 Welcome to modern day debate. We have another awesome discussion for you tonight. This is gonna be pretty cool We got a three-way discussion between Brenton and anarchist communists Gregory radical capitalist and Connor a market socialist So this is gonna be a very interesting discussion to say the least I see a lot of familiars in the chat if you would please smash that like button If you haven't subscribed already, please subscribe and become part of the family We like to try and challenge beliefs here as well We I want to let everybody know that everyone's welcome no matter your background your walk a life Your race creed religion. We don't we don't really care The only rule we do have is no hate speech So if there's something that could get modern day debate and trouble with YouTube or somebody else that will shut down the channel We can't allow it. So let's start with that and for the format Of this discussion I think we will go with two to five minute opening statements Depending on how long you need to take no problem If you need to go a little longer or if you don't need that amount of time and then we will go into a rebuttal period of about five minutes a piece I'd like to hear the idea So if you have to go five minutes to 30 seconds or whatever that's fine and then We'll jump into an open discussion between the Contenders here and then lastly we'll have a Q&A. So if you have any questions that you Think about during the discussion and you want them answered just try and tag me in in the side chat My name is converse contender. It's written right here below and Just tag me and put your question and I will try and read it out Super chats get up to the top of the list All right, so thanks everybody for supporting the channel and let's get started Brent, would you like to go first? Yeah, sure. So my name is brenton lengel. I am a playwright and Author Activist from New York City. I was really heavily active in the Occupy Wall Street movement almost ten years ago now And starting to look like that time again now that we've got the economy melting down around us thanks to coronavirus and I ascribe to Libertarian socialism or another word for that might be anarcho communism So essentially my philosophy goes like this I am most concerned with human freedom and human flourishing And one of the reasons why I oppose capitalism and support communism Is because communism and by that I don't necessarily I don't mean the the Stalinist USSR Capital C communism, but the actual definition of communism, which is a classless Stateless moneyless society where the goods and services are provided free of charge To everyone within that society from from each according to his ability to each according to his need And this is accomplished by eliminating private property and private ownership of vital industry We can get more into my Ideas directly about property because there is a distinction in the way I talk about private property and the way a capitalist will talk about private property or what private property would be Considered in a court of law But overall I am looking to a society that does that maximizes both the positive and negative Aspects of freedom. So freedom Liberty is a number of different things. There is Liberty There's negative freedom, which is the freedom from something you don't want avoiding a negative thing so the ability to not be hit the ability to avoid domination Physical or otherwise by another that is negative freedom then there is also positive freedom Positive freedom is the ability to actually do what you want to do and live life on your terms What I believe is the optimal situation because sometimes positive freedom can be Toxic to negative freedom and vice versa For instance, somebody might say That you you sir homeless man sleeping under the bridge You have the same freedom as a millionaire or a billionaire to donate Infinite sums of money as much as you'd like to the politician of your choice Now does the homeless man under the bridge that technically have that freedom? Yes, but does that freedom mean anything? No, it doesn't because he doesn't have the money to donate. So in reality, he's not actually free to do that So overall, I think what's important is to get to the optimal situation where Both positive and negative freedom is Maximized for as many people within society and the best way to go about doing that from Our society right now as it is with the very strict economic and political hierarchies that we all live under is to really fulfill on the liberal promise of Liberty equality fraternity which the liberal governments of the world have promised and promised and promised and never ever actually delivered So the way that I see is best to do this is if we're gonna talk about society and we're gonna talk about power in society Think of society. There's a power vacuum and we've seen this happen a number of times when Governments collapse or when there is a temporary Upending of the social order There is what's called a power vacuum and nature of whores a vacuum and various groups will vie and fight with each other to claim that that that that throne Essentially and sit on the power back and you know to seal that power vacuum The war of five kings in game of thrones is a good example Or the war of the roses or you know any war that has occurred in a post Revolutionary period or a time of upheaval has been a quest to claim that power to be the large boulder that plugs that power vacuum I don't think that's a good idea because I think if we play that game There are very few winners and a lot of losers and a lot of people wind up getting dominated and even if you get the best Possible king or CEO or president that you can have That's a temporary situation and eventually that person will either be corrupted by the power that they receive or be replaced So what I think is optimal for society is what we need to do Conceptually is to take that giant rock of power and smash it Into a million tiny pebbles or a bunch of sand if we can and grind that down to where each Individual has roughly the same amount of power as every other individual in society together collectively we all fill that power vacuum and that right there suddenly will everything be perfect when that happens no But what will happen once that's happened is our decisions will be better may take a little bit longer to come to them For functioning democratically, but you get enough people to agree with you if you have a good idea You can move society in a in a much better way rather than Using force and violence dictated through a state structure to affect political change and to keep people in line so Yeah, that's that's my position and we can get into that and we can get into why I think it's a good idea that We abolish money Or if not abolish Transcend money and what I would put in place of that system. All right. Thanks so much Brinton I guess we'll move to Gregory next for your opening statement Hello, thank you everyone for starting to watch debate. My name is Gregory or Greg I'm an advocate for laissez-faire here where I'm gonna be defending free the free market in general. It's not necessarily capitalism not necessarily radical capitalism not necessarily socialism either We'll get into that later Since last time's debate. I've had a debate on this before I'm gonna take a different approach to attacking socialism and reaching more of a common ground here So it was addressed that I was attacking state socialism things like that instead of other forms of socialism like democratic social Market anarchism and other things like that. So I will try and use an individualist anarchist style argument for why I might advocate for capitalism or whatever as opposed to socialism So when we talk about free market or free trade, let's make one thing clear Historically the concept of free enterprise has never really been a capitalist concept In fact, the first person to claim to be a free market advocate was Thomas Hodgskin who was an anti-capitalist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who was was was a free market socialist This is generally because capitalism has advocated for things like mercantilism, which is imposition of tariffs on immigration international trade These are public chartering corporations dominate and exert power over entrepreneurial industries and work is us reducing the market's force So the tables have shifted slightly since back in the classical liberal days leaving room where I think capitalism And innovators will be the driving market force and where political classes won't necessarily dominate and that's kind of the kind of capitalism that I will advocate for here So I would like to first refute the Marxist claim that in a free market capitalist society it always will lead to wars between businessmen or workers This is not the case and in a free market every book that you earn is based on the price of consumers and workers in quality and quantity As Ludwig von Wies, Ludwig von Wies once said in the Capitalistic Society men become rich by serving consumers in large numbers The capitalistic market economy is a democracy in which every penny constitutes a vote The wealth of the successful businessman is the result of a consumer plug and say wealth once acquired can be preserved only by those Key who keep on earning it anew by satisfying the wishes of consumers the capitalistic society Therefore is an economic democracy in a strict sense of the word in the last analysis all decisions are dependent upon the will of the people When Mises said this he said the word economic democracy, which is usually thought of as describing socialism So this was a tongue-in-cheek term But the market is the sum of all voluntary human action is what he's trying to say And would therefore be the purest form of democracy and its economic form What I'm suggesting is not a political classroom that exists in between businessmen and workers in our present society What I'm advocating for what no not what I'm advocating for what currently exists I believe is an exploiting political class versus producers such as entrepreneurs and workers Another common criticism of the market would be that will ultimately lead to monopoly over resources and land But then again, we can quote Ludwig von Mises Nowhere and at no time that has the large-scale ownership of land come into being through the working of economic forces in the market It is the result of military and political effort founded by violence. It has been upheld by violence and by that law Jeremy Wayland a libertarian activist wrote about the existence of entropy of aggregated wealth beginning to Deplete insurance cost defense costs and search are too many too much to handle without vastly distributing the wealth for someone with a lot of wealth Whereas those who do not have much money can either hire private defense agencies organized in forms of militias If a person has a large monopoly, then his property will likely to be more so than common people which do not have as much money So the free market would lead to a natural mean or average wealth value in which if one of those above that and tries to create a monopoly Diminishing returns can happen more frequently and are too much of a burden to bear if you're well below that You can easily boost yourself True libertarianism is against all forms of monopoly governmental and individual corporations that exert monopoly are part of the military industrial complex and Contrary to the generally held belief that it was the existence of monopoly that led to the government regulation It is rather the lack of monopoly that began the need for government regulation The goal of monopoly is to prevent free competition Corporations that create monopoly low than low than heat competition because competition exerts downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on salaries Moreover success does not come with with a guarantee of permanency depending as it Preferred prefers and that kind of vulnerability to loss is no picnic There exist many solutions to the problem of monopoly, which is that you can give Rockford has suggested this and it's called homesteading, which is that you can give ownership to the means of productions by workers to two workers So and many instances companies and businesses can't do do that rather than mere pure power monopolies This is how a free market should theoretically work To quote a famous Individual sanarchist named Benjamin Tucker says the fact that one class of men are dependent on their living upon the sale of labor Well, another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labor by legally privileged to sell something that is not labor And such a state of things I am as much opposed to as anyone, but the minute you remove privilege Every man will be a laborer exchanging with other laborers Furthermore exploitation can arise or arise or have a reason in a truly foreign market France open high open Hymer in his book of the state has an excellent proof He says if they're if they're for purely economic causes are ever to bring about a differentiation into classes by the growth of a Propertyless labor in class the time has yet not yet arrived and the critical point at which ownership of land will cause a natural Scarcity is thrust into the dim future if indeed I can ever arrive as a matter of fact for centuries past ground is not occupied This must mean that it has been preempted politically since land could not have acquired natural scarcity The scarcity must have been legal. This means that the land has been preempted by a ruling class against the subject class and sediment prevented So summarized the land could not have been occupied by natural and economic means So all this into consideration Why does the free-marking capitalism of that sort have such a bad rap? It could be largely explained by the new deal which happened in the late 30s as a response to great depression FDR's policies started to be became known as What the welfare war threat states state monopoly capitals started to become imposed in subsidization of businesses the creation of central bankings and banking and thus inflation Starting from the progress very roughly starting from 1900 to 1916 and continuing with a new deal state monopoly capitalism was being given birth to we no longer out of free economy free market economy Well, we never really did but not as much where producers were slightly protected and where society flourished But not only was the economic monopoly born under FDR So is the war monopoly the obsession with exerting military power over everyone else and trying to be the policeman of the world But to disasters like the Vietnam War and the Cold War which kind of are connected The libertarianism I will be defending will be completely antithetical to this kind of capitalism that emerged through these years and still continues today This political capitalism is on the directorate of fascism the combination of welterism nationalism and imperialistic and preventionism And even before the new deal marks had talked about market capitalism being in direct line with fetus monopoly Which is simply not true as I have shown Another thing to know is that libertarianism and left socials in shadow Stare at some goals such as ending monopoly and ultimately the withering away of the state But left socialism when taken to its extreme form can use status means of violence and aggression to achieve this such as a Dictatorship of the pro-tailer violent revolution and collectiveness which has led to the opposite Totalitarianism dictatorship in the worst forms of socialism ever known to mankind such as what happened in the Bolshevik revolution It started out with goals of removing the monopoly and replace it with an even worse form of monopoly Just why left socialism eventually became a form of conservatism, which is totalitarianism If the government is to disappear after the revolution and how the collective public run its own property without becoming the state We all wanted to disappear. I think one and the only true way to achieve this would be through slow reform and use of The black market meaning violent voluntary action typically bad by the government until its eventual modernization The Samuel Edward Konk in the third put it the black market is anything nonviolent prohibited by the state and carried on it We must use the market in order to achieve freedom collectivism never reaches freedom only the opposite And lastly before I kind of finish up. I talked. I'd like to talk about libertarianism and its connection to abolitionism Historically why sender Spooner a famous individualist anarchist and he'll happen to be one of the first abolitionists in America wrote How about how the government is basically a collective group of slave owners Taxation to its death from the ordinary citizen if I put a gun to your head and say give me your money But you would consider that to be a moral correct now if I say that on the government Why would that be any different? We'd make the same argument to slave owners back in the 1800s If I randomly take some person with some arbitrary tape and start forcing him to do labor Why is that and you would consider that to be a moral right because he's not allowed to raise and sell any kind of capital Sorry any kind of business all the sentences with black people. It's okay to simply degrade them like this Spooner believed that the government creates virtual slaves to its demand of obedience and expropriation of individuality Believe it or not the first US political party to want to blend slavery was called the Liberty Party not the Republican Party They believed in libertarianism. There are anarcho-syndicalist anarcho-anarchist libertarians and just regular moderate libertarians inside and They space the same principles and being abolitionists government and slavery are built off of each other and fundamentally use the same kind of moral principles So to conclude basically wrap this all up a free market is not to be confused with the kind of Monopoly capitalism that emerged throughout the years and it's an economic democracy that destroys monopoly opposes Try to oppose the pressure and it'll accomplish a lot more goals than the dictatorship of the pro tele and violent revolution This is why we need a new and reformed free market capitalism one Which is reminiscent of the classical liberals like Adam Smith and David Ricardo. So, thank you. Thanks so much for that, Gregory All right, we're gonna kick it over to Connor after Connor does his opening statement If you have I would suggest having a piece of paper laying around so that you can write down some of the points to the All the guys so that in the rebuttal I think what we should probably do is just do like a two to three minute rebuttal and then After each person goes do one more two to three minute rebuttal I think that would actually be better that way if you want to jot down some points along the way Then you get two to three minutes and you're just like all right on this point You said blah blah and then you just kind of handle that and when it goes back through and you hear about his ideas again Then you come back and do another one before the open discussion. So if you guys like that, we'll do that Would you really have one five here? Okay. All right, Connor. Go ahead with your opening statement well Basically, I'm just a market socialist, you know kind of in the middle of everybody. I Just think like Greg said democracy should be everywhere including the workplace, but kind of get there a different way through actual democracy where everybody in the workplace has a say of what's going on through co-ops and It's I don't see how that's a good way That's the best way as far as I can see but I don't see that happening through an anarchist system So I think The best concentration of power we have is just a government that keeps everything that from not falling apart And staying together, but everybody has a say of what's going on and that source of power So I don't believe co-ops alone are a good enough way to keep everything in line things could still happen like Everybody agrees well if everybody agrees in a corporation, let's just cheat the system Then the system is still going to be cheated. We need something to keep them from cheating the system and I think governments are the best way of doing that But not Overly powerful. I'm not an authoritarian. I don't think we should say, you know You're gonna do this this this this today, and that's it. You don't get to choose anything obviously, but I do think We should have market regulations that say, okay You can't just be a monopoly in every sector and Nobody else gets to compete But you also can't just buy every competition and make yourself a monopoly. We need somebody there to say no, okay This isn't this is unacceptable But I also think that we need to keep the useful aspects of the market Because it definitely does have some innovations Changes keeping up as opposed to just kind of guessing at what's gonna come next Trying to assume, you know, well, I think the market should go in this direction when it goes a completely different way so I think in some places hierarchies are necessary and Just like in a co-op you have hierarchies in a position. So you need a manager in a company and in a co-op just like you need a governing body to kind of lead people in a direction of All right, you can't do this because this is immoral and this is gonna screw the whole system up and You're gonna have some wage differences in different sectors in different positions. So If you have somebody that's leading the entire operation the head engineer at a company He's probably gonna be doing significantly more work than somebody else at a company that just Stamps the paper. It says yes. Yes. So this should I don't I that's why I don't agree with necessarily communism I haven't pushed it that far because I do think some wage disparities should exist for Different amounts of work Um That's about it for my opening. I don't really have much. All right. I like to get into the discussion Opening and we'll shoot it over to Brinton to give a rebuttal of what he's heard so far Okay, so I've heard a lot so far. I'm gonna do my best to cover it all so first of all of all Free enterprise and Gregory mentioned that you know what we have right now is not actually a free market Which is true but what I'm going to posit is is that in any system that it allows for private property, which is the private ownership of Property that you do not possess but in fact someone else uses on your behalf There is no there can be no such thing as a free market because the people that The way the state functions. What the state is is it is a monopoly on violence? On justified violence over a given geographical location This state will naturally without this state private property cannot exist. No one can own a hundred homes If the people in those homes say, you know what we don't think you own it anymore. We live here It's ours. We're not paying you rent anymore Similarly, no one can own Amazon if all the workers in Amazon decide they don't want Jeff Bezos owning things without a military and police To beat and jail them into submission. Guess what they own Amazon because they possess Amazon. That's how anarchists Determine ownership by possession and use not my legal title or deed so If you have a free market you first to have a market with private property with that aspect You must first have a state and if there is a state that state will then Respond to its most valuable constituents because the state exists to protect property both with its military and police system The state will then naturally be corrupted by those people who win at the very free market that you want to have And in fact, this has happened in every single developed society that has ever existed now We do have like a truly free market in certain societies, you know, like It exists in much of the third world where workers are treated horribly where they live in virtual slave labor We had it during the industrial revolution in England before like People actually were able to leverage the government against this kind of thing And we had it throughout like the wild west when we murdered the Indians and stole all of their stuff That's a free market. So What I will say right off the bat is is that you cannot have a capitalist society is a nice idea It works very nice on paper to have a free market where people where the government doesn't intervene But if you are successful and become wealthy you'd have to be a complete and utter idiot Do not then go and buy yourself a mayor or a senator or a President or just make yourself president because you're a super rich guy and you think you should be gee wonder who that sounds like So it's very which what I'm hearing is a very Pollyanna idea a very theoretical idea of how this should work Which is not at all how it works historically and does not work in progress Similarly voting with your dollars is simply not democracy because again money you need money to make money And the more money you have and the more property you have the faster you can generate it and most money is generated not by labor In our society but by investment. That's why everybody freaks out about the stock market and why? Production must go up every single year or everything crashes and why we can't just take a break during a during a global pandemic because it is the investment and the return on investment that drives the engine of capitalism So therefore people without huge amounts of money always lose in a market economy Private defense contractors and I've seen this argument. You've been pulled back I've been pulled back to this a number of times That's just a state by another name that is a state with the democratic mechanisms removed Where the head of state is the owner of that company? And if you actually did that if you actually went and did private defense companies for everybody one They'd fight each other that you'd have essentially a warring states Errthing and two this would naturally become a slaving state where a private defense contractor would voluntarily Combine with a private prison and voluntarily combine with a private court And then they would put in jail as many people as they possibly could get away with and put those lawbreakers to work Creating products because guess what that's what we do right now with our private prisons Electronics flak jackets there are whole industries you see made in the USA on a product you buy It was most likely made in the USA by prisoners who are according to the Constitution of the United States of America Slaves of the state so again, this would be what you are advocating Sounds very nice on paper, but in practice would result in mass slavery Go ahead and wrap it up Brendan. Yeah, so the final thing that I wanted to get like success taxation is theft Yes, but also property is theft And in fact the act of making something property from an objective standpoint is no different from the act of Stealing something if an alien watches Someone sign away a lease and take a take control of the house or someone steal a lease and take control of the house All the alien knows is that paper exchanged hands and one person is living in the house when the other one didn't property is theft Thank you. All right. Thanks so much for that Gregory Let's just uh, you know, I know you probably got a lot of points to make and we'll just make them as brief as possible That way that we can have more time in the open discussion Okay, I'll try so the first thing is you have advocated for anarchism When you're saying these things like oh free market will lead to slavery and that in such what how would you? ban a free market without the government You can't just ban all these voluntary transactions and like ban these crown court imperial things Which I'll debunk later without some form of a government Free markets For the large part have not really existed in the world and to say that all the existed through india through them Killings to people killing Indians. I think is ridiculous And Eric and the kind of free market anarchism like I said before is voluntary transactions voluntary human action That's what the market is. It's not it would not be slavery clearly because that's involuntary It would be an individualistic anarchistic style so Again, you would need a government to take away voluntary transaction to take away the market, which is what I'm advocating for You can't have your style of anarchism, which frankly, I don't really know at this point Which is saying that like oh you just have You just have property is property like communal property and stuff that could exist communal property could exist But once again private property can't exist to and that you can't say that you can't ban private property without a government private property is Is private property can just be I own this San Pellegrino I own this I own this paper I can't why why can't I why can't I do that? Why a government could take that away, but no one else really other than other than thieves Which which you could have again once again, and this is the next point, which is that private defense agencies are Not Not art is not or not state the state encourages violence in the state it can lead to police brutality Private defense agencies are just like oh, okay. I don't want my house to be taken over. I don't want my house to Get destroyed or whatever and I'm just gonna hire someone to try and protect it the one the private defense agency that does that best Will get my economic vote The state doesn't do that the state really you're kind of the state And it uses violence against other people it can it can like for instance in like all the police brutality situations with where it killed black people without When they really didn't really do much so My final point would be is that the private the private defense agency all it does is protect the individual the state The state police attempts to enact violence upon others as opposed to truly protecting this individual citizen. Thank you very much All right, thanks so much for that and we'll go over to Connor next to give her a bottle of anything you've heard you disagree with Or you want to make a comment on? No, just a couple of points like how One thing you mentioned in your rebuttal was um you're talking about Governments you'd need governments to do all these things and you said that's what you were advocating for So just really quick. Are you saying you want a government regulating a market Greg? I? Do not want a government regulating the market. I just got confused in the words there then okay, so I'm curious how both of you would see a market flourishing under an anarchist system and We'll get to that later but um Also, how things are distributed in a communist system without a government so like Housing how these things are taking care of bookkeeping all that stuff. How do we know? Random rando X has all these things that he's supposed to be getting other than with some body with power over that person and How do we stop any monopolies bad bad things as you describe them Under a free market without any governing bodies where everybody is equal How do we stop bad actors? How do we stop monopolies? How do we stop basically anything without anybody that could say no? Anybody has power to say no if nobody has power to say no How do we stop somebody just you know skirting by the line? Which is why Greg was talking about all these things you need a government. Well, I agree you do need a government That's why I'm a market socialist, you know a market will be regulated And that says about it about what I've written down so So we can go back to all right friend. We'll go would yeah Do you guys do you want to do a second round of rebuttals or do you want to just jump into the I'd like to do a second round of rebuttals. All right. Go right ahead. Let's just keep it brief as possible I'll go really fast. So Greg You asked me how I would ban things. I wouldn't ban anything. I in fact, I wouldn't have to You hear this a lot out of libertarians like right libertarians And it's this idea of like, you know, if I want to hire somebody to pick to work my fields How who are you to stop me? You are gonna need a stop-out to stop me But you know what you never hear someone say like if I want to work for somebody How will you stop me the thing is is that? When the military and police are removed and nothing takes their place There really isn't a way to maintain Ownership over anything directly. So what I would point this out to is David Graber. He used this this analogy the Principle of the divided island imagine an island and on one half of the island you have a narco communists And on the other half of the island you have a narco capitalists now on the anarcho capitalist side They have private property Those who work and are successful in the marketplace will move up on the hierarchy ladder They will get all the money they will have and the people at the bottom They have no assurances and many of them are starving or living hand-to-mouth Then you have the anarcho-communist society on the other side that shares everything equally and accepts all comers Now here's what's going to happen with those two societies if you remove the police Police and borders and walls between them the lower class in the anarcho-capitalist island will run Immediately to the anarcho-communist side because right there they're going to have everything that they need Provided by everyone else. Yeah, they won't ever become the big man. They won't ever become the chief They won't ever have become a millionaire, but they will still have what they need Provided whereas on the anarcho-capitalist side once those workers go. What are they going to do without police to stop them from going? They would have to either be offering such a good deal to their workers that they might as well be living in an anarcho-communist society or They would need to empty their own You know empty their own septic tanks and pick their own tomatoes and then all of a sudden will wait a minute now We're the capitalists. We're doing all the work. We were supposed to be the ones sitting on top of the society So any society and I really think that in practice any society with its police and its military removed is Going to come to Resemble as long as nothing as no other force comes in and takes their place is going to come to resemble in a Narco-communist society much more quickly and we have seen these societies again and again in history not just in Catalonia in anarchist Catalonia during the Russian Civil War and not just in The Ukraine with Nester Makhno's black army But you know before the rise of the state some 5,000 years ago. We saw The this is how humans lived humans lived in what was called primitive Communism Which is very very similar to an arco-communism What we're just simply trying to do is take the freedom that humans enjoyed when we were hunter-gatherer Tribes working together Collectively and there were no great powerful. There were no kings. There were no bosses And make sure that we can marry that with the technology of the civilization that we have today The final thing I'll just point out is you you talked about the Dasani bottle or the this is personal property Personal property is property that is held and controlled by a single person Even if you use it for stuff that anarchists allow people to have because one person can hold and control and use Individual things it is when someone owns something that they do not possess and do not use But someone else uses on their behalf and hands the lot the lion's share of the of the productive Power from that to them because there is a piece of paper somewhere from a government saying that they own that thing Now if you want for instance, if you think that everyone at Amazon will voluntarily give the vast majority of the money over to Jeff Bezos Because Jeff Bezos is just that valuable to Amazon. I mean, maybe you could make that case But honestly the only reason people agree to work for Amazon for the tiny wages that they are given is because they have No other choice and thus you have people manipulated and controlled not directly by a truncheon But indirectly by controlling the situation and by leading the donkey around with a stick I don't want this. I don't want the carrot or the stick. All right. Thanks so much for that Okay, so firstly, I'd like yeah, sorry Yeah, okay. So firstly, you didn't address my argument about When I said which which society would you say it was a completely free market and did all these things like killing Indians? Having all these things, you know, you don't just there and because such a such a society that existed is not a free market at all it did it would have government either Either indirectly or directly through legal titles Secondly, I'd like to talk about private property when you when we talk about private property in my sense when I talk about private property I'm not saying the legal title is granted by the government. I am talking about personal property You can find it whatever way you want you can find this on Pellegrino simply as not a legal title But as my as just personal property. It's semantics in my opinion The next thing you said was um Could you repeat the last part you said by the way Personal property versus private property where I was giving the distinction that was I think that was the last thing I had Sorry, just the second to last the second to last thing. Yeah Honestly, I think you threw me can I instead Respond to what society was functioning without a government and in a totally free market I'll give you a perfect example that the British East India Company because the British East India Company function outside of England's Borders and did whatever it wanted and what it wanted to do was starve 10% of the Indian subcontinent to death in a single year These we have seen It was called like the age of heroic commerce And you can look this up Companies functioning outside of a state structure and doing whatever they want is a recipe for oppression and death And a great example of why this is is for instance the famines in India That was just one year when they start starved 10% of the Indian subcontinent to death. They did it again and again They did it in Africa. They did it in Afghanistan Ironically Afghanistan stopped them if guess is where empires go to die but the Important thing about What what happened with the British East India Company and what happened when the first colonists in America landed? is that with the It's a free-for-all for a short period of time and in that free-for-all some of the worst things come out come out within humanity the When the East India Company came to India Later on in their development they built railroads and people will say oh the Indian famines. Well, that was just famine It was uncontrollable. No, it wasn't because the towns that had railroads going to them starved faster than the towns That didn't have the railroads because the British were shipping so much wealth and so much food out of the country And simply didn't care about the Indian workers And you know, we've seen this play out time and time again in society Homo hominy lupus and the act of becoming powerful erodes your compassion It erodes your ability to understand and empathize with the people beneath you and that leads to atrocity which So that's the answer to what society you wanted to know Okay, so anarcho-communism. How would anarcho-communism deal with an east a private corporation that would do something like that I mean, how would we would organize the workers and overthrow them? You know a good example I would I would tell you to take a look at the recovered factories movement in Argentina And this happened in the 90s. There's a great documentary about it called the take which I highly recommend you watch Where the government put into place as many like it wasn't a totally free market because there was a government But it had as many they sold off everything public They had like that the the streets were owned by visa and mastercard And it was a disaster the country was looted by geopolitical powers and What happened was was that the government eventually put a kibosh on anyone selling the factories because they found that the rich Argentinians who owned these factories used them used them used them and when they didn't become profitable enough and they Weren't getting any more subsidies from the state. They shut them down and tried to sell them for parts so Is that so what happened was was that where the workers were sitting there looking at these empty factories? With nothing to do and that that factory provides for me that provides for my family the stuff that we need new we need the community Uses so they broke down the fences. They ran the factory themselves with no bosses direct democracy the police came and tried to kick them out they fought off the police with with slingshots and like and That you can actually see in this documentary it functions It works everything runs without that guy at the top stealing everything and taking from the gut of taking Subsidies from the government. So you can I would just say look into anarcho communist societies anarcho syndicalist societies Look at Catalonia. Look at the Ukraine look at the YPG Slash Pkk before they got annihilated by Turkey after the United States betrayed them and look at the recovered factories movement in Argentina There's also an amazing Corporation called the Mondragon Corporation in Spain and that's run as a collective and it's multimillion-dollar corporation That runs on a very close to an anarcho syndicalist model Um, so, okay, I'd like to just some of these things firstly I don't understand how this is an attack on individualistic anarchism workers can rise up and go against their bosses Syndicalism can occur in three markets. I don't think that's an I don't think they're mutually exclusive Individualist anarchism is an attack on anarcho capitalism and capitalism in general I'm gonna guess So, yeah, I'm just kind of Yeah, so I think that so yeah once again like I'm gonna try and educate more for individualistic Anarchism then anarcho-capitalism. I don't think an anarcho-capitalist society a fully capitalist society will necessarily work and the second is And the second is that things like Machna was to Ukraine Essentially, you could say that Machna was the government because they weren't because initially Oh, it started out kind of like as the utopian society that I think this full model of anarcho Like complete communal property kind of is and so yeah Machna became the government I think an anarcho-commonist society like the primitive anarchist society I don't understand why you would want to go back to those times because the computer that we're debating with was kind of fuel through Economic production unnecessary through capitalist production, but rather just through a market. So I think So a lot of the computer stuff that was created was actually created by the Soviet Union and a lot of it came out of the space race, but I'm sorry I We've got our market socialists here I just want to make sure you get a chance to speak Yeah, if you're done on that point I'll jump in there. I kind of cut out halfway through my I kind of missed half of the arguments. I have no idea what's going on Oh, okay. Do you want me to keep going and then you can catch on? Okay, so you can't quote Ludwig von Mises and say you're not doing a Anarcho-capitalist thing like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard like they are anarcho-capitalism And in fact like I mean more Rothbard than von Mises, but I will also point out that anarcho-capitalism One it's physically impossible because of you cannot again you Rothbard breaks things down into where you have these Private defense corporate companies with overlapping territories that for some reason don't fight each other Because of the NAP Because I don't think Rothbard actually built anarcho-capitalism to work He simply built it as a propaganda tool to help large industrialists like The Cokes who had funded him initially get the kinds of policies they wanted passed. It's a trap. It's not actually a political philosophy similarly like Ludwig von Mises you know He's not you can't talk about individualist anarchists like Lysander Spooner and go to like Ludwig von Mises Ludwig von Mises is much more in like the if anything the classical liberal tradition coming out of Battistat As opposed to Prud'Om so like if you want to talk about the individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker like Like Lysander Spooner by all means talk about the individualist anarchists, but but don't confuse the waters by bringing in these Extremely hyper-capitalist thinkers, you know like Rothbard wanted a free market in children He literally wanted people selling kids and buying kids like it is it's monstrous He wanted parents to be able to starve their children to death Yeah, so I didn't but I didn't cool In fact, I don't agree with a lot of his opinions like the historical revisions. That's crazy You quoted Ludwig von Mises, which is like quoting Murray Rothbard because Murray Rothbard's crazy about Ludwig like Rothbard is the only reason anyone knows who Ludwig von Mises is Okay, Ludwig von Mises. I just because I quoted Ludwig von Mises once doesn't mean I have to agree with all his opinions Like just like that. I'm just like, but I'm more a Spooner-esque Tucker Tucker right kind of Tucker a kind of free market here. I think Ludwig von Mises was right about the the property thing That's all I was that's all I was saying. I wasn't like just I wasn't just saying like oh But Ludwig von Mises all correct just because I quoted him I think he has I think he has some interesting ideas about the free market But then again when it comes to corporations like they kind of just follow they just kind of fall for the corporate The corporate is sad. I guess I guess they speak so so yeah Can you well can you explain to me like what about individual so What about Lysander Spooner's economic philosophy really appeals to you What what what are you looking into it and how does that differ from anarcho-capitalism and standard like right libertarianism? I just want to make sure that I get your position here, so I don't go off on another tear Okay, well, I like Lysander Spooner Primarily I do like him for economic reasons, too But I primarily but I like him too for his like just his general classic liberal idea of like slavery and government kind of being one of this Kind of being one of the same that's that's I like that about him I think I think like him I think like being what it differs from anarcho-capitalism is that anarcho-capitalism is against Necessarily labor unions or such or whatnot. I Mean like the not the non-aggression principle. I don't really like I don't like really necessarily Like go for because if you need if you need labor you need if you need like positive liberty Like there's an analogy once that said the billionaire has a lot of money And he could and he could like care a disease that everyone else has like by just giving some of his money away The negative libertarian would say no, but I wouldn't say so I would say that Sometimes force might not might be used. I don't think force should be used much like in that sense I kind of do like the non-aggression principle But like in situation extreme situations like these I believe in I believe in That I believe in going against the non-aggression principle. So like so like again I don't think like this whole thing with violence like the state is founded on violence Why are we using so much violence to overthrow assistance? There's like the original is my is my big point So I'm curious where you draw that line so let's say Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people are now We're back, okay thousands upon thousands of people are starving in the streets and have nowhere to live and basically living an awful life should we Use some of the money from those billionaires to save those people out of that system. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I was saying That's what I was saying I was addressing the complete like I did complete negative libertarians who would advocate for going against that I think like as like I think some there's needs to be some room for things like that It's a problem that negative liberty faces. So yeah, I would agree with you. Okay. So some social safety nets are a Good thing. Yeah, well, it's not necessarily social safety net. It can be used through other things such as again labor unions The things I was talking about the insurance costs all of that think I talked about You don't have a job. You don't really have a labor thing to save you I'm talking about somebody that's dying on the streets because they For some reason they have some mental illness. Let's say that makes them incapable of holding a job Should we be spending money on helping them? Through what means through a medium a Social safety net of some sort Well, I see my advocate. So let's go with that. Well, as an indigenous anarchist, I would probably say no No, but through some other means other than a state which I believe is founded by violence So let me ask you something really quickly and this is kind of on that I don't mean to pick on you Gregory because I've been I just So What I want to ask you about is what do you mean by the state is founded on violence I will agree that like the state by definition Exists to you to use violence like that's what a state is it's an organization That possesses a monopoly over the justified use of force in a given geographical area It is this very force that allows Much of society to function the way that it functions right now because it maintains the legal laws and the codes so for instance we talk about People You talked about for instance a millionaire who has all or a billionaire has all the money that he needs more than he needs And then you've got people that need medicine or they're going to die And the only way to get that medicine to them Let's say hypothetically is to take money from him and he says absolutely not this is my money I earned it. I will not give it up voluntarily I will die before you allow me to take that money from me and there will be people who do that We've seen it happen again and again, so The state in the market socialist Situation here would take money from him either via taxation or some sort of fine or some emergency thing and use it to Help those people and you said that that would be Acceptable so there is a line it's a line where you're okay with violence just What I'm trying to figure out is like when is violence justified? When is it not? Well, okay, so what I meant to say the same like definition you said for the state Which is like about violence, but when I said when I brought up the analogy I was just kind of I was kind of like raising the question It's which is how would you address that problem? How would you address the problem of the billionaire having all the money? How and how would you take it? I don't agree that you'd be done through a state force or taxation So I'm wondering what you would think about that. How would how would one take away? How would you take away the money from the billionaire? Well, ideally I wouldn't take away the money from the billionaire I take away the billionaire's private property Because really the money is just a symbol like money isn't real. It's Then you're okay with the violence, right? This is the thing. I am okay with Violence can be justified when it is used to prevent greater violence and there is such a thing as And now I'm not actually like an advocate for violent revolution. I want to make that very very clear I am an advocate for Violence when it is absolutely no other choice and if you do nothing something worse will happen So for instance There's a thing called structural violence and this is violence that occurs to people Maybe not directly from a person but indirectly as a consequence of broad social systems A good example of it might be for instance a police officer shooting an innocent black man Because he views black people as inherently more dangerous. That is structural violence Another example of structural violence might be a homeless person with mental illness who can't work or for whatever reason Can't participate in society dying on the street of a preventable illness Because he cannot make himself valuable enough to capitalists to allow the system to grant him Access to necessary food medicine or shelter These are just as much deaths and just as much violence as anything else and so, you know in like I Ultimately think the state should be done away with and money should be abolished or transcended but At the same time we want to look at the reality of the situation and how do we solve this problem? Well, there's a very obvious very quick way that we can solve the problem without necessarily a revolution And that is a strong workers movement that pushes the government to tax That well that wealthy guy whether he likes it or not and puts the money to good use I think this is a temporary Situation which is why I'm not a market socialist or or necessarily like a democratic socialist like like Bernie Because I think that the state kind of by its structure can't be used that way It would be very nice if it could and the day that I am convinced that the state can actually represent the people and not the elite I'll go for that immediately but what what I've been kind of coming around here to is It is right to use violence if it is a last resort and it preserves more life Then what happened if you didn't use violence? So I have a little interjection I'm curious why you think that people can represent themselves more effectively Than an elected state because as we see very often people don't really represent themselves that well For example, they'll advocate for like, you know I want the best computer and then they'll go out and buy a shitty laptop When they kind of built their own computer with an hour's research or they'll buy an apple instead of buying Samsung when they say, you know, I want freedom of my mobile device So I find that people will just kind of How do you solve the problem to Comfort no no to comfort and things that they know will always just kind of work for them and won't fail on them Instead of saying, you know, I sure I want this I want something better for myself So just kind of fall back on Well, this has worked and I don't want to fail It's more fear and stupidity It was my question from here Gregory Yeah You because you were just talking to tonight I don't want to dominate too much here. So I'll answer you very quickly So I think that humans human nature is mutable and people change and grow Depending upon their surroundings and the things that types of challenges that come up in front of them And yeah, we do prefer the comfortable and sometimes, you know, we Do make foolish decisions What I think is really weird is thinking that a manager a boss a CEO is Above making foolish decisions and when you give one person a huge amount of power Their foolish decisions hurt many more people than someone with less powers foolish decisions I would actually say that go back and take a look at like the way we ran things that occupy Wall Street where Everyone was involved in the process. We had what was called the General Assembly where there were no leaders There were facilitators that tried to help everybody communicate, but overall we made decisions Collectively as a group for you know, however many people showed up at a time. So 700 800 3000 people would show up and We'd hash it out talk and eventually created the document, which was the declaration of the occupation of occupant of and We ran that mini society inside the larger society for a good six months until Mayor Bloomberg Released the state to destroy us And you know, the NYPD rated the block and beat everybody up and threw my friends in jail but when you give people real power to a certain extent and when they Really feel that they're being listened to and that what they say and do matters They will pay more attention and they will often rise to that occasion so I think one of the ways to get people to be less foolish is to challenge them by giving them the Ability to actually do things as opposed to having someone else make those decisions for them. Does that make sense? Yeah, I disagree, but I don't know I'm gonna say is these temporary situations which talk about we're y'all you used Oh, you just got to use the state to redistribute some taxation is where we get situations such as Lenin such as Mao's China Stalinist Stalinist Soviet Union Cambodia when you use the state for things like these when you use the state to interject say oh I'm an anarcho-communist, but sometimes we're gonna have to use this in order to do that That will lead that will lead to the worst situations. We know we know today, which is why Somebody gets taxed Suddenly we're going to have the great purge in the Soviet Union No, once you give the government concentration of power then that concentration of power will become irresistible and it'll lead to I mean, I would agree if you give the government too much power at first. I was talking like That was not me speaking as an anarcho-communist That was me speaking like as a manager like how do you solve the problem? That's right in front of you right now. I was talking about the ethics of it Not, you know, ideally how I would solve that problem like if I were king anarchist or whatever Now what I'm what I'm saying is is that like You mentioned that You don't want to give the government too much power and I agree 1,000% with that but like how much power is too much power for the government to have like where where's your line? Where does it go from, you know, say the government that we have right now? What's the difference between that and Suddenly Maoist China Well I think like any kind of like power that the government has is already considered is already too much What you're urging people now? Sorry, what why isn't the US government purging people right now? Like why haven't I been thrown into a gulag if because the government certainly does have power So if so much if some power is too much why you know Why are we not seeing the excesses of the Soviet Union or the Third Reich expressed in the United States? Well, I think that's kind of a strawman because I wasn't really saying like oh too much power to any power is too much power And therefore that will lead to communism. I'm saying that there's different these roots these The two forms of totalitarianism or authoritarianism which I know are the ones that go to the communist direction Which are so she was some stuff like that and pinnish a pinnish a style at the extreme and in more modern context United States I think the difference between the way the right wing capitalist works and left wing capital is not the left wing authority And system works and the right wing authoritarian system works both are bad But the left wing communist system can all too easily fall into totalitarianism or as the right wing form Like manifests himself in kind of like these corporates titles Hang on so Anarchist Catalonia did not fall into What you're talking about neither did Nestor Makhno's forces with the Black Army neither did like the libertarian Communists have never fallen into totalitarianism the pop the Paris commune did not fall to totalitarianism And I didn't see any indication that it necessarily would The I didn't sorry you can finish Well, we were talking about like the right and left wing of socialism the right and left wing of socialism is Marxism like In fact people will talk about like Mark Marx Leninism as a right deviation of You know traditional socialism So, you know, you could put anarcho-communism Anarcho-syndicalism on the left side of socialism and you could very easily put something authoritarian like the Marx-Leninism Maoism on the right end of communism or were you trying to say something along the lines of like The good do you think that the US government is communist now or so? Okay, well, I wasn't I wasn't really saying that I didn't say that okay Let me here's but I'm gonna say a couple points first of all I didn't say the anarcho-communism is the one that will lead to power I'm saying that your brand of oh temporary government power and then send and then we're and then we return back Just to see let's say he is not gonna work. The second thing is that I would agree that it's not going to work in the long run I was simply making a Again, that was not me advocating my system. That was me giving you like What it was me talking about the ethics of the situation and what to do with Immediately as opposed to if there's like a mass movement or a total shake-up in the structure of the system Okay, so then okay, so then you clarified that the Paris commune Didn't lead to but the Makhnavist Ukraine thing once again that kind of that kind of did lead to authoritarianism one Well because Makhna eventually became the government this whole system collapsed in like two years You're completely incorrect. I'm sorry the system that Makhna was running did not collapse What happened was the Black Army was extremely effective and in fact dealt the final death blow Against the white forces they defeated the czarists on behalf of the Red Army when they entered into an alliance with them Then they were betrayed by the Red Army. They were taken to the leaders of Makhna's army were literally Grabbed jailed assassinated by the Bolsheviks and Nester Makhna had to flee to France and died of tuberculosis Okay, but I was just saying that Makhna eventually had to secede to authoritarianism. That's all I was saying I mean It was forced upon him by treachery So so I want to get I want to give Gregory a chance to respond to that and then I want to get Connors I want to get your take Okay, so we're gonna go for about maybe another five minutes or so Then we have to get to the Q&A because we got some questions to answer and then What I want to do is after you give your what you your What you were saying there Gregory and then we get to Brinton and Connors with a couple of last responses Then I want to run through and I want you to give because some people are asking I want you to give like hey Brinton you're labeled as an Communist Gregory radical capitalist and then both market socialist so on I want you to on your like Closing I want you to say this is what I mean by radical capitalists or by market socialist and Here's what like draw together the threads because some people are saying what do they mean by the their labels But then you can use that opportunity to tell us what you mean by it and then how it applies to what we've said so far So Gregor, go ahead and try my opening statement, but Come in late. Oh, okay. Yeah, so go ahead Wait, so should I risk share like respond to what he said? Respond and then after you do that's when we'll try and we'll get Connors Thoughts and then we'll we'll kind of close so that we can get to the question So an oracle communist society is what I think in general they don't last they don't last long one because of because they Allied themselves with Bolsheviks and then that happens because they have no protection. They have no they have no They have no function. They don't really have much of a functioning society and other forms of anarcho communism like we've seen like In Catalonia those those may build roads at first, which is good They even to market anarchism and they all had themselves comments and ends up and ends up fail That's the point. I was making yeah, but I mean you could say that about so before feudalism Transitioned from you know feudal monarchies to like the modern nation states there were attempts to create republics that failed like they failed again and again and again and Somebody back then could have looked at that and said oh Obviously liberal democracy doesn't work and we just have to have kings because this system can't keep itself together You know just because a system has Oh With us hopefully he'll be begging I'll ask you something really quick then because it's not right. So you said you that transition period you were Talking to what doesn't necessarily represent your opinion. I mean I compartmentalize I mean dude, I've worked as a manager So like like a manager in a capitalist company like hiring and firing employees So, you know, I have my ideals and the way I want it I want things to go and then I have the practical every day right in front of me How do you deal with this situation? Yeah, let's just make it show you weren't like acceleration. It's just tomorrow Okay, I would be monstrous You know, I'm a little facetism in there, you know, yeah, you get the UFOs in My internet wasn't really working. So if you could if you could just say your point again What was the last thing you heard before you got kicked out? Pretty much all of it. I didn't really hear. Oh geez. Okay. So what I was saying was was that you know the before You know feudal monarchies were replaced by liberal nation states Liberal democratic nation states there were numerous attempts to establish these liberal democratic nation states that failed that One reason or another we're not able to take over the entire society We find ourselves at a similar point in our history where there have been very Promising and interesting attempts at creating a libertarian socialist society that have failed for other structural reasons Now they haven't failed they didn't collapse in on themselves the anarchists in Catalonia ran That entire region and whole cities collectivized for three years straight Under Buena Ventura de Rudy. They actually wound up defeating dealing like one of the only Significant defeats to a like significant decisive defeats of a modern mechanized army by a civilian force armed with antique rifles And hand and handmade explosives They kept the fascists off for three years They did eventually have to enter into a alliance with the soviet union But of course that was only because the soviet union was the only one who would help them it was just the soviet union and the Mexicans the mexicans were the only ones that sent them weapons If the united states and the other liberal bourgeoisie capitalist powers had recognized fascism for the threat that it was And armed the anarchists in much the same way that they recognize isis for the threat that it was and armed the pkk ypg We again what we might have seen in An arco-communist spain right now Similarly if donald trump had not betrayed the pkk ypg and allowed their support the turks to roll over them Out of nowhere, you know again, we might see the beginnings of one of these states Growing and then once that genie is out of the bottle I don't think people are going to want to go back to living in under, you know, the capitalist boot heel so You know, yeah these Early attempts have not necessarily been as successful as we would have liked them to be But the amount of success that we have actually seen out of them is Staggering particularly when you consider the material conditions of the people in that time the technology that they had access to And the incredible array of forces that were aligned against them Okay, if you if you guys are okay with stopping there what we'll do is we'll just move to our our closing So just um say your title and what you mean by it and then just wrap it up Just say and that's why I think he was wrong on this or that or whatever and just give your closing So, uh, do you want to just we'll start backwards then maybe we'll start with connor and move back that way So my title tonight was uh market socialist what I mean with that is um Basically my goal is just the best for everybody possible and maybe You might Have to use some violence in some way like the government But as long as the final goal is the best absolute best for everybody so If that means a government has to come in and say no, this is bad. This is bad This is bad We need to do this to have as many people in the best situation as possible Then this is what we need to do If that is in the system well, you know tell me and you know, I want the best But as far as I see it just having a government keeping people Down a path that leads to the best for everybody is the best system to do it by And if some guy with 60 billion dollars needs to be told no, you don't need 60 billion dollars The guy dying on the street needs it We're taking it and giving it to him then So be it and I wish I was that billionaire to give it that money to them that's basically uh My opinion normally I'd be where Brenton is for the uh fighting for the anchovs, but Not tonight. I guess we uh switch the last minute. Yeah, sorry about that didn't mean to come in and up end things Can I go next and can we have gregory last because I went first it wouldn't be fair for me to go last first and last All right, so I am An anarcho-communist libertarian socialist. Um what I am looking to do is to create a society In which uh human freedom is maximized in both the positive and negative aspects of it Which means freedom from oppression and the freedom to actually do things And the best way that I see accomplishing this is to build communism Which is a classless stateless Stateless moneyless society Where uh the property is held as the common Productive property the means of production are held as the common property of the whole they are Effectively controlled by the people that actually operate them by the workers by the people who physically do the work And they do that work from each according to his ability to each according to his need not to earn money not to Not not to build their own little empire where everybody works for them But to make things better for everyone including them and their family Um if I want to eliminate both the poor and the wealthy and you do that by Spreading the wealth around and by allowing the the things that we need to be freely given rather than Withheld in order to coerce people into doing what you want them to do All right. Thanks so much Gregory Okay, so when I say I'm radical when I say I'm radical as a fair that means I argue I advocate for individualistic anarchism, which means negative liberty And positive some form of positive liberty can't exist alongside that But I don't believe in the utopia completely utopian ideals of stateless classless Moneyless society full of positive and negative liberty that sounds that sounds great on paper But it doesn't really work the only way you can really truly achieve um a society without the state and without Um most forms of exploitation would be well to just simply have an individualistic anarchist study Um, uh, yeah, it's pretty much it. Uh, yeah, okay. All right. Thanks for that make it brief Brevity certainly isn't one of my strong suits. So I appreciate that All right, so we'll just move into the q and a section here and uh, we've got quite a few super chats to get to if You want to ask a question or if I could have missed your question Tag me at converse contender and I'll check it out First question we have well, actually that question Uh Calla sent in or Caleb, maybe, um, I don't remember how he likes to be I don't think it's that Caleb, uh, k a Says this is dry. I'm out by So we did have a $5 super chat from stupid war energy. Thank you so much for your super chat She always, uh, just pours money. It must have a big trust fund or something So it's a question for Gregory Do you really want to leave things like a car that has bad breaks? And kills people up to the invisible hand of the market Okay, well The free market in my opinion Would basically do this the best companies that can best then that can best fund those breaks and make sure that they don't kill people on the road Would be would be the result of a free market With that when you don't have that when you simply have a complete like Primitive a primitive communalism or the Bolshevik style socialism Then those things are more likely to happen without economic production without proper economic production and a high GDP per capita Which has been shown to be higher and more market style economies These kinds of accidents would probably not happen. That's yeah That's which is why I defend mark more which is why defend the market. Okay. Thanks so much for that We have a 10 dollar super chat from live a life filled with love. Thanks so much for your support Uh, they say in all honesty Not totally for capitalism, but in a communist society Everyone is equal which to me sounds like crap I don't want to be held back by lower people who cannot reach success and status Is that to me that's not for anybody specifically so You guys want to both respond uh connor and brenton that's up to you guys I want to respond to that but why don't you go first because i've talked a lot Well, I'm not really a communist system. So i'm i'm having hierarchies in a society just not 2000 times the income hierarchy. So Yeah, so um, what i'm gonna say is equality is not sameness And you know what your people are not necessarily going to pull you down when you are equal Essentially, this is the randy and arguments the idea that everybody thinks that they're the one they're the genius they're the great Inventor that's going to rise above everybody and earn those Those riches and grab that treasure at the top The fact of the matter is is that this does not happen to the most worthy people A great example would be uh bill gates for instance and people say well, what do you have against bill gates bill gates Earned his money. No, he didn't what bill gates did was bill gates just happened to be in the right place at the right time because when ibm came knocking looking for a System to run their new their new computers The guy that they actually wanted to get was out flying He was flying in his jet And so they went back to bill gates and they said bill gates Can you make us this this guy didn't answer the phone? And so bill gates created kudos which stands for quick and dirty operating system he ripped off the guy who was out flying and Became the bill gates that he is today not only that but the only reason why IBM was in a position to make bill gates as wealthy as he as he became was that they helped hitler carry out the Holocaust and literally the money from that was some of the seed money that went into them creating these new This new line of personal computers So, you know the the fact of the matter is is you show me any great concentration of wealth and power and privilege I will show you an idiot at the top and I will show you a giant pile of bodies at the bottom You can be different than people you can Express yourself in your individuality in a wonderful way in in communism And in fact, I think you will actually have a better chance of doing that Then you ever will in capitalism with its empty promises of success that 99.99 of us never get All right, thanks so much for that Can I respond to one thing? This is uh, I don't like I'm not saying necessarily like as a point of disagreement I think what he's trying to say is that like oh bill gates created value and that's why he deserved his money like He like windows is very valuable too that most of us use some use macOS share boat But yeah, I think he's just saying people create value get more wealth and People value Just because they created value And what are we guys that are making it now it was he sits at the top He he's at well. He's at the top because he because he created that everyone it's a once again Like it's a consumer plebiscite. What value did iBM create when they helped hitler carry out the holocaust? You didn't create any value. They got a lot of money. They got pushed straight to the top I don't think that was necessarily as a result of the capitalist system definitely was a result of the capitalist system You know why do you think the result of the capital? Because we're operating for profit and the germans were paying The nazis are not the nazis. Okay, listen nazis were not Were not a capitalist society and they were basing it off of a were not a market society I mean hitler hitler coined the term privatization I mean, I would say that the nazis themselves were not capitalist or socialist They were fascist and fascists don't have principles But I mean if you want to talk look at nazi germany look at who was in charge in nazi germany It was the capitalist class It absolutely was hitler was supported by so many giant industrialists Okay, okay, so define capitalist class and working classes. It's it's just I think these are arbitrary definitions I would understand there are legal titles that say, okay, this guy is this this guy's this this is cast But there is not such a thing in in market society capitalist class working classes are all arbitrary definitions and I mean class in general It's it's not fixed but it's and it's not arbitrary But you know, it's it's not codified by law a capitalist is someone who owns Significant capital who owns the means of production and derives the majority of their Income not from their labor, but from that ownership. So if for instance, I owned a Huge share of the money in IBM So I go to the shareholders meeting with IBM. Maybe I'm on the board of IBM Maybe I get hired as a ceo and I get those dividends paid back from the work that IBM does and the and the profits that IBM makes That is a capitalist Whereas a and when you in a capitalist system those people are the ones who make all the important decisions Because they have all the money and because they own all of this productive capital The worker and the working class are the people who trade their labor for wages in order to get the money that they need So that's the distinction So would you say UPS truck driver who has a 401k or a pension fund? Well, and that pension fund invested invests in google is a capitalist just because he owns stocks There's many people who exchange labor Okay, so so again the think like a gradiation There's levels of how how much actual capitalism someone is engaging and that's a very good question Um, but what i'm going to tell you is uh, he does the UPS truck driver Who has a 401k, which may be now worthless while the economy goes down But if he has the 401k, but he is still so he's he's a he's a minor bit player in the market But he is still making the majority of his money from the physical labor that he does He is a worker even if he brings in some money from investments. He's a worker now you become a capitalist When you are making all or most of your money from not from your labor, but from investments Would you say someone who's Who owns a senior portfolio position at a like let's just say a high hedge fund or an investment bank Who's changes money for his labor is a capitalist or a worker just because he makes let's just say a good salary of like something like 450k 500k a year Hey, who's paying him the salary? Um the hedge fund manager Okay, so this is a guy who does labor for the hedge fund manager and he's being paid a good salary By the hedge fund manager that would be a worker because Again, if you make it you can make a good salary as a worker, but if you're still doing work You know you're still that now however somebody making 450k a year if they don't have investments They're a freaking idiot and so you know They would be very much on their way to becoming a capitalist if they weren't a capitalist already by the end of that Which is why these classes Just one more thing which is why these class distinctions that you make are arbitrary arbitrary they're based upon Generally general trends in society based upon how people make money Okay, just because someone makes money off of labor once again I'm gonna make the same point just because someone makes labor money off of labor does i mean that they can't be stockholders Stockholders again. No it doesn't but look the interests of someone who makes money from wages Are in direct conflict with the interest of someone who makes money from profits Because wages are a cost going towards that profit. So if you make most of your money from uh Like from your the stock that you own It is in your best interest that wages be as low as possible Because if less money is going to wages that means more money is going to you and vice versa If you are a worker it is in your best interest that the stockholders make as little as possible And that you make as much as possible for the labor that you put in Yeah, I don't think that's I don't think that's really correct because Okay, first of all, let me make a point People who make money off of profit most of the time their business is fair unless they have an idea which really like helps people out Most of them fail so people who make money off of profit Let's say business owner who's going to fail like let's say in a year Would you consider him to be a capitalist? If not, he's not going to be rich Let's just he's not going to be rich most of the time nine after that You only hear about the people who get rich these people who create businesses hedge funds, whatever Most of them fail would you consider that and then it become workers because they lose their money And I'll Can we do the super tax That So Next we have another five dollar super chat from stibidor energy. Thank you so much says Gregory as a christian, how can you support greed slash materialism? I don't support greed or materialism in any sense Like first of all the question I'd ask is why why why do you think a market always necessarily leads to greed and materialism? When we talk about this is the thing It's often said that jesus was this was a state communist or whatever But he believed like individually that you that you need to Redistribute resources give all your mind. He's not saying that a state should necessarily be produced so he could be in line with both my thinking and of and of your thinking so And basically the other thing is and this also applies to like separation of church and state people believe in integration of church And state say that oh jesus said like oh, we need to you need to go to church every day But like or whatever something wrong wise, which is not even really true but That does not mean that the government needs to enforce that does not mean that the government needs to create partnerships with the church That's the thing and and jesus is against greed and material wealth But that should be something from your individual heart not something that should be enforced through totalitarian control mechanism All right, so since we have so many questions it's so little time We've already been going for an hour and a half. Let's try and keep our answers to the next one short and pifty As james says Somebody in the chat just said that I look like connor McGregor. I've got that before by the way So another two dollar super chat from stupid whore energy says what is gregory's position on climate change? My position on climate change is that it is it is real it does it does exist climate and climate zoo change um And they are they they are They are sometimes the human causes they're partially due to human causes and partially due to oceans um ocean like um the sun the sun the moon like a lot of things a lot of um natural causes explain climate change but also we need to keep in mind um, how much we spend fossil fuels and um And energy so yeah, I so yeah, I do I would say I would consider myself to believe in climate change. All right. Thanks so much for that We've got a another 10 dollar super chat from live a life filled with love. Thanks so much for that I am supposed. Uh, I'm sorry. I am opposed to socialism because it dreams in um I think this is ingeniously No, I'm sorry I'm you know what I'm blanking on that term. Um It dreams of good truth beauty and equal rights I am for socialist ideals being put on capitalism in the u.s Capitalism is showing its flaws Yep, so i'm not sure that's that's for but uh I am for socialist ideals being put on capitalism in the u.s. Capitalism is showing its flaws um Maybe gregory for that one I'm not really sure what he's trying to say Why don't you go over the next question and just type it in the private chat so we can Read it and see what Is happening Okay. Yeah, let's just move on to the next one. I think that's it was just a statement. That wasn't a question Okay. Yeah, yeah, that was yeah, that was my question. Sure. All right. We'll move on uh, every old fernandez says How would disputes be settled in an ANC AP society and cap and cap. That's a narco capitalist society Well, I don't necessarily advocate for complete anarcho capitalism, but I guess what they would say is um Their advocate the question is can you read that? Can you read that question once again? Yeah, this is how would disputes be settled in an and cap society? Well, I guess through tor Through tor or through civil um or through civil agreements. I think I think that's what most anarcho capitalists would say. Yeah All right, like civil mutual um agreements. I think that's what most anchors would probably say. All right. Thanks so much for that. Um Live a life filled with love. Thanks for your $2 super chat says Any opinions on slob? I forget I always forget how to pronounce it slovoz zizek slovoz zizek Yeah slovoz zizek my opinion of him is um, he is Incredibly entertaining because he is a raccoon that was transformed into a human by a witch's curse And uh, I think that chomsky was right when he said that a lot of zizek is pretty much hot air He doesn't really say a lot though What I will say is his points on ideology and the inability to escape ideology is 100 percent Right on the mark and I think that's one of his best contributions to the to the discussion Also, he doesn't know anything about buddhism. He's a All right, thanks so much Connor if you have anything to say as well I had a couple points, but I I think brenton mostly uh cover them I'm super connor another five dollar super chat from shiverdore energy says How does radical capitalists deal with workers who become obsolete? Where is the relief? Uh Repeat that one question one more time that uh, how does radical capitalists deal with workers who become obsolete? Where is their relief? Um, well Again, like I wouldn't clearly I wouldn't say that I'm the full um and and our co capitalists But I guess there's I guess the response that would be through workers unions through syndicals And I think they can offer relief they can demand higher wages uh Yeah, like push for higher wages like which was generally the old conception of unionism not necessarily the one that was like Lived off of the government, which is that like oh people said we need wages asking for raises um And I think that's I think that's a way for this is our some workers to deal with um becoming obsolete in a in a like in an exploitative business All right, so or through leaving the business and going to other businesses that um offer higher wages. All right. Thanks so much for that. Um So we have a question from Tiaga who says Can you ask brenton and connor? What or how do we plan communities around after a hypothetical immediate gradual restructuring intentional communities like vietnam, etc thoughts Are we planning intentional communities? Yeah, so um how what or how do we plan communities around? After a hypothetical immediate gradual restructuring intentional communities like vietnam, etc I mean, I guess you're trying to say after a revolution and just like say it in a You know a coy way. Is that what I'm hearing? Uh, I don't know. I guess you can't answer that but I don't know kind of do you want to take that one because I've talked a lot Uh, I'm not really a revolutionary either, but so um position I'm taking right now is we still have a government system in place to Do the same thing that we would do now I I don't really know what that has to do with my position as far as I'm not calling for a radical change other than Hey, hey, man, you don't you don't own that anymore everybody that works there does And that's pretty much Yeah, um, I'll say I mean, I don't think we necessarily need to plan communities if I'm understanding you correctly You know the communities already exist communities spring up everywhere. They do it organically So I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to plan communities unless there's like A very specific reason why you need to be doing that In vietnam, you know, I've actually pointed to vietnam a number of times Because I think that they are one of the major success stories of more authoritarian communist tactics But you know, I would say if you look at the way vietnam did it and do that Tiaga said what I was asking is do you restructure communities? Unless there's a driving need to restructure community I don't see a reason to mess with it. Yeah, like like redlining in the states. I think should be restructured. But other than that like No Okay. All right. Thanks so much for that. Uh, when we move on to the next question We have a question from uncle thomas that says Uh, did it rojava or rojava rojava? Okay Um, sell oil to israel through a broker named Mari Kahana Oh god, I think you got a nazi there Um, it seems to me what he's implying Um, I don't know if rojava sold oil to anybody or not I don't care if rojava sold oil if they happen to sell it through a broker who is jewish. Who gives a crap? Gotcha. Okay, but the jewish role went one Um as one person actually said I forget who it was but he said uh, if it rains on your birthday the jewish did it So that's what all the far right believes That is what the far right believes but So our next question from chrismar and dave I'd love to know each of their thoughts on syndicalism Do you guys want to take that first? Uh, again, I've talked a lot Uh, I want I think connor should I think I think I want to serve connor because he's really not getting a lot of speaking Yeah, um, how do I feel about it? I say I align pretty tightly with it because you know I'm more ancon than I am market socialist but um Yeah, I just kind of It's it's a good system, but I think Ancon would be a better system as Equality is more tightly knit to everybody as opposed to in a christened plus system You know, that's not what I came here tonight to discuss. So I won't go into it Yeah, I'll second that to a certain extent. I think that syndicalism is a great, uh, temporary like Method building a new world within the shell of the old. I think unions, uh, in like the early 1900s, like during the height of the workers movement, they were a great replacement for government in a lot of ways However, modern unions a with very little exception have been gutted Um, they they're toothless and that's one of the reasons like I started as an anarcho syndicalist and became a communist because I lost faith in modern unions ability to actually Be radical like I remember in in new york city There was a guy who was in an elevator workers union and we occupy wall street called a general strike And I said, hey, you know, are you general striking on mayday? We you know in solidarity with the other workers in the city and he said, oh my union never strikes We that's in our we will never strike. It's in our bylaws. So like If they weren't so damn conservative and and toothless, I think they'd be great. Um, but you know, they've been eroded all right, thank you and like, uh And my opinion on syndicalism would be I guess it's a good way to um Oh raise wages. I don't I hope it doesn't get violent thing is once it gets violent then it gets messy so So just like regular world fashion unions, which like just work on like trying to get like work as higher wages I don't see a problem with that Or just like I just hope it doesn't like get too violent and then I guess yeah, you could consider me a Temporary syndicalist like depending on the situation. I would consider syndicalism to be an option. Otherwise, um As a being it as a political system Oh, just hope it doesn't get that that might lead to violence I'm not I'm not entirely sure but yeah, as long as Jeff Bezos doesn't hire the Pinkerton's All right, thanks so much for that our next question is from uncle thomas says Let's get another question on Rajava Did did it the Kurds marginalized Shias and Coptic christians? Um, okay. Thank you by the way for the for the actual like question there. Um, You know, honestly, I've heard some stuff about that. I'm truly not sure If they did marginalize, uh, you know the shia and the Coptic christians, obviously, that's a huge problem and it needs to be dealt with um I don't think it's a good idea for any society to be allowed to You know marginalized minorities within it and it would be a betrayal of socialism It would be a betrayal of socialist ideals And especially anarchist ideals to mistreat communities That's one of the big Because makno went after the menonite communes in in russia and I absolutely I find that absolutely disgusting I wasn't there. So i'm sure things were more complicated than that But uh, if indeed the pkk ypg did that that would be a major problem And I think it would be one that we should look at solving All right. Thanks so much for that We have a super chat just came in from tiago. Thanks so much. I'm not sure I'm on computer. I'm seeing your actual picture and on this one. I'm seeing your cartoon picture It's strange, but thanks for your two dollars The psl and dsa are awesome for organizing imo Yeah Liberation organization and the uh, I think that's the psl And the dsa. Yeah, they do. They do a good. They could they do good work All right. Thanks so much for that agreement. Uh, we'll move on to Fuppish dillet on it says do any of the The any of this three way wish to join the Satisfaction I'm not sure if that was a joke The the satisfaction Is I can't get no satisfaction I was thinking when I read I was like that might that may be a joke there. So all right Um, we'll move on. We have just a few more questions here teabag says If brinton and connor do not like the way america is Are they willing to move to a socialist and a communist country for five years? Love it or leave it So what socialist or communist country might somebody be referring to I would actually be really interested to like Five years in vietnam might be a lot of fun to tell you the truth. Um, but uh, am I gonna uproot like My life is here. My family is here. There are things there. I have roots In this country. So I would rather do that than run away somewhere else But yeah, I wouldn't mind checking out another place if I was Unmarried if I didn't have my son and I wanted to go spend five years somewhere else in the world I'd love to do that All right, but then how could I sit in my chair and bitch about the situation? No, because then I can't bitch. All right. Thanks so much for that. We'll move on to our next question which is from Uh lord jeffrey says brinton What is stopping any business owner from getting overthrown punished by their workers The police All right, brief to the point T back is back and he says to brinton At what age did you fall down? Okay, this is kind of uh It's okay. Yeah, at what age did I do what did you fall down the stairs and hit your head so hard that you turn Into what you are You know, I became what I am. It is very interesting. So, um I started out as a right wing republican when I was like gregory's age and I was a republican up until college I became a right wing libertarian In college because I didn't hate gay people. Um, I became a democrat after I got my first job and realized how exploitative employers treat people And uh, I became an anarchist after hiking the Appalachian trail main to georgia Uh, so living in the woods for six months and then moving from that to new york city where I was confronted with like New york city and like the absolute heights of capitalist power And um individualist ideology. So, you know, all of that came together that put me at occupy wall street I did not hit my head Thank you for asking. I think like I'm I think I might be a little bit similar Like I kind of start off as more conservative And then I kind of slowly evolved into this individualistic anarchist thing like I was originally like Like, um, left-wing socialist then I kind of turned and then I became a right wing It was a very sharp turn then I kind of like I'm kind of thinking like I'm kind of in the middle I'm kind of just like advocating. I think individualistic anarchism is like the best well so I can't I became right wing libertarian and then Now I'm more like an individualistic anarchist. I'm not really sure what I'll be in the future I hope I'm not the same as I am now because I don't want to just retain the same opinions. I don't know. It's 13 That's that that's a really good attitude. I a lot of people ask as well. However, you were I was thinking 13 or 14 All right I took a really similar One to Brenton which was I I was pretty apolitical for a long time because I just didn't care and then, you know, the whole youtube Almost smart. I'm smart and look at these crazy feminists. Oh I kind of fell down that, you know, like right wing libertarian hole and I was like, oh, I'm an intellectual guys and then My friend told me like one socialist thing and I was like, oh Oh, they're all stupid maybe and then I heard sargon talking. I was like, oh, they're really stupid abort mission Right wing and I was like, oh fuck All right, so we only have a couple more questions. So if we can Let's just answer them as quick and short as possible. We have a question from just a good old boy says What value does communism bring other than art and speeches? What value does communism bring other than art and well art and speeches are awesome But other than that, I mean I would say go and look at the workers movement in the united states Go and look at like honestly the you call yourself a good old boy The original term redneck came from socialist farm workers and miners They had a red bandana because they were You know with the unions you hear that that song which side are you on? Communism strives to liberate labor Um to to bring about a workers movement that allows people like you like good old boys Uh to live dignified full lives as opposed to being a tool for some asshole from the city Who doesn't care about you doesn't care about your family and wants to see you die in a coal mine So he gets an extra house All right, thanks so much for that um Erie's leo leo says Can both systems lead to a successful and moral society if correctly implemented? I think they're referring to communism and capitalism I'll let you guys answer this one could or unless Yeah, so I think they're asking Gregory like for you Could communism or socialism lead to a successful and moral society if correctly implemented and then to the other guys Could capitalism do the same if correctly implemented? Well, um comfort communism and socialism If not if it was not um totalitarianly implemented again I kind of think the idea of a fully common society is in an anarchist setting It's kind of a utopian is very utopian, but if that were to occur fine that'd be that'd be like sure because like The idea of like having a stateless moneyless classless society is a could be it could be a pretty good idea But again, I'm kind of in the individualistic anarchist tradition like Benjamin Captain Lysander Spinner were socialists So if in that sense it was implemented Then I guess it could work All right, Marcus In reality Not really because exploitation is immoral And capitalism will eventually exploit workers for profit Uh as an ideology, I guess it could be like perfectly implemented to never do anything bad But by that logic anti-centrism is an ideology and could work theoretically, but I don't really work with like Well, if we do every single thing right we'll get there and it'll be good. I just kind of go. Yeah, but it's not doing that it's gonna fuck up And capitalism will fuck people up Yeah, uh, what I'll say is you know At my I'm an eternal optimist and I fear that capitalism can never actually do that because Not you know, not just with exploitation, but just because The internal mechanisms of capitalism and the way it is structured simply incentivize bad behavior and bad ethics and morals However, uh at my most hopeful I will say that, you know, I think with strong government regulation if we take serious If we take this crisis seriously Institute ubi And then we build from that we institute You know medicare for all and we build on that and we get a green new deal and we continue to build And we deal with the crisis after crisis eventually, you know a society that is moral may grow out of that. I mean systems morph and change into others as the as the world changes and so I think capitalism could result in a moral system. I just i'm not sure how much that Moral system of capitalism will look like capitalism. I don't believe we're living in the end of history All right. Thanks so much for that. We had a super chat just come in from stupid or energy for $10. Thanks so much for that I love that woman. She is awesome. She was incredible in the in the last debate and I really I wanted to keep doing what she's doing Yeah, sara is always uh contributing to the channel. So we appreciate the support She was getting kind of nasty earlier though with one of our regulars and uh, How to tell like please keep a pg um, so Hey, if we uh, and we had some people complaining earlier in the chat about uh, people criticizing the The contenders and uh, just beefs in the chat You know, we just let things ride on free speech as long as it doesn't cross the line into hate speech that would uh, you know get us, uh on youtube's radar So so, um I just want to let everybody know that real quick. All right. So stupid or energy says We've had to again spend billions of dollars to belt out things that are too big to fail That started with 9 11. It's happened again with corona. When are we gonna realize this isn't working? So so I'd say so I'd respond to that by saying excessive bailouts lead to inflation And inflation could arguably become worse than worse than deflation Well, I don't understand why this would necessarily be an argument to get seen deflation's happened Buses happen and it's not a it's not a good thing But constantly but using bailouts as well like using government systems um also also like to In central banking to like with all these bailouts leads to inflation, which could be which is an equally bad thing Therefore, I think that the free market will have its boom and booms and busts, but it will naturally But it will actually form into an equilibrium. Um Yeah It's not a perfect week. It's not a perfect system by any means. I don't think it will ever be a perfect system but like Yeah, I will say inflation can actually be good, especially if you're in debt because if you're $20,000 in debt and the dollar loses its value, you're effectively $10,000 in debt So inflation is necessary sometimes for controlling the ever-mounting debt that that can't actually be repaid I don't necessarily have a problem with bailouts because money isn't real like it's really not it's imaginary And saying that we don't we can't do this because we don't have enough money Is like saying we can't build this house because we don't have enough inches But people get all confused about it. They think it's real Now what I will say is printing money To bail people out in an economy that is no longer growing and is it in fact shrinking if the rate of new products created um Drops off and there's more money around than people can actually use to buy things That's when you get into an inflationary crisis and that actually can be very very bad and very dangerous All right. Thanks so much. Well, I just Can I say one thing? Um, I don't understand why money is technically magic But money is a very useful thing inside What how do you decide how do you like how like I think it's a really good way to mediate? Um voluntary exchanges meaning like if I give you like if you carry my backpack from here to there I will give you five dollars like yeah Like without that back then it was just barter. It was just I'll give you a cow, but Well, it was never barter like that that was adam smith made that mistake because he lived in his town in city Dweller he wasn't an anthropologist read a david graver's debt the first five thousand years the way humans technically Exchanged favor for favor is essentially the idea that everyone in a community is in debt to everyone else in that community at all times um So really it was you carried the backpack because you knew that somewhere down the line that other person would You'd need them to carry your backpack for you. Uh, that that's how we function for like 194,000 years and then for the last six five or six thousand we created money to deal with those issues now Um, what I will say to work without money what I would have you guys look into is what's called swarm technology Um, it beats both central planning and markets because markets are sadly Bias towards previous actors within them if you look at like racehorse odds those function like a market bookie odds Because like somebody suddenly drops a bunch of money on this horse The odds go up because everybody says oh that person knows something I don't well, maybe they don't and similarly experts a lot of times can be wrong So there was a company that used swarm technology to aggregate individual inputs of humans and they Successfully predicted the winner of the kentucky derby like that not just the winner, but like the triple crown And it beat out everything from the vegas odds to the uh derby experts And I think that type of technology could be adapted to drive our industry And make decisions like where to build a house All right. Thanks so much. So um Uh, we if we could just uh, we keep we have questions that are still coming in so if we could just Go as quick as possible and yeah We'll just be quick as possible on our answers and then we'll we'll flop through this to be like the speed realm So aries leo leo says converse is the problem with both ideologies not the people corrupting it from the seat of power I think he's saying like hey with capitalism. Is it crony capitalists that are ruining capitalism with uh, communist is it Stalin and and mal. I mean, you know, what do you guys think? Is it I'll let you guys ask first I guess I would say it is kind of Like I talked about this in my free speeches the progressive era the welfare warfare state the military industrial complex which led to Which led to the idea of capitalism becoming this like idea that's just basically like oh like work like workers like um like the Let's say the exploitation of workers stuff stuff like that. Um I was like not giving proper products to consumers. Again, I think this might be part of the capitalist system in general I don't really know And but it has ruined the concept of a free market. Definitely. That's why people are like leaning in the socialist direction They're very like opposed to liberalism because they believe it But what i'm trying to say is it's really not a product of liberalism. It's a product of Corporatism, which is a completely it's a completely separate thing and which was uh, which is political fascism Yeah, well fascism I will say that that's you're confusing corporatism with Corporatocracy corporatocracy is where corporate corporations run things corporatism is a different thing where It's essentially government functions like industry functions like a body. And we can talk about that That's a really tough distinction though to get so Millions of people make that error. I guess I guess both. I guess both you could say This is what i'll say on on the matter. Um, you know power corrupts So let's try to make sure that everybody has the same amount of power so that we don't have one or two bad actors Screwing everything up. I also think human nature is mutable And we can get to a situation where we can incentivize People to behave more humanely and bring out the better aspects of our nature as opposed to the worst All right. Thanks so much for that Yeah, I'll say a similar thing that's basically like yeah, it's absolutely is corruption because people are corruptible So I think we should be taking the democracy in a workplace and splitting the power into as many as people as possible And then a couple assholes like me will say no, no, that's bullshit You can't do that And no, you can't bribe me because now i'm just dug into my hole of that's a bad idea Because that's a bad thing to do So I think we need to keep accountability to everybody instead of just one guy at the top All right. Thanks so much for that and on and on says How does the libertarian nerds feel about pulling in only 10 of the audience numbers You got with the third position debate last night Um, well, you know, obviously fur when fur is flying and you've got some guys who have a community of like Um, rabid mouth breathers around them, you know, it's going to pull in more views I mean people love spectacle the debate before was spectacle, but you know, I think this debate is a lot more Effective and I think there's a lot better ideas being exchanged. So, you know, maybe fewer people will see it Maybe they won't but you know, I'm having more fun here I think like I think like the view count is pretty high as it was hitting like 175 at some point Which is I think higher than average so Well, that's actually average to a little low for us but That is pretty uh, that is right on the, you know The dark political video is usually a little bit less because you guys Is a little less than like religious or you know, they're top. So That's right. We'll pull that up so, um Stagnu demorte just sit in hope i'm pronouncing that correctly just sitting in a $10 super chat Thanks so much for supporting the channel and says as an engineer I see people exploiting metrics to make Failure look good and good look normal Could you all admit that exploitation levels all economic ideology? Um That exploitation levels are all I can I mean you can mess around with numbers to make something look one way Or the other absolutely, you know, that can happen a lot, but um, I think exploit like for instance The people who said that uh the kind of the steven pinker argument that people are Wealthier today and better off than they ever have been that's messing around with the numbers The the fact is is that um, you know, it's difficult to measure Whether people are better off or whether they're having difficulty, but What I think the way to Which that is is to come at the problem with genuine compassion and um, You know, even if we are doing better or doing worse We should always be working as hard as possible to make this a better more sane and compassionate world All right. Thanks so much for that We have a question from Clay Corbin says how is biodiversity valued in each of your models briefly if we could Biodiversity how's it valued in each of your models briefly Anyone if you guys want to I can answer that because I think this guy's a nazi Oh I'm guessing he's what he's I mean He may be talking generally about biodiversity or he may be like trying to imply human biodiversity I think biodiversity as a planet is incredibly important and I also think that you know, um I I grew up around dogs and I know that the Mutt dogs are tend to be much more healthy than the purebreds and you have to be very careful with the purebred dogs Because their genetic pools are smaller and they have more diseases and congenital things that they have to deal with So I I think nature Tends to push towards increasing complexity and increasing diversity and I think it's really important All I'll say is uh, I don't want an ethno state As if it goes without saying Gregory or do you want to say anything? I don't really um I'm not sure if that's entirely like Has anything to do with it. But yeah, but I think biodiversity is compatible with my system. Um, I certainly love animals I wish I had a dog I'd love to have a dog I've got a dog God this is making me jealous I'm gonna talk we move on to our next question from yoke egg says How do I get on to a debate here converse? Well, the way you can do that is you can send an email to moderndaydebate at gmail.com or you can send me a uh an email converse contender at gmail.com or hit one of us up on twitter You should be able to direct messages there as well. So yoke egg Whenever you uh feel like you want to debate. I'm sure it Any of these guys here be willing to have another discussion. All right James has said as short as possible you get a faster apply. That's how I got on the first time It was like two two it two word answers All right, I got I got in through like recommendations someone's recommended modern day debate to me I really wanted to do a debate and then actually people are skeptical We were saying like it's it don't work and then I had an interview and then people said Oh, yeah, it's pretty like it looks like you can debate. So yeah Just send an email just like you got to prove like you that you can be a proper debater on this platform Instead of just someone who's just going to spew an answer. It's not does not not a properly debate or Starts going off on ad hominems and insults. Yeah Yeah, the only thing that we prefer to see is we prefer to see you at least in one debate Um, that's not that's not always necessary But we do prefer that especially now because the channel has gone so much and you know We can get some negative feedback if we have somebody who's Completely unfamiliar and then like a pro come together because then it's like they're just not familiar with the issues and but Feel free to send the email to either myself or james at modern day debate and uh, we'll we'll get you hooked up All right By an ancient wizard who sent me on a quest. I found a magic sword slew a dragon and that's how I got on this channel Yeah, we typically well we do pay gandalf for um finder fee Yeah, he's a talent double dork. He yeah, he gets his uh, his finder fee. All right Gregory uh and on and on says Gregory. Are you familiar with the works of hawns herman hope Or hop and radical capitalist chase rachel's Oh my god I actually actually really want to respond to us Um, I don't know the second one is but the first one I really dislike. I don't think he's libertarian in any sense of the word Uh, he's very like authoritarian The fact that he considers himself to be an anarchist is really Yeah Christopher chase rachel's, um, I know like I've met Christopher chase rachel's he is a complete weirdo Um, and uh, he thinks that um, what is it um praxeology is perfect and can never be wrong He's I think he grew up like super religious and he just transferred his like Kind of like fundamentalist, um ideas on from god and jesus to praxeology and Ludwig von mesis I think I have heard of him. I read a book called white right and libertarian It's it's it's it's he it's the same kind of like stylus hawns herman hop Yeah, I'd yeah, I'd really done The fascists really shouldn't like him because he's pansexual I mean, I Connor you got anything to add or are you good with that? No, I I'd just be meaning on hot up. So All right pepper talk says converse question. Why would anyone do the dangerous or difficult? In a why would anyone do the dangerous or difficult? Maybe they mean job in a communist socialist society. How could you have a communist society without authoritarianism? You know, I will point on that one. Um, go actually watch chernobyl because they have this whole thing right there where The and this is real history. Um, you know when that freaking Plant exploded People were throwing themselves at it and they did it not because they would be rewarded with millions of dollars Not because they were bribed and not even necessarily be and not because they were forced because you can't threaten someone with death To go and do something that is almost definitely going to kill them. Um, you know The they did it because it needed to be done because that's the human spirit So, yeah, you I don't think you need to cajole and force people into things Well, why do people jump in front of cars to save random people, you know, because they do All right, thanks so much um So god, we need to say that so I swear that scene where the guy tells them they'll they'll do it because It needs to be done and it's oh, it's beautiful. Watch chernobyl All right, so we somebody made a comment just now Why is this girl man debating a child? I think for the same reason why lebron james when he was like 18 19 and entered the mba He was playing against 40 year old guys because he's that good because he's up to that level, right? So Um, but I thought maybe I'd mention that Because we got two two more questions left Yeah, I'll tell you gregory is smarter than like I Then like 90 of the of the adult and caps i've argued with online. So thank you. Thank you very much All right, this actually may be our last question. I think uh hunter rothman says converse to brinton Will you better explain what you mean by money is imaginary? Yeah, money is imaginary. It's a symbol like it is a like it's literally just a symbol printed on a piece of paper um that we hold to mean uh as a store of value It only has value because we all decided it has value and some people will say well Okay, but that's fiat currency. But what if it's backed with gold? But gold only has value because humans decided it has value and we decided it has value largely because it's shiny Um, the fact is is that we have the ability wealth actual wealth is intelligence Plus productive capability plus technology. That is what the money symbolizes Uh, and what we need to not do and what we need to not do is not get caught up in this intelligence system that is money Um and and forget about all of the productive important things that we have behind it That's like what happens when we have an economic crisis like in 2008. There was no war. There was no destruction Everybody we still had everything that we had before but some numbers went down in a computer system somewhere and suddenly everybody loses their minds um, there's a great little story about this, um, where It's apocryphal. It didn't really happen. But like all the major banks decide they don't want their gold to be Stored all over the place so they get an island and they put all the gold on the island all these underground vaults And for years and they just trundle the gold across the street to every other bank And then the CEOs of the banks come in and they bring their kids in and they say Hey, you know, can I see the books and the books are all in order and the kids say can we see the gold Can we please see the gold and they yes, of course, you can see the gold take us to the gold and the people say Oh see there was an earthquake and actually all the gold and the vaults. We can't reach it anymore It's it's it's all been lost. But but but the books are still in order And of course nothing changed because money was never real All right. Thanks so much for that response. Uh, that is our last question So I want to just thank every everybody that showed up all the super chats and all the questions And then I want to thank also our contenders for showing up and giving us a an interesting discussion to ponder to consider and think about Um, and then also want to say if you haven't already if you would hit that like button Because it lets us know that you like this type of discussion Um, and we will have more of them And then lastly, um, if you haven't already, uh, subscribe and become a patron follow my lead and Uh, some others on that and we uh, I'll support this channel Any way I can because I learned so much from it And it's free. And so, uh, um I think that's all, uh, the questions we have but we have tomorrow night at 9 p.m Scholar fiction versus Eric Hernandez. That's going to be an interesting discussion And uh, lastly last thing is um, we have some people complaining about earlier in the chat that We are allowing people to um You know in fight some of the moderators say, you know things like uh about the Contenders and the people in the chat like, you know, that they're arguing or whatever or um We we like to allow people to talk amongst themselves as I said earlier unless they cross the lines I mean if you think about it, we have people some of the the regulars we have are People like sj and skylark. We have people like, uh, steve mccray and tea job that are all these people who You know that they they disagreed so much that but they're all regulars here. You know, so we want to make that a cool place We want to make this a place where everybody can just kind of uh come together and have these conversations Yeah, like yeah, but I can't just say one thing about that There was this once this video I watched which was a jango science lab versus i-hippocrat and it went completely crazy It was like I think it was like unmoderated and everyone was going nuts like just ad hominems like I-hippocrat was going insane and then jango science lab had to raise this was because it's like it was like a really Like I think I think it should have been moderated more there. Um, I think they like a little more um Moderation would be good because sometimes they cross a lot. They really do cross the line and Yeah, and I think that's when the moderator needs to step in Sure and there are some people that Yeah, uh anarchy, right Yeah, but Eric is distinct from anarchy I'm gonna take the status shot, you know, if you guys are thinking man. I really like these guys You know what? Maybe not him so much or him, but I like that guy Their information will be in the description below so you can check them out follow their work Then I'm sure they have a lot. I know most of these guys have a lot more work published Or on youtube you can check out their channels Um and other debates as well So if you want that to be in the description and as always Keep sifting the reasonable from the unreasonable