≡ Menu

Getting Libertarianism Right: Interview by Mikhail Svetov on SVTV (Russia) (2019)

This is an interview of Dr. Hoppe by Mikhail Svetov (Михаил Светов) for SVTV (SVETOV TV) on Nov. 3, 2019. From the shownotes:

Conversation with dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe about corrupting money in politics, perils of democracy, split between Cato Institute and Rothbard, freedom of association and getting libertarianism right.

Svetov was the organizer of his recent trip to Moscow [“Historical Patterns and Tendencies from an Austro-Libertarian Perspective”: Hoppe in Moscow].

Transcript below.

Unedited Transcript from Youtube

if you say these sorts of things that I said here you are not sure anymore that you will have your job in the United

States for the next day there’s more and more classical liberals calling themselves other carryings part of the

reason is of course that people don’t read much they are lazy if you read for it since iyx most famous book there is

such an extensive list of things that the state should do that Swedish Democrat would easily be able to agree

with all of it I have come to the conclusion in the meantime unless you have been frequently attacked to be a

sexist of homophobe crisis and you should ask yourself if there’s something

wrong with you listen we only have one child we don’t want another child because a second

child will be an additional problem for world climate and so forth you can reduce a problem by one if you just

simply kill yourself on the spot the draft the Dominions about my health

yet of stimulus Jergens German hope after National Committee Democrats in is Ernie Boch Peguero missionary

libertarians to purchase name discriminate so Adam privately in approval interpreter roots a libertarian

story at own caucus ports of pre howtechs abenomics tone I believe it’s even really Hoyer

[Music] Thank You Huns for coming to my show and

I guess the first question is how did libertarianism became about and how is

it different from classical liberalism maybe I should just say a few words

about myself and how I became a libertarian myself when I was young I

was a lefty I grew up in the late 1960s

and when I started my studies in 1968 that was a high time of the student

rebellion in Europe and my principal teacher at that time in philosophy that

was my first field was you can have a mass who was worldwide probably the most

prominent left-wing philosopher realized quickly the loopholes in the leftist

doctrine and was on the look out for some alternatives and followed the

newspapers for alternatives I first discovered Milton Friedman they quickly

discovered certain inconsistencies in his work then from Milton Friedman I

encountered really Hayek who was well known especially in in Germany because

he was Austrian and won the Nobel Prize in 1974 again I discovered many mistakes

in Hayek very quickly and then through footnotes that I found in Hayek I

discovered Ludwig von Mises who was one of Hayek’s teachers and I thought that

Mises was a far superior thinker over-over Hayek and from would be for

Mises I discovered very quickly his most famous Americans and Mary Rothbart I went in from Germany

to the United States to work with Rose Bart and I spent the 10 last years of

force Bart’s life in close cooperation with him

Mary Rose part is the founder of the modern libertarian movement there would

be no libertarian movement without Mary Rose apart and I was for the last 10

years of his life I was his right-hand man so I knew him better at least at the

end of his life than than anybody else so I did not know anything about the

libertarian movement in the United States but I was I was a CEO at issue

I have always been a theoretician I have never been involved in Libertarian Party

activities I was of course aware that they exist a libertarian party and I

went to two or three events that they organized that but that was just not my

natural inclination I was somebody who worked in his study and wrote and and

read I thought it was somewhat of importance to show that I did not grow

up in the United States I was not involved in the libertarian movement from the very beginning it was strange

to me when I came there I was happy to discover that they existed something

like this but I was never really heavily involved in it even though in the course

of my life of course I met almost all people who had some name mostly through

the connection that I had was rose bard who knew of course all the people and in the course of the years I met almost all

leading figures myself too so my question was how did libertarianism came

about how was it different from classical liberalism and why didn’t just old ideas prevail while why we we deem

Rothbart to be the author of modern libertarianism a major reason for that was

that the term liberal in the United States had assumed a completely different meaning than it had in Europe

in Europe liberals or people who were in favor of free-market economy and a very

limited state some of the more radicals or in favor of what is called a night

watchman state where the state doesn’t do anything else but make sure that the

police does its work and the courts do its work and that’s the end of the

engagement in the United States however liberal has a meaning of a social

democrat the democratic party in the united states are referred to as liberals but they have nothing to do

with classical liberalism as it existed in europe and because of that i think

there was a need to look for a new term and in the course of looking for a new

term and also a radicalization of classical liberalism occurred not with

all people who afterwards called themselves libertarian but with people

like mary rose part in particular where rose part was initially a musician in

the sense that Mises wanted to have a minimal state a state that doesn’t do

anything else except for this force external defense and a judiciary

raus part then radicalized this and by pointing out that even a minimal state

does of course require taxation in order to be financed and thought that that was

a violation of basic moral principles namely the principle that you should not

against other people and take the property of people who have just be

acquired their property so he made the step to what is called now

anarcho-capitalism which is a radicalized version of classical

liberalism his view was that even the function of judges the function of

defense the function of police forces can be done better by competing

organizations than by some monopolist that relies on taxation people do want

to be protected in their private property why don’t they turn to private companies

that offer our services I want to protect your private property all you

have to do is sign a contract with me I offer this service you don’t have to

sign up with me you can also sign up with other people who defend yourself so

his view was there is nothing that private enterprises cannot do better

than the monopolist provider such as the state now the Rose Park program is still

probably the most powerful program of libertarianism in the United States

however they are also quite a few people who remain in Hawaii classical liberals

but not calling themselves in the United States classical liberals also adopting

the term libertarians but who refused to

accept Ross part’s radical conclusion everything has to be done by private

enterprises they thought now certain things have to be done by by the state

nowadays classical liberals in Europe still have affinity to the

Libertarians in the United States and in the United States itself you have so to

speak to wings among the class among libertarians those who are anarchists

and those who cling to the classical traditional European way of the minimal

of a minimal state so if Rothbart used to be regarded as a founding father of

modern libertarianism why did departure from the authority and tradition of libertarianism happen because today when

you talk to libertarians in the West what you face is that you know there’s more and more classical liberals calling

themselves libertarians and the authority and traditions seems to be like taking the backstab why did it

happen part of the reason is of course that people don’t read much they are

lazy and the more acceptable version is of course a classical liberal version

the idea that the state is necessary somehow is so ingrained in the heads of

people that they could not free themselves of that of that preconception

and the other reason is indeed that the bigger this movement guru the less worse

was a number of people who actually read a lot of things they were satisfied with

just getting a few slogans and that was enough whereas I think the the major

seer additions of the libertarian movement as far as I can tell are all

anarcho-capitalists because the classical liberals do have a tremendous

difficulty explaining how if you have the minimal state that is a monopolist

to decide how many resources do we need in order to do our minimal tasks

of defending people protecting their private property there is no end to it

as I do we need hundred dollars from per person to this do this 150 or 200 or 300

or 1000 there is no answer to this question worse if you say you don’t need

anything then you have of course a very clear answer to this question it’s a

little anecdote I can tell use it at the beginning you probably come back to the split

between various organizations in the United States at the very beginning the

Mises Institute was also reluctant to come out openly in favor of of anarchy

because Jesus had made some remarks about feeling uncomfortable with term

but Mises was as a European of course influenced by European types of

anarchists who were mostly syndicalist anarchists not private property and our

kists and rejected them on the other hand Mises for instance in his earlier

works pleaded for the right of every community to secede from its larger

entity so he said even if a small village wants to secede from the country

as a whole they should be free to do that and if an individual wants to

secede from that small village if that might not be very practical but if it

can be done that also should be permitted and by saying this came of

course extremely close to the idea that that was part promoted and the two of

them as rosebud was of course far and visas were always on good terms and

and Mises wrote glowing reviews of of

rose Bart’s main main works

you mentioned the split between other charity institutions and you mean displayed between the Cato and the

Missis Institute what happened why did this split occur because I think few people realize in Russia definitely very

few people realize that the Rothbard actually founded both Institute the Cato and the Mises Institute and the reason

why the Misses Institute was created is because there was some sort of conflict that made Rothbard leave the Cato so

what happened yeah it was initially Ross

part was friends with the Koch brothers especially I think Charles Koch and the

Koch brothers are the largest privately owned company in the United States they

are mostly in oil and oil in the oil business up to this day they belong to

the 10 10 wealthiest people in the United States so Charles Koch was

initially an armored by the ideas Ross part promoted then they had a fallout I

put it this way Koch was so to speak the money giver and Mary Ross part was the

intellectual head of the outfit when the Cato Institute was founded

mary-rose part became a share owner in

indicator Institute but then the Cato Institute decided to move from the west

coast was he were initially located in San Francisco to Washington DC and they

wanted to become politically influential and in order to gain political influence

they thought then it would be beneficial if instead of which was Ross parts idea

promoting mostly Mises that they would promote instead Friedrich Hayek with a

far more moderate sinker if you read for instance the

constitution of Liberty which is one of Hayek’s most famous books it was

published in the 1960s if you look at the third part of that book where he

discusses what would be the appropriate functions for States there is such an

extensive list of things that the state should do that a Swedish Democrat would easily be able

to agree with all of it Mises of course was or people called

intransigent but an extremist he didn’t make any compromises that no there

should be there should be no function of the state besides his few that I

mentioned early on so Mises was de-emphasized because he was considered

to be politically intelligible and Hayek was promoted and that led them to a

split rose part refused to do that and said if you have me as your head I want

to promote the Mises line and I’m not in favor of the Hayek line he even said as

a great danger to choose Hayek as a promoter of libertarianism free market

stuff because all the enemies of classical liberalism and libertarianism

will point out to Hayek’s book constitution of Liberty and say yeah but

you see even this promoter of liberalism and libertarianism he allows the state

to do this he knows estate to do this and he allows the state to do this this

is precisely what happened and what then happened was when Ross part insisted

that that should not be done then the house that him from the Cato Institute they robbed him

of his shares he was silly enough as he admitted afterwards that he had his shares stored

at the Koch headquarters in Wichita

Kansas and the Koch brothers and told him sue us if you want and of course the

response it was a poor academic so how are you going to sue multi multi

billionaires who can sue you back for 10 20 30 years and he gave up and then

after he was ousted from the Cato Institute the Cato Institute and became

a relatively moderate institution that tried to do lobbying work in Washington

DC then Lou Rockwell who had been a book

editor and published some of Jesus’s books approached Ross part and the widow

of Ludwig von Mises with the idea

I will found a Mises Institute that continues the work that originally the

Cato Institute was supposed to do when that happened the Cato Institute and

they are fine and Sears again you have to imagine that these guys had almost

unlimited resources they then started a campaign against the Mises Institute the

Mises Institute had to be destroyed they’e wrote to all potential donors

don’t give any money to that Institute these people must be eliminated they

must be destroyed – Noah to no avail I mean it was difficult I have been

associated with the Mises Institute almost from the very beginning I was founded in 1982 I moved to the

United States in 1985 I worked with Ross part first in New York City for a year

then we post moved to Las Vegas of work colleagues we had our offices right next

to each other we had initially Muse Institute had maybe a handful of

employees and and the Ross part as his

intellectual head me as his assistant and involved a block somewhere in the

background as well that was that was it in the meantime of course the Mises Institute is quite big they rely on

donations from small donors but a large

number of small donors which makes you more independent because big donors tend

to insist no this one topic I don’t want

you to talk about this this is what I want you to do small donors they have no

power over what the Institute does I remember there were cases for instance

when moderately sized donors for

instance approached Lew Rockwell and said Luke get rid of this Papa guy he is

too radical we don’t want him and we don’t give you money anymore if you

don’t throw him out and Lou Rocco no way will I do this your contributions

are certainly not big enough to make me a stupid decision like this if you have a billionaire who says this sort of

thing and if he is not satisfied with your decision then you at the end the

same then you have no funds whatsoever anymore so the fact that the Mises Institute succeeded was due to the fact

that large numbers of comparatively small donors sustained sustains the Institute and

they have stayed true to the Ross pardon

the rose bargain program no other institution has done that and I did play

a role in persuading Lew Rockwell to give up this idea of we are in favor of

limited government and I was refusing to say now we are a narco capitalist but by

simply pointing out Lou is there any institution that says that they are in

favor of unlimited government and he said of a thing no there’s not a single

institution that I’m in favor of unlimited government so say so if you

even from a marketing point of view you had to say no we are not in favor of

unlimited of you’re not a favor of limited government everybody is in favor of limited government we are in favor of

no government at all so was this the Koch brothers they are still one of the major sponsors of all the libertarian

organizations in the West so would it be proper to say that big money corrupted

the libertarian movement yes of course that would be true and it was not the

Koch brothers did not only fund the Cato Institute they fund Marc Marc Marc a DOS

Center partner large parts of George Mason University the Economics

Department who is is funded by by the Koch brothers in their policy up to this

day is to make sure that there should be no mention of Ross part or if there is

any mention of Ross part it should be in a negative in a negative way I had

friends for instance who were associated with the Cato Institute and when they

wrote articles were they cite at me they were immediately dismissed as engines of

of the case Institute there are journals so-called Austrian journals some of my older

students told me they had submitted articles to that to the journal and and

the editor insisted but any reference to the name of hope that you have to take

out otherwise we will not publish we want to publish that article they they

actually employed people with no other purpose then traveling around the world

to all sorts of libertarian gatherings with a task of maligning spreading evil

rumors about Ross part and me to not to no avail

I never cared about it I never replied to any of these things and Ross part and

I became more and more successful despite all of these attacks that we

that we had to endure to this to this very day and what do you think is their goal I mean why are they fighting for

the limited government isn’t because if there is a government big money can Lobby their interest to it because you

can’t really love in the market you can only Lobby the government we imagine

that you that you are a Mises Institute representative and and ask yourself how

many of these washing higher-ups would invite you and have conversations with

you on the answers they are not interest to talk to talk to us we are not interested to talk to them because we

know it will be all to no avail whatsoever but if you want to be invited

to the right cocktail parties and no prominent people I have met Bush I have

met Obama I have met whatever some of

these Fox Fox News reporters and so forth then then you must be willing to make

these compromises and that’s what the Cato Institute and all their representatives do they are extremely

proud about all the all the big shots that they’d that they know whereas the

big shots don’t have much interest in in meeting Mises Institute people

[Music] there’s a case of Ron Paul for example

who is a pariah in the Cato Institute circles for pretty much the same reasons because he always preached not just

limited government but a wrath Bornean review of libertarianism and he was quite successful in those kind of

circles that you’re talking about at the same time well I mean he was he was

elected a few times to the House of Representatives from his local

electorate but he was an outsider in in Washington he was well-known as as dr.

know because every legislation that was proposed he was the only one who said no

I’m against this Ron Paul was in the

political establishment serving the person who was the most vigorous

opponent of the Federal Reserve of the American central bank which made him an

outcast in addition I should point out that Ron Paul was of course also the

person who made remarks about the blacks

commit more crimes and whites there are a certain certain dysfunctions that go

on in some sectors of the American society and was then immediately

attacked as a racist in America in the meantime everybody who ever says not

everybody is equal there are people that are black and they’re people who have slanted eyes and

then there are Caucasians and then there are women and there are men and men and

women are not just the same and blacks and whites just differ in many respects

anybody who opens his eyes and says these things that are obvious to every

person who lives in the United States is considered to be a racist

I have come to the conclusion in the meantime unless you have been frequently attacked to be a sexist of homophobe a

racist or something like that unless you have been frequently attacked I said then you should ask yourself if there’s

something wrong with you because that is every normal person according to this

new doctrine of political correctness is every normal person is a racist of

homophobe anti anti women and whatever it is the

only the only people who are responsive for every evil thing ever happened in

the history of mankind are white heterosexual males so keep in mind that

you can afterwards go to all these guys here and tell them that everything bad

that ever happened in your life to you is due to the fact that these evil white

heterosexual people are oppressing you and have oppressed you for thousands and

thousands of years so anybody who has common sense is in the United States in

the meantime attacked if you say these sorts of things that I said here you are

not sure anymore that you will have your job in the United States or the next day they will not jail you for this in

European countries saying certain things they even jail you that they don’t do in

the United States you can still say whatever you want but if you still have

your jump on the next day that is an entirely different question so how did

the left manage to dominate the public discourse so efficiently for so long to

to have the kind of influence that you just described I think that is the

popularity of egalitarianism for most people it is difficult to admit that

people are very even though it is obvious that people are very different that

there are some people are very good at doing certain things and other people are not so good that there are sex

successful men and women and losers that

there are some groups in the world that have accomplished more and other groups

have accomplished less nobody likes to hear that that you are not as good at

such and such as this guy is why are the white heterosexual males attacked so

much yeah because if you look at in what places in world history were the

greatest civilizational achievements achieved and that is is white

heterosexual male societies are the ones that are the most successful by far

compare that was was Africa compare that with the Middle East so they cannot

tolerate the fact that they have to admit that these people must have done

something right and we must have done something wrong why are they so much

more successful and why are we not as successful so aren’t you tapping into

the same kind of emotions that the left is do when you talk about you know how white heterosexual male you know are

being oppressed by the modern society aren’t you talking to the losers of the current political situation and tapping

into this sense of being a loser to help people organize maybe but you’re tapping

into the same kind of emotion I appeal to emotions of people that I think are

essential in order to improve life and

the living conditions of everyone you

they are after all the promoters of

civilizational progress the should be hailed and they should just be

self-confident enough to say look what we have done is quite exceptional we

have done many wrong things maybe but nonetheless look where you would be

without us we are the ones that you should emulate you should admire what we

do instead of attacking us and if you admire us and recognize what role we

played you all will benefit in the long run from this instead of attacking those

people who are the guarantors of

continuing prosperity for those people who think that they got the short stick

in life but you’re talking from the position of the moral superiority in

that case I’m I’m no I’m simply pointing

out effect to who do you owe your standard of living to whom do you owe

your great freedoms that you have you

should not cut down those people who played the most important role in

assuring and guaranteeing what you currently have and are the best

guarantors for future for for your future progress if you look ask yourself

the question who can who created libertarian and liberal ideas who were

the main writers that we look upon who realized how important private property

is priests and the protection of private property is especially also for the poor

people then you come to the realization those were very few people mostly male

mostly in Western countries and hardly anybody was a major liberal thinker a

major libertarian thinker contributing anything to this movement to this

worldview coming from other areas of the world not that they didn’t have any but

almost none so there should be an appreciation of those traditions that

made the West great I mean Jesus was right when he said the

idea of freedom is the Western idea that has never existed to the same extent in

any other part of the world except in Western societies Western societies are

not responsible for the plight of India and Africa as of course quite to the

contrary if these countries have ever any chance to get out of their

disastrous situation in which they are then the only way to do it is to adopt

Western ideas but if you listen to what the left has to say they’re actually questioning your entire preserved

precision they questioned the validity of the argument that what we have today

the society that we have today is something of value that’s their main point they can choose to live in other

countries if you want why don’t they move into Inyo Africa if they are so

unhappy with material wealth I mean it is easy to downgrade all this as you

know only materialist material wealth and all the rest of it but if you are so

concerned about that then there are plenty of places in the world where you can go but they don’t they don’t go

there and just say but where are the people trying to move to there’s there’s

no mass migration movement from Africa country to India there’s no mass

migration movement to Southeast Asia the mass migration movement is to countries

that are wealthier and it should be recognized that they are wealthier for a reason they say we shouldn’t have to

move we are the victims here where the victims of your oppression and what you

present as civilization is actually this story of oppression of of whatever

whatever we value as a value okay most of society’s until about 1800 lived in

the Malthusian age that is the growth of population outstripped the increase in

productivity that is what Malthus described is no longer true but it was

true until about 1800 again to repeat if

the population increases and of course before you had birth controls and things like that the population dramatically

increased sometimes but you can feed an increasing population only if you have

at the same time economic growth if you have productivity advances that make it

possible that additional people can also be fed until the 18th century you had

throughout the entire world massive amounts of people dying off because the

economy did not allow everyone to to survive so the Western societies drew

themselves out of this threat it was not because they exploited any any other

society whatsoever because there was nothing to exploit from these other societies they were also poor since that

time we have growing population to us increasing general standards of living

on a worldwide scale they have never been as many people for eat

of extreme poverty as in the last 200 years you can only say they exploited

their own workers but the problem there is of course the workers could have

become capitalists themselves they decided not to become capitalists themselves because it had to require

that they had to wait far longer before they would ever be paid wages they

decided I want to become controi because as an employee I will become paid right

away or if I become a capitalist myself I first have to build all the capital

goods and have to wait until the capital goods are already in turn out consumer goods and only then do I collect any any

income but even the claim that we’re feeding more people than ever that we can feed the growing population is under

attack today and if you look at the greta Sundberg what she was saying in the united nations just a couple of days ago how dare you she’s attacking this

exact idea that there’s you know that there’s too many of us the the situation

cannot be sustained and that you were selling that’s what they say that you that we’ve been selling them alive oh so

you think the people who have that fear I always tell look you you can reduce a

problem by one if you just simply kill yourself on the spot then the problem is

already one one person less so you I mean you have like Prince Harry and

whatever this Megan girl so they said we only have one child we

don’t want another child because a second child will will be an additional

problem for world climate and so forth then the question why did you even have the first child what why didn’t you kill

yourself on the spot then the problem is a little bit less and the greens and all

of these people are not in favor of population control in Africa Africa is

the continent where you have enormous growth rates of population Russia is a dying

population I mean the the number is declined in Germany Germany is declining the only people that the only fact that

it doesn’t decline is that because of the emigrate the mass emigration that

takes place which all go on welfare in in Germany there is practically no

European country that has that the native population even maintains the

same size the Western societies are by and large dying out so we do what

greater tune bird wants us to do except that she doesn’t kill herself the countries that are as a major danger

are precisely those the African countries with enormous they have five

kids ten kids no problem normally but but but this is not made to make into a problem quite to

the contrary we are the ones who are responsible for all of the evil things that go on in these in these places even

though according to their own doctrine they are the main problem that they just simply can’t curtail their population

girls so how did the write lose out on the

public discourse how did how did the write lose the popular support yeah that

is a very very interesting question is this when has something to do with the

transformation officer of the left the traditional left the traditional Marxist

type of left they want to do means of production have to be socialized and so

forth and since that turned out to be a disaster after a while people realized

to join if they wanted to be create more prosperity than in the West and of

course if everybody could see that that was not the case so then they had to

change their to change their doctrine and they adopted this cultural cultural

Marxism and attacked traditional

institutions like families infiltrated all cultural institutions and worked

heavily with intellectuals we have to realize that intellectuals are a very

dangerous very dangerous people intellectuals have difficulties making

money who is interested in in getting advice listening to speeches reading

books most people have completely different interests but watch TV get get drunk try

to look for girls and all that sort of stuff and or tired when they come home

from work there is a very limit that demand for intellectual services

I mean writers and philosophers and economists and whatever it is so these

picked these people they were taken over by the state made all be turned into

state dependents and they realized that they have to

promote these sorts of ideas in order to secure their own position

they formed alliances with the state so would be accurate to say that the the

government force was used by the special interest group to dis acure their own privileged privileged place in the

society to to corrupt the actual society that they came from yes I want I would

say that nowadays at least in the Western societies people spend almost

thirty years of their life in government

institutions so first you go into kindergarten that’s a government institution then you go to school in the

old days that was only four or five years and it was nine years then it was thirteen years in the mean time they

also promote the idea that everybody has to go to the University even though most

of the people are not made for university studies because most of the

people are incapable of doing serious work at the university and I tell you

why I taught for 25 years at American universities in I mean what low quality

of students you get there is unbelievable English is not my native language but when I came to the United

States and I asked Americans to write essays I felt like I was Shakespeare as

compared with what what I saw there and I stopped very quickly to give them

essay questions and resort it and only to to false questions because first of

all it was easier for me to grade and I and I simply didn’t want to do this to

me to read this gibberish that these people were writing so you have yet

I might be 60 to 70% of an age group in the United States that goes to universities that mean they are not the

population in America did not get smarter I mean dump people are now admitted to

to the universities and then they invented new fields like Black Studies

Women’s Studies Hispanic studies gay lesbian studies and then and you get a

degree in in black gay lesbian artistic Studies or something like this and have

a degree the longer people spend in educational institutions the more they

vote for left idiotic things the most reasonable people are craftsmen plumbers

electricians people who who know something that is needed in life and and

know how to put a nail into the wall somebody was a PhD in whatever black

lesbian studies that I’m sure they cannot even fry an egg in a pan but they

have a degree and whatever gay lesbian Black Studies this is a

situation that becomes more and more prevalent in the Western world the United States associate leader in all of

this but you can see that also in Germany you can see that in Austria considered in France where wherever you

go this is this is the same tendency I already advocated that in order to

avoid all of this problem they should give a PhD to every born child

immediately once you’re born you get a doctorate and that is of course the best

recipe to make the population extremely smart from the very beginning

unfortunately my proposals are not always welcome I must say you mentioned

that there are some dumb studies and there’s some proper studies and you know that the people who have common sense

they do something useful but isn’t that kind of arrogance actually brought the right-wing to the situation they’re in right now

because they didn’t pay close enough attention to you know working with the

public opinion they didn’t put enough value onto the the kind of propaganda

that left obviously understands and precisely because of that they ended up

in the losing position because they they get this the finances the not the normal

people our text was a hilt in order to finance people study idiotic fields at

the university was any without any employment prospects the only the only

institution that employs these people afterwards is again the state I mean what normal company does need an expert

in gay lesbian studies but they even introduce that into normal business life

by insisting that every company must now

have a human resource department that sees to it that in every company there

must be the right representation of all groups there must be so on so many women

there must be so on so many minorities there must be so and so many people who

have certain disabilities the only employment prospects these people have

is either directly working for the state or working for companies that are

obliged to follow state orders to have the right representation of different

groups in different companies even though for instance take the example of

of women so they have say in every major company there must be on the board of

directors must be now whatever 30 percent of women and the ultimate goal

is we want to have 50 percent because 50 percent of the population are female so

there must be 50 percent of that what they don’t do is of course I said there there are many many jobs

was this the same sort of demand are not made there if you look at the people who

just clean the street or drive drive heavy equipment who do heavy lifting

they are mostly male people in working in these in these professions but they are they don’t insist or there must be

just as many women who pour cement on the streets there must be just as many

women who take care of the guard of the garbage there must be just as many men

women who serve in the military and so forth they only pick out certain things

there must be just as many women as there are men but not in other fields is

it correct to assume that the government that the government cannot actually be used to help the society sort itself out

and the only reason why we have this kind of deviations is because the government forces it on to people so how

like when you’re talking to the right and there are libertarians and then there are traditional right wings and

when you talk to the traditional right wings their argument is you know we just have to take the power back we have to

take the government back and then you know now that it’s wrong people are at the power if there were right people at

the power you know everything would be different is that a sound argument given every no no of course no I hope all set

just as much I I realize that the idea of many of the right wing people is

everything would be just great if we instead of the left run run the show they would run a

different show but it would have the same sort of excesses that the left the

left has maybe would be slightly more pleasant but not but not by much no we

have the power of the government has to be systematically reduced all welfare

has to be abolished welfare is our institutions that break up the

Solidarity that normally exists with within families that you have for

instance increasingly large number of illegitimate births that you have

increasing numbers of of single of

single mothers it’s a result of the fact that being a single mother you get

support normally if you don’t get any welfare support you will be far more

careful in who you marry when you do get divorced and so forth if

you know however if I get divorced then I can rely on the government forcing my

husband to pay for years and years and years the likelihood that you will

choose the wrong partner and easily divorce increases points for my heart my

personal life I would think I a conservative bourgeois person but I

resent the idea that these types of people become in charge of the state and

then impose their particular view of the right way to live on everybody else

I think if welfare would be eliminated more people would lead a responsible

bourgeois life than they currently do so the government is the biggest threat to the traditional way of life yes I think

people are by far yeah great

you can always say look even if we have the freest libertarian society with all

of these problems it is possible then it become can become a state again and they

remember Ross part said to these in theory these types of scenario but then

at least we had a glorious holiday I would not deny I mean states have come into existence

and even if we succeed in abolishing them it is possible that they come again

into existence but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to reach that goal

we try to eliminate more order that

people murder each other as is a constant desire so to speak of mankind why can’t we get rid of murder so would

we say because obviously murders occur and there are murderers running around

hey we give it up mister it makes no sense to do that because they always

come spring up again no we never give up on it the states have been around for

quite some time sometimes they are worse and sometimes somewhat better that

doesn’t mean that anybody has to say exceptions they have always been around and they can come again and whatever it

is so the we simply give up on the goal no we don’t give up on the goal so the

libertarianism is a permanent struggle for freedom yes it’s the permanent struggle and there will be permanent

enemies of of that thing to see if envy is a big motive doesn’t ruling over

other people is the powerful motive we have to be aware of that and have to

combat it as as good as we can sometimes we are more successful in it and

sometimes we are less successful in it but there’s no no reason why you should

ever give give up a goal that is a moral

goal and the moral goal is as far as I’m concerned that we do not aggress

against other people if people do aggress against other people then we

should say so that that was a moral failing or a crime and we should blame

these people and speak out and say this is not right in private law that’s in

the dealings that private citizens have with each other the rules are more or

less clear everybody knows that if I smash you in the face that that is not

the right or if you smash me in the face that is not right everybody knows that

if you come and steal my wallet that that is stealing unless you can show

that I stole it from you yesterday everybody knows that if I burn your house down or you would burn down my

house that that is a crime that is that is a punishable offense what what has

been forgotten that is the same standards we have to apply to politicians also and when we apply that

to politicians and we realize of course yes they are engaged in criminal

activities on a massive scale I don’t want to talk about Russia or so but what

what is what is George Bush George Bush is a killer what is what is Obama Obama

is also a killer they are responsible for killing innocent people if you would

do what these people did you would be jailed why should different standards apply to

them the normal private law standards have to be universally applied and then

you come to the conclusion then even the best politicians the most harmless politician so to speak are at least

robbers the libertarianism as far as I’m concerned yes all these economic

questions are important to Liberty creates more prosperity helps to thwart

people to that’s all all good and fine but the most important thing is to

record no we are in favor of certain moral

rules and these moral rules apply to everyone regardless of what his position

is it can be the highest-ranking person or was a load the most lowlife person on

earth but nonetheless a mantra is a murderer and the robber is a robber and

a cheater is a cheater and the fraud is a fraud

Host: unfortunately we’re running out of time

so spicy pressures to briefly mines reach them the Canales with the vector

boots miteta telepathy and petrissage thomas just pranked read auras option yes gansan came an obama/biden coalition

i snapchatted Padma’s tonight’s Petronius whatever pattern on the jicama soda web the tower stop way amigo stop

attacking exquisitely show it on buoys are the aprox Katrina spell that it’s just the direction a specifically Sancto

peripheral savonia rural passwords Thank You Hans very much for the conversation

and it was a pleasure talking to you thank you


Comments on this entry are closed.