptos like a sterling, a pound sterling coin, a dollar coin. That solves nothing. It wouldn't be a decentralized ledger, which is what makes crypto crypto. At that point, it's just a digital token. But that's what our money mostly is now anyway. Because it's not backed by anything and the way new money gets created is just putting a bunch of new fucking zeros into the supply and then handing it out to the banks. That will never have central banks being backed up with a decentralized currency. They will have some sort of quasi-crypto, but if it's not decentralized, it's not crypto. What's the question you would have for Walter Block? I don't think I would have one particular question for him. I had a chance to ask him a question in the Q&A and couldn't actually think of one. I think if I was going to question Walter Block, I would want to do a big sit-down and pick apart his brain and ask him about things that he doesn't write too much about. He will make a case that there can sometimes be moral reasons to do illegal things. This is illegal according to libertarian ethics, which is logically true. I would like to dig into his views on what is morality to you? What is the relationship between morality and legality? Have you considered the philosophical proofs for morality that could be objective? Yeah, I just have a long conversation along those lines. Those are the things that come to mind to me. If I try to think of one single question, I think I would ask about what he thinks in terms of greater claims of ownership and title of property. He might well already have this answered somewhere, but in terms of a dispute between two people claiming title ownership, assuming it cannot be conclusively proven that one does have a valid title claim and one doesn't, what his particular method for that would be unless he just says take it to the private courts. Yeah, there you go. I'm just going to have a sip there with. Okay, now blood on the blade again, asking another question. What's my prediction for the future? Do you think it will prevail or succumb to ever-expanding government and corporation? I don't think the world is going to remain on its current trajectory forever. How long do I think it's going to remain on this trajectory for? Not a clue. I'm not going to pretend like I know. Like I said at the end of my conspire video, I find that when hegemonies and status quo collapse, you see them start like just a picture is a skyscraper. You don't watch it fall down super slowly and bit by bit, like one window or one floor at a time. You see them wobble a bit. They're swaying side to side and it starts getting a little bit faster and if you look closely, if you see that wobbling and look, it's down, look at the foundations. The foundations are cracking and I think that's definitely what we're seeing with the division and upheaval in our societies and then by the time most people won't even notice before it's too late and the entire thing's coming down. So we're seeing a lot of wobbling. We're seeing a lot of cracks in foundations and so I think there's big changes potentially on the horizon but I won't pretend to have a crystal wall. So no, I don't think the trajectory of our societies is sustainable. We can talk about the ways they are going and say this is just not how human society is supposed to work or ever has worked and there's a reason we don't, we, our societies didn't just pop into existence out of a vacuum. We are the result of thousands of generations that have come before us. They've largely done things in a certain way that we are now completely getting rid of and expecting this progress to just continue on altered. That's just so extremely naive. It's completely unsustainable. So one way or another things are going to massively change for our societies. So I hope that answers the question for you. Whether we'll prevail no idea. It depends what sort of actual efforts we want to try and put in. If we want to actually try and get some elbow grease in trying to make something good out of this situation or at least create conditions in specific places that will allow us to prevail when the time comes. If that makes any sense. Alright, Alex plays, what are my thoughts on Georgism and LVT? You know, this is fortuitous, is that the right word? I feel like I might not be. Oh, by the way guys tell me if my mic is clipping or if like the audio is no good. I've tried changing the audio settings but haven't actually tested them. So just let me know if it sounds alright. Anyway, Georgism and LVT yes, it's fortuitous which I don't think is even the right word in this context that you ask this question. Because just earlier today I was thinking I came across another Georgist on like Twitter, I think it was and I thought it's been a while since I've seen a Georgist around and it just occurred to me like this is Georgism The reason it's still alive is because band kids discovered like J-Redge videos or like political Polkom ball memes and this stupid shit. It's completely inconsistent. I love how Liquidzulu calls them land communists because yeah, that's exactly what they are. So no, we're not communists, we just think land should be held in common. And land value LVT, in case you didn't know, land value tax, they believe that normally they believe the only thing that should be taxed is land value. Fucking stupid. You need subjective valuation of that land in order to tax it and the arguments for why they think land should be held in common and then should be taxed is they believe that all land should be held in common and if you're going to use it, that should be taxed basically as rent and this tax then gets redistributed to the wider community. Their arguments for why land should be held in common are completely inconsistent because the arguments I've heard is that it's because it's a natural resource that pre-exists humanity or human mixing of labor with goods to create property and that's just fucking bullshit all natural resources pre-exist humanity we did not come into existence and then the planet came into existence it was the other way around everything we hold as property came from a natural resource which came from the land if there's a better argument for common land ownership I'd like to hear it but it can't be true simply because it is completely logically stable and irrefutable that private property is just of all things, all property and of course other humans can't be involved in that because of argumentation ethics and other logical propositions. Tax slave, how would you respond to the argument that taxation isn't theft because the government owns the economic infrastructure that allows you to earn and not paying tax is stealing from the commons in brackets? That's a good question to lead on from the last one okay so if you look at your bank note I know this says it on if you look at your bank note it'll probably say issued by or property of or backed by and then your central bank so I don't have any notes on me right now no I don't but if you look at a pound note it'll say somewhere at the top something like property of owned by the Bank of England and so I've heard people say well no clearly the Bank of England is part of the government like well first of all some people will deny that which is just stupid exercise of intellectual masturbation for no reason the central bank is part of the government the central bank owns your money therefore the government owns your money therefore the government can just take it whenever it wants because it owns it right no because everything the government has it has stolen that's a Murray Rothbaugh quote it's half a Murray Rothbaugh quote I don't remember the rest of it there's no such thing as legitimate government property and so they can't just take what your legitimate property which you earned through contract with someone who gave you this money for a good or service or a gift they can't just come in and take that from you the value of that money is yours that is your property the piece of paper the government okay the government can't legitimately own anything so it can't just confiscate things from you at will it does not have a legitimate claim to this money or this infrastructure so I hope that answers your question SH got Mises profile picture nice there's a ton of hit pieces on Rothbaugh and other popular libertarians mostly wrongly calling them racist sexist homophobic etc could I do a video responding to that it doesn't interest me to do that really I think a lot of the people who will listen to these pieces and not and you know deliberately not give benefit of the doubt or at least even hear their case in some sometimes they're not worth trying to explain it to I'm kind of at the point of just noticing people who will be willing to listen to our ideas and those who wouldn't if someone is completely incapable of listening to an idea you have there's no point trying to talk to them it's absolutely completely futile if someone is relatively open minded if they're coming to you and saying this person said this isn't that X isn't that sexist homophobic that's like a that's willing to have a conversation and a question if someone comes to you and says Hopper was homophobic then they're not going to be willing to listen to you either defend his view or try and explain his view in a different way or even normally even just say yeah I know I don't agree with what you said about that there are so many bad faith actors out there that's not worth engaging with I think that's something I've noticed since becoming Christian mostly talking to atheists I'm surprised to see there are people still around who actually respect Richard Dawkins of all fucking people when they do these new atheists as they're often called or militant atheists no they are not willing to listen to anything you say at all they have presupposed you are wrong so whatever you say is wrong and there's so many people like that with politics don't bother talking to them you're not going to get anywhere it's just a waste of your time alright militant atheists and now here comes militant anti-centrist the weirdest fucking profile picture I've ever seen got the British Union of Fascists logo, Chinese flag, anarcho-communist and Ancap wow alright how would you respond to the argument that anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism because private property would essentially be people's private countries where they get to hierarchically control how the land is used and make rules of people on it etc yes based yes and anarchism is logically means without rulers it does not mean without rules there as absolute like never understood it's why anarcho-communism can never work in that it believes anarchy means no hierarchy then you're saying no humans humans are hierarchical because there's no such thing technically as equality you or I are not the same person we do not have equal skills we do not have equal desires we cannot be treated completely the same and we cannot deserve the same outcomes from the same inputs I would say we cannot deserve the same outcomes from our chosen inputs there's things that I'm better at than other people and there are many things that other people are better at than I am that is going to create a hierarchy when some of the things are more in demand than others they will be able to actually earn more money from that and therefore have more property and property is something you are allowed to exclude in its use of that is it just shows how anarcho-capitalism is the what's the word topper uses for it it's not like the social order is it is it the social order anarcho-capitalism is the ideal for human action private property is an innate human trait and hierarchy is an innate human trait rules based on those are you are innate human trait so it's not just to say that anarchism is no hierarchy and no rules is just the ideal literally just a fucking child at that point no moms, no bedtimes okay I'm going to do a few more I'm going to have to answer a question by fat Dave he asked me so many questions every Q&A I've only got one here right now I'm going to get to fat Dave's question then we're going to go over to the chat how long have I been going for 40 minutes it's about normal okay first of all smuggles brother what political ideology did you follow before you became an anarcho-cap I didn't really follow on at all I think for like a month like when I first started to consider politics and well it was economics that really brought me here when I first wanted to learn about economics I came across Milton Friedman found out what a libertarian is because I had no idea at that point and went on from there before that I didn't have a political ideology I think for a while I was almost like proud of the fact of being a centrist and just for you know the it's just like with any what's the word I'm looking for with any apathetic position it comes from a place of ignorance the reason you don't care about something is because you don't know the arguments for and against it so the reason I didn't care about any political position is because I didn't know much about any political positions I thought like oh yeah you've got the conservative party on the right and Labour on the left now that's not how it works and it was that was also why I was agnostic for a while when I actually started to want to know the arguments for and against religious positions I decided I couldn't be apathetic anymore the way I was and agnostic so I didn't have a political ideology I was an Ancap I just I started off in the middle of the political compass and just went down diagonally right just went south east from there until I hit the bottom and then Danny the Pharaoh well I uploaded a video on my second channel specifically why Andrew Ryan failed quick answers probably no I did a fucking gaming channel while I took a break on this one just I wanted to keep making content and I'm a nerd and I don't see that ever going anywhere now it was only meant to be a temporary thing I'm not from this summer onwards I don't think I'm even going to be able to keep this channel alive let alone another one yeah I've got a lot of things changing on the horizon that I probably wouldn't be able to manage one channel and I haven't been able to manage a second one for months now but I mean that would be a very interesting video I think it would be tough to do Bioshock and why Andrew Ryan failed because for anyone who doesn't know Bioshock is basically a hit piece against iron rand and objectivism and through that specifically all free market capitalism in total so the story of Bioshock is pretty cringe I suppose Andrew Ryan was John Galt basically oh was he John yeah he was John Galt I was going to say maybe he was Howard Rauch because I'm halfway through the fountain head but he was John Galt and so this show like no if you have private property and loads of freedom everyone's going to get addicted to all these crazy drugs and it's going to be hell on earth so to ask why Andrew Ryan failed in this task it wouldn't be pretty it wouldn't be doable because the way that they wrote the story is to say that there is no way to succeed doing this Andrew Ryan failed because in the writer's eyes it could never succeed if you look into the backstory of Andrew Ryan and say ah this is where he went wrong I don't think you'll find him because where the writers want you to think he went wrong is the first step in simply being an objectivist like what was is it like a no gods no kings only man like the motto of rapture like they want you to think no that's immediately where he failed you need the state of course no gods is kind of cringe you know but they're specifically they're not saying you need religion they're saying you need the state so yeah does this make any sense like if you have if you present an ideology in a way by saying oh yeah this is bad from the get go instead of saying ah no if you do this ideology here are the steps where it's going to start going wrong now it's a hit piece so they said right step one you went wrong j-run super shattered 13 dollars and 17 cents what is your opinion on objectivism and why would you identify as more of a stark than an objectivist lastly what is your opinion on the objectivist government as a minicast gov with voluntary tax good question right I'll jump to this now because I was pretty much finished with the last one my opinion on objectivism now where I am right now philosophically I'm thinking about much more than just politics right now it's one of the reasons why I haven't been uploading that many videos but the truth the matter is that I have enough time to so general philosophy through and and this is why I ended up becoming Christian exploring more of the history of philosophy where did it come from who did we inherit philosophy from took me all the way back to Aristotle and I ran I believe she said the three philosophers everyone should read are the three a's including herself it was Aristotle Aquinas and I ran and this I truly see this as the organic line of philosophy like Aristotle got so many things right that every like philosophy can own I think can only be considered real philosophy correct philosophy if it comes from this natural growth that went from Aristotle to Aquinas Aquinas in the 13th century came across Aristotle's writings and built on them perfectly completely logically in all of like Aquinas wrote about everything philosophically he didn't just write his five proofs for God's existence you can find on Wikipedia and then bug her off Aristotle was right Aquinas was right and in many ways I ran was right there are many ways where she was wrong I also think so why but why really love about objectivism is that when I think of a modern philosophical problem which Aquinas or Aristotle didn't write about because it just wasn't around at the time things like specific epistemological questions because epistemology is the vogue form of philosophy right now because people can't even prove that reality exists apparently which just shows you how fucking stupid modern philosophy must be if they can't even prove reality exists but this is something that I ran would write a lot about because this is a modern objection and she was a modern writer in this Aristotelian Thomist lineage so my opinion of objectivism as it gets a lot right is better than so many other philosophies around us right now because it has way better foundations it's the natural law foundations of Aristotle and Aquinas and why would I identify more as a stoic than an objectivist I think it's because well for one they are much more able to be synchronized than a lot of objectivists will like you to think objectivists are very confrontational for the sake of being confrontational if you are anything but an objectivist they will go fucking foam at the mouth and try and tell you why you are completely wrong even if you say like what the fuck I'm an Aristotelian like objectivism comes from Aristotelianism how can you tell me that I'm completely wrong they will unless you make a point if you argue for free markets if you don't make the objectivist argument for it they'll say you're wrong even though they're free market too they're just they're difficult people and they like it they like being difficult so there's a lot more with stoicism that can be synchronized they just won't let it happen because they have an insane purity complex where everyone who's not them is their enemy but you know I need to read more of Ein Rans non-fiction I don't get along with fiction too well that's why I've never got around to finishing The Fountainhead I haven't started Atlas Shrugged but I'd love to read her book philosophy who what's it called like who needs it I think it's called philosophy who needs it I'd love to read that just to give you an answer really because I can't give you too much of an answer right now I think they're very compatible they are stoicism brought a lot from Aristotelian Ethics but I suppose I never could be a purest objectivist because even though Ein Rand came from this lineage which came from Aquinas who was the best defender of the Christian faith you could ever ask for and just I think did a marvelous job he's the reason that I'm now Christian she was rapidly anti-Christian which to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense like I understand you can take inspiration from things and drop others that's basically what I'm doing with objectivism but like no that was like the whole thing of the people that she took inspiration from so I don't care how you can be completely against it anyway I hope that answers your question J1 that probably might be the longest answer I've given so far one more from Fat Dave and then he just got banned on discord F's in the chat for his old discord account he asked me if I would smoke a cigar with him I don't know what this was in context to you but as soon as he asked me that his account got banned but he's back now anyway where do I see myself in five years in five years I see myself in semi-rural England with a decent career uh there we go Aaron games online super shattered $100 and 84 cents my mum disregards my arguments against the NHS because they saved my life when I was born premature and she says that I would be dead if healthcare was privatised and it hurts hmm that's interesting I've never had this conversation with my parents but I know that they like the NHS because they're just normal which makes me sound bad I don't know when I was born I couldn't breathe so I'm still here now so obviously they got me to breathe but let me finish this and I'll get to you where do I see myself in five years married kids or on the way semi-rural England decent enough career getting on with life not giving a shit about all of this stuff that's fucking destroying the world just chillin literally chillin, growing my own food some capacity and maybe seeing what like I'm not gonna be doing youtube videos in five years that's for sure maybe seeing what I can actually do practically in the world to try and harbour this sustainable environment of rights and markets I'm gonna be thinking much more about normal philosophy than political stuff that's for sure so yeah in the broader picture of life settling down and getting on with being an adult and trying to make a better next generation I think that's really that says it all okay let's head over to the chat now let's see what we got so okay I should announce I'm going over to the here here we go what the fuck oh come on come on you know you can't ask me that mostly because I don't know enough yet I'm still too new to it I'm getting confirmed on Easter so I'm not technically Catholic yet I will be fully from Easter onwards also you can't give me that much money I know you are you should not be giving me that much money what the fuck I'm not allowed I'll have to see what I can do about that favourite saint well you know I've been thinking about this a lot because I need to pick a saint for my confirmation as a patron saint but you don't need to but it's ah thank you thanks for having me how's the cat give a Hades update in the chat party mate 14 interesting name wants to know so yeah I'm thinking about our locks I need to pick my own page and say I'm considering well obviously Saint Thomas Aquinas is up there but I also feel that's a very pretentious pick because the man was a fucking genius far more than I'll ever hope to be because I will love to continue reading him to gain clarity on the world but not to become a philosopher myself so but maybe him because he's the reason that I'm becoming Catholic and I can't overlook that I just hope it's not too much of a pretentious choice um or the other one be Saint Joseph as in you know Mary's husband adoptive father of Jesus for various reasons that I won't get into now those are the two big ones that I'm trying to decide between two and I wouldn't like to ever call them my favorite saint but I think a patron saint should be the one that you can relate most to for a particular reason so there you go let's toss up between those two update on Hades as well if any of you are in any of my discord servers or follow me on twitter I put up a fundraiser for Hades the cat who came very sick um now we've got an update here he's making a speedy recovery he's doing so much better he's acting like himself again thank you to everyone who helped there you go guys he's calling he is a G oh also everyone can you move the owner to put corn on Hades head and take a photo of it to make corn cat just tell her to do it okay um let's look at some of the questions okay Libba Rain I know who you are hello you have a question actually do I consider Christianity to be essential to maintain your political system or is it a freedom of association with a focus on Christianity or something else I wouldn't say I entirely understand that um okay ooh good question yes that's a good idea especially because so John Henry Newman was one of the guys that basically founded Anglo Catholicism trying to make the church of England more Catholic he ended up becoming properly Catholic became a cardinal and is now a saint so I need to read more of his actual writing to see what his theology was but that's a very good contender very good choice so I think what I understand from your question is like do I need to try and reconcile Christianity with my politics in which case the answer is no there's a lot to think about for sure and what I read I just I very much dislike when people try to use it to back up their own politics there is no political agenda as a line through the Bible there are there's a moral agenda all the way through of course but to then to better use that for worldly ends not to say we should be moral to um act in accordance with the perfect will of God or uh things like that but to say no this is why we need the government to do this like you're taking something very divine and trying to advance your own worldly agenda and aims with it and that rubs me up many wrong ways I don't like it so I won't engage talking about um politics and Christianity in the same context don't like it dirties it and see if you can get on unpopular opinions maybe help balance out the near-reactionary type also opinions on Nick land my old bug et cetera okay uh first of all I'll get to that guy double on seven who donated five quid and then I'll talk about yours scrotchy Mcdubber waffle a nice name alright what's my answer to the uterphro dilemma so the way I understand the uterphro dilemma is it's to do with the moral arguments and the nature of God within it I believe the dilemma is does God give us moral command the moral commands that God gives us are they moral no should we just follow them because God says so or does God say so because they are moral the dilemma with this is if we should only follow it because he says so well that just means it's arbitrary it's just something that's been decided as good and therefore we must follow it or if they are in the inverse if they are already moral then that must mean they pre-exist God and therefore God is bound to these moral laws rather than being the authority behind them and I think this dilemma completely understands sorry misson misunderstands what God is it's this modern conception of God being the man on the cloud pointing his finger everyone saying do this do that now God is the foundation of reality itself God is the font of all goodness which exists but he's not a man he's not a dude telling you what to do he is the font of morality itself God is morality morality is God's will and so I think that answers the euthyphro dilemma by trying to clear up this misconception of him just being some sort of arbitrary dictator with like I don't know like doing some pins in a board saying right do this do that don't do this don't do that I hope I hope I don't know if I've just completely waffled all right then Scrotchy McDonough waffle long time no see my dude you should hit up AA and see if you can get on unpopular opinions maybe help balance out the reactionary type also opinions on Nick land Mulderberg etc so about a year or a year and a half ago it seemed like AA was this is academic agent by the way he was open to the idea of like receiving me into his more inner circle in a sense I never really talked to the guy but I had some friends who were very close contacts with him and they wanted him to check out my stuff and see if I would be some sort of like a worthy addition to his crowd or crew if you want to call like that I never engage with it and from what I understood he I think the way he phrased it is that he would like a watch how I grow but thinks I have a lot of sort of intellectual maturing to do I think he was right to say that because before I had no consideration for morality or social and cultural issues I felt that those were distractions and that all we should really talk about is like the philosophical basis for anarchism and for trade and stuff like that and of course those are extremely important but now I'm much more I want to say conservative but it's not the right word in terms of other issues but they all still come from philosophy and specifically ontological human nature grounds so perhaps he was right perhaps I did need to mature and I feel like I have however what I haven't matured in if this is what was meant by maturing was turning that into political motivation wanting to see my will forced upon society and the culture because that's my preference while I believe I'm trying to find cases for following objective standards for morality culture and society that never means it should be forced on someone that's the big hurdle you cannot force someone to be moral I'm going to butcher another Murray Rothbard quote but it's like any virtuous action must be freely chosen like I'm never going to mature out of that belief it's just simply correct so people like AA I don't know what his I know a lot of his crowd is very monarchist and distributist and a reactionary statist so and it wouldn't be a case of me going up to AA and saying hey let me come on and unpopular opinions and like join your crew and then try and like reform them from the inside I know that wouldn't be happening I think we disagree too much on issues of state that it just isn't compatible but then my thoughts on Nickland, Mulbug, etc I don't have like extremely developed thoughts I haven't read either of those guys from what I understand Nickland it's just a bit mental I don't think I ever would read him because it just seems like a lot of esotericism for esotericism's sake that's something I really don't like with a lot of dissident right wing fields it's kind of like because the right is on the back foot of culture now we've done what like the hippie movement did and I've gone all fucking weird and are saying no dude like you shouldn't be eating vegetables don't eat carbs they're going to rot your brain you should only eat liver there are some really fucking wacky right wing people out there because they're now on the cultural back foot and they're getting very esoteric and I think that Nickland is a lot like that Mulbug I understand he's quite friendly to us he's good friends with Michael I want to say good acquaintances with Michael Malis and people like that and I think he has a lot of good ideas like we borrowed the entire idea of the cathedral from him a lot of people forget that because you know people like Dave Smith use it a lot but no that comes from Mulbug but I also understand like he's very approval he approves a lot of the Chinese Communist Party and the way that they do things so like you know stay beyond arm's length but that's that sorry I asked you guys to put questions in the chat nobody ever sorry no you all did ask questions but then I completely forgot to get to them we've got saucy boy popping him with a question minus 420 social credit I was going to do like a mogus noise but there's no way I could do that J1 super shattered $6.59 sorry but I need to know what do you think of a voluntary menikist status contrasted with an archo-capitalism and why is one wrong per se a voluntary menikist state I mean that kind of just if it is actually voluntary it basically is an archo-capitalism at that point it's like Gulch Gulch which like Google that if you don't know what it is it's the private estate which I would call a covenant community in Atlas Shrugged by Iron Rand and it was a community which was entirely privately owned by one man so there was a monopoly on ownership and there was one judge and everyone but this judge was never needed to be used because everyone had the same philosophy they all got along basically now that would be an actual voluntary menikist state slash an archo-capitalism and the minds are very blurred if something is actually a voluntary state you could argue ontologically it's not a state then a feature of state is involuntary monopoly on violence um so I don't think there's really such a thing at that point you're basically an archo-capitalist just a specific kind of it so I wouldn't say one is necessarily wrong if it is actually a voluntary menikist state the reason I stress that so much is because it's not likely to remain as such if it ever is or it's justified as being voluntary the way that modern states are by saying I don't want to pay taxes leave no it's my fucking property that you're taxing you don't have a right to tax me for it I do not agree I never signed a contract so it's one or the other it is voluntary or it is a state I think it's the best way to answer that yeah Rusty Shackleford's got it Rusty tell me is that from King of the Hill you probably answered earlier but I forgot to read it opinions on Voltaire don't know too much about Voltaire to be entirely honest with you I probably wouldn't get along with him too well because he is an enlightenment philosopher if anyone wants any um clarification on that check out a thread I did on Twitter a while ago I haven't pinned it so like good job trying to find it but I talked about why I hate a lot of the philosophy which came after specifically after the Protestant Reformation because that's where it started but then that led to the butchered philosophy of the Enlightenment and we've just been following that ever since it's why we're all killing ourselves and can't prove that we even exist if that's where we are clearly we've took a wrong turn somewhere and need to go back yes it is King of the Hill I definitely should watch it if I need another show to watch in my spare time that'll be it J1 ok he follows up your question by saying well I guess more of a voluntary government than a state so ok well look up Gulch Gulch look up like how that was ran in Atlas Shrug because it sounds like that's what you are arguing for now Objectivists will say that wasn't anarchy because it had one leader one judge and they said that by the nature of this legal structure having a monopoly it wasn't anarchy I would say the lines are too blurred it's so blurred between anarchy and actual voluntary government at that point that yeah it's it's hardly one or the other but also covenant communities you could also call a voluntary government there's a think of cost buyer that I talked about this council of elders and property owners making organizational decisions voluntarily all coming together and agreeing to make certain decisions you could call that a voluntary government but it's anarchy so yeah it's blurred lines that's for sure have I heard of our ecology nope what's the difference between a state and a government I mean yeah like what I think about a lot as well in Aristotle's definitions of humans our nature and what we are he says man is a rational animal I don't think he said a social animal but I think it's a worthy input and he said man is a political animal what did he mean by that did he mean that by existing man has to vote man has to submit to government you know he meant like think of where political comes from it comes from the word polis which most of you probably know is the Greek word for city a city didn't necessarily mean a government a city meant a community an organizational community where people live together and co-operate that's what it means to be a political animal where was I going with this ah government so politics doesn't just mean like the operations of government politics means cooperation and then you ask well what's the difference then between politics and economics and like well yeah good question another place where the lines get very blurry detail asks anglo what's your opinion on the argument that the state gives you the choice to not pay taxes because you don't own anything and live off welfare you won't pay taxes so you are free this is fosh if you live off welfare you are free well if there is a system in which you can receive welfare which means that people are being enslaved and having their property stolen to give you this welfare well you're clearly not in an environment of freedom yeah you also you are in you are what's the word is it illicit it's either illicit or implicit in this theft by receiving this money and like no you can't it's not worthwhile to say you are free whilst you are violating the freedom of others you are not in a state of freedom and fosh take this regarded hey luti how's it going my guy haven't spoken to you in a while how's things not still hanging low I say the issue with the minnaker state is that it is minimal evil yeah so the point the guy was trying to make is that it would be a voluntary state my point is like that is a that's a useless sentence a useless statement there's no such thing it's either voluntary or it's a state okay what do I think would be the best argument as to why Protestants should embrace Catholicism not asking for a friend as you can probably guess sending again because you're annoying yeah I'm sure you're not asking for a friend this isn't like what we always talk about is it saucy boy thorny boy best arguments I think the scriptural argument of Peter being the rock upon which Christ says he will build his church that rock died in Rome and was buried under the Vatican it's still there as a rock is physically and also the case that Peter was Prince of the Apostles and therefore one of the bishops the leader of the church would also be this Prince of Swords I don't know why I said Prince but you know I don't like relying too much on like the logical arguments of saying like no humans are hierarchical we need a leader we need like one guy to tell us what to do not because I think that's necessarily bad but I prefer to use the scriptural biblical arguments really and historical to show like we have a good reason to believe that like this has always been the case that the Bishop of Rome has always been the I want to say primate that's clearly not the right word but the principal bishop which isn't to say the head it's not the head that is Jesus Christ not going to lie if the current church doesn't get on and baptize me soon you might get off to a Catholic one ah you might be screwed there though because the way the Catholics like to do it is you start a course in September gets like initiated into the church and then baptize on Easter so that you might still have to weigh in on the whole year J1's back says I guess the main point of difference is government will still have a monopoly over force with an objective constitutional law but then there's no difference between a state that definition of government which I wouldn't use I think there can be a difference but it's not like a hill that's worth dying on or anything um if it has a monopoly over force then it's a state that's the principal definition there are ways of governance and governing which can be voluntary such as the Council of Elders which is why I mentioned it in conspire which is kind of like a homeowner's agreement um but I don't like to separate state and government ontologically much because then a lot of people can try and weaselings say oh but you're saying that governments can be okay so what I'm saying is just a government when it doesn't like no it's not it's a fucking state anyway are you here a man you're getting baptised in 13 days in a catholic church fantastic to hear it gonna get confirmed so yeah you're getting baptised on Easter I'm getting confirmed that day very good very good joining the universal church glad to hear it very pleased okay um do we have any non-religious ones cause I'm just conscious that most of the people listening to this won't care too much even though I think we should have I ever read Franz Oppenheimer's the state it's a based, is it alright no idea okay KTEC PL ah you'll hear a lot good to see you again my man have I heard of AA's foundations of politics or any of his other courses what do I think of them ah no I remember hearing about when his first course came out which was about economics it seemed interesting I think it was like 300 dollars or something like that so I was like I think I'll pass ah foundations of politics maybe it's interesting or maybe it's just more of this like new burnemite will to power post libertarian kind of stuff in which case I'm not be that interested I don't see any reason to be interested in it I can't be convinced of you know a reason to even entertain that idea that isn't just emotional pleading oof Lootie Lootie coming in with controversial takes Rusty Shackleford asks thoughts on abortion from an ANCAP slash Catholic perspective Lootie says murder simple as I wonder if Zulu will he would think of such a take so yeah a while ago I did a video with Zulu on I can't remember what it's called now evictionism said to be water blocks answer to abortion which it's a very nuanced take go ahead and watch that whole video if you want and you'll probably still be left with questions and more research should do and I was never able to make my mind up about it so here's a good point to bring up Pascal's wager a lot of people really don't understand what Pascal's wager was people think Pascal's wager is to say if you don't believe in if you don't follow the Christian religion you die and ends up being true you go to hell if you don't particularly believe in the Christian religion but follow it and it does end up being true well then you've only gained otherwise if it isn't true then you just cease to exist that's not what Pascal's wager is Pascal's wager says that if you are undecided on an issue like truly you've examined evidence for both sides and cannot come to a conclusion the wager should be that you go with the one that you want to be true as I was in that position with this whole abortion debate and the catholic church has a very clear stance on it well I can't make my mind up either way I'm more than happy to accept that teaching that's the way I put it yeah Lutie's saying it's murder too long didn't watch evictionism slap so what do you mean it's murder then evictionism allows it essentially oh Ari are you your boyfriend Mass you guys are what's it called sorry what's your channel called is it like smarter politics I think that's right that's good I want to see you guys doing more content I'll keep an eye on you fellas but that's interesting you've got a proof that shows how being and pro-life is compatible not just departureism or evictionism very interesting I'll look forward to hearing about that as well have I read markets not capitalism was that Kevin Carson is that his name no and I'm probably not interested in reading about it because I just failed to see how there's any hole in the notion that markets require private property I feel like it's just so self-explanatory that I don't feel like reading a book which tries to show actually people before didn't think that way so that doesn't mean it's incorrect have more content after exam season yeah good because I won't after exam season I might not have any more so I'm glad to hear that okay fellas differentiator being intentionally killing the fetus then removing it versus just removing it okay but if you remove it and know it's going to die you're intentionally killing it from what I remember of the explanation of evictionism is that is allowable isn't departureism basically compatible with the pro-life position yes it is anyway alright fellas this has been an hour and 20 minutes that's about the normal time I'll give another two minutes if anyone has any burning questions preferably ones that haven't been related to ones we've already asked that have already been asked then we'll head off here's one detail what's your take on national anarchism if you answered you didn't hear sorry I go back I see no I hadn't answered so thank you I don't know a whole lot about it man like I'm considering doing more either like if I have something I want to talk about and it's not long enough or at least I don't know enough to do a whole video on it these days I tend to do a Twitter thread but one thing I'm considering doing video slash thread on is nationalism which is what I hinted at in Michael Spire video talking about how nationalism in the 19th century just like completely made up whole new national identities of these countries which used to be split into like a hundred countries and went no no we're all one now guys look we've got our own flag and everything like nationalism it was it's completely against the traditional ways of viewing culture and society like I don't hate nationalism because oh well that's just that isn't that racist like no it's nationalism is it's fraudulent nations aren't delineated along state boundaries but that's the way nationalism views it nations are delineated along cultural similarity and cooperation and you don't find that in most of these nations do you like the Scots hate the English the US people in the states from the north and the south hate each other they're different nations it's not nationalist to be like pro the United States that's super nationalist that's yeah expansionist it's not nationalist at all nationalism ultimately turns into if it's consistent turns into what we now call localism and that's why I'm very much for it so national anarchism I don't see any point for him if you want to talk actual nationalism in terms of preserving culture and geographical similarity for those reasons then you're looking at localism what do I think about psychedelics I see absolutely no point in it man I don't understand escapism in like any of its forms it's just cringe if you're taking substances or doing shit that's a rot your brain just to try and escape reality so well then your fucking your perception of reality is wrong if you if your life is incompatible with reality sort your life out it's not reality that's wrong so I don't understand psychedelics why you need to try and alter your brain and your perception of everything like just fucking get real go touch grass alright fellas there's a few more questions that seem pretty decent but I'll ask you guys to reserve it for the next one I'll try and do more well I was going to say I'll try and do more frequent Q&As but it's not hard to do any more frequent than I've been doing recently is it but over the next few months I'm going to try and be more consistent with content because to be perfectly honest with you after a few months I might not be able to make any more so we're going to try and enjoy this train while it's still rolling so thank you very much everyone for watching most especially we got our donators we had Blood on the Blade J1 Aaron Games Online Mu that guy double one seven Scrotchy McDump Waffle you're all beautiful human beings and of course the more money you give me the more beautiful you are that's just how it works so thank you all fellas hope you all have hope you all had a fantastic weekend have a good week coming up for you remember those questions pop them in the next one I'll see you next time