Comments

There is No Left vs. Right Only Liberty vs. Tyranny – Episode 3033 — 13 Comments

  1. Great show! Jack, here’s a fun fact I think you will enjoy: the left/right political labels weren’t just made up out of thin air, sort of, and they do have a historical basis which is pretty hilarious. They originate from the French Revolution and the fact that one political group sat on the “left” side of a room being used for the political assembly, while another group sat to the “right”. From wikipedia:

    The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

    Also, your shirt for this post reminds me of a poster that I think you’d enjoy if you haven’t already come across it: https://libertymaniacs.com/products/thought-police-poster

  2. Hey Jack, great show. I was asked this question yesterday morning… “I am curious to hear, what the two sides are in your opinion? Just so I know which one I’m on” https://podcastindex.social/@martin/107762723943813431
    I’m going to send him a link to this episode because it’s a great answer to the question.

    When you interview Adam, ask him how the guy doing is chapters(timestamps) is being paid each hour because Adam has included him in his value block. You know how you’re getting sats through your podcast? You can include others in the split, and they get whatever percentage you decide. I’m consistently making $10 a week getting 5% of Adam’s value because he’s using my RSS generator to publish his feed, so he cut me in for 5%. His chapters guys is also getting 5%. If you ever decide to do chapters in your feed, it’s a great way to compensate the person doing the work to timestamp everything.

      • Sorry for the confusion.
        I was in a discussion with a guy about censorship and a poll that came out saying 40% of people polled favor censorship, and I responded to him
        “I think we’re in the fourth turning, and a battle is brewing concerning the future of humanity and we will all have to choose our sides soon, so in these times, taking a stand for freedom is far more important.”
        To which he asked me what the two sides were.
        I told him “I don’t necessarily think it’s only two sides, it’s probably a spectrum, and I haven’t entirely fleshed out what it is I’m sensing, but if forced to say two, it’s the rights of the individual vs the “safety” of the community.”
        This morning I saw the title to this episode, and I thought, that’s it. If forced to say two, it’s liberty and tyranny.

        • I think we tend to think we are more unique temporally than we are. That is why we always link ourselves to patterns like the 4 turnings which may be valid but totally unnecessary to understand everything. I also think in your stat of 40% these polls are usually done with college age young adults, so the results are skewed and that is done on purpose.

          However the two sides are what I said in this episode, liberty and tyranny. Done. It is just that concepts like anarchism and Marxism/fascism are at the extreme poles of each. And even the worst of tyrants knows this. Here is a quote showing that,

          “The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the individual.”

          The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: “Everything for the masses.”

          That was written by Joseph Stalin in a work he composed from Dec. 1906 – Jan. 1907.

          Nothing is new and our time is not that unique. The technology and communications mediums change and the battle remains the same. Mob vs. individual rights.

  3. Hey Jack, maybe you can help me with my thinking. I believe in using force on someone who is infringing upon my rights. Often times, the police/courts are that force. If my neighbor is infringing upon my right to enjoy my property in peace by blasting their music at 2am, and when I ask them to turn it down, they tell me to screw off, then blast it louder, I call the police. In an anarchist society without police, how would you foresee that situation being handled?

    I’m not opposed to having no police; I understand they are agents of the state and will infringe upon my rights if the state tells them to, my question has more to do with how does one enforce property rights against an agent(i.e. neighbor) who is unwilling to respect those rights?

    • Right now sad to say if logic and reason fail and we are not talking about a situation where you can “legally use force yourself” you have to rely on the state’s enforces. Otherwise, the enforcers will be turned on you.

      In a stateless society you would pay a security firm to provide the same services the police provide, but if you were unhappy, you’d hire another firm. We don’t live in such a world right now.

  4. An abstract thought occured to me.

    There are two types of people in the world.

    1. Those who desire to control others.

    2. Those who desire to work with others in a non hierarchy.

    • I’d add the word permanent. As in a non permanent hierarchy.

      Hierarchies occur very naturally in cooperative situations. Here is an example, when we did the aviary build several guys were very experienced at framing. One was really experienced, he became the head of the other two, each took the lead in framing a section. I though I was “in charge” got the 100% FUCK out of the way. They with no orders became foreman for a few hours and acted exactly like foreman on a job site.

      When it was done, they stepped down and I ran the rest of the project, no one said, hey lets do this it just occurred.

      When we did the gardens around the Miyagi it was the same but different. It was more intentional. I remained the lead but found a lead for each of the 4 boxes. I acted like a site foreman with 4 lead techs. Everyone had a blast, everyone learned, everyone accepted the hierarchy.

      A militia has a commander he is elected and can be unelected at any time. A village always has a chief, in practice or in title matters not.

      We seek voluntary hierarchy in everything we do collectively with no force required. The thing is though leaders then only lead at what they are good at and only as long as they are needed to do so.

      That temporary nature is the exact opposite of the state. The state may have temporary leaders by election, term or death, but the state itself never dies and never cedes authority in the lives of its subjects. They call it “continuity of government” today, just so it sounds better than what it is. Eternal rulership.

      • I 100% agree with you on above paragraph.

        I have watched wild geese changing leadership naturally in flight

        I persume the one on the front tires, then swops out and they all get their turns at leading ( in their case it is probably energy rather than knowledge but it’s kind of similar analogy).

  5. I 100% agree with you on above paragraph.

    I have watched wild geese changing leadership naturally in flight

    I persume the one on the front tires, then swops out and they all get their turns at leading ( in their case it is probably energy rather than knowledge but it’s kind of similar analogy).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>