This is a message for everyone,
and I mean everyone.
What do you mean everyone?
Everyone.
We are all different.
I'm not. And we all face different problems.
But on a more fundamental level,
we all face the same basic problem.
We are ruled by criminals.
No one should have the right to rule
over others. And when such a power exists,
it is inevitable that the worst of us
will gravitate to these positions of power.
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So the nation's
society has a very simple solution.
Remove that power.
We ask all good people to unite and
join us in demanding that the non aggression
principle
be established as the law
through our three part peace agreement
so that we can create a truly free
society.
For those who don't know, the non aggression
principle is a principle that basically defines crime
by whether or not you are causing harm
or loss to another
or at least threatening or attempting to.
It is not a pacifist principle
and it does allow for the use of
force both for self defense and the defense
of others, but it strictly forbids the initiation
of force against peaceful people.
Establishing this principle as the terms of peace,
a law that is universally applied,
would give us true equal rights
and freedom for all.
Welcome to the last American Vagabond. Joining me
today is Matthew Sands from the Nations of
Sanity Project, something that recently caught my attention.
It appears it's been around for for a
few years, and it's something that you've seen
Derek and I talk about quite a lot.
And this this this project focused primarily around
the nonaggression principle as it was explained in
the opening clip. But there's there's a lot
of different kind of ideological,
you know, back and forth going on today.
And something that I,
you know, stress more than anything today is
is trying to find a path forward
around or circumventing or completely or, you know,
something that goes away from the path we've
always been taking. And government is something that
I'm constantly pointing out is, like, the central
problem to most of the flights of the
world. And so this project
was coming at this from a different a
slightly different angle, and I really wanted to
flush this out today and have Matt on
discuss, you know, how he sees this going
forward, how it could possibly be something we
take in that new path that I'm discussing.
So, Matt, how are you today? Thank you
for joining me.
Yeah. I'm good, Ryan. Thank you for having
me on.
Well, it's my pleasure, man. I really I'm
really, you know, enjoying
the the perspectives that you were laying out
with this going through your material. And as
I was saying just there to open, it
really is something that, you know, as I'm
sure you agree with this your old project
is is we need to find a new
path, you know, and government and, you know,
just being ruled over is something that I
think, you know, you tell me what you
think. I think more than ever just in
the last year,
I've never seen this many people
open to that idea. You know? And what
do you think about that at the start?
Are you are you seeing a shift in
people's opinions about things like this over the
last year or so?
Yeah. I am. I'm always kind of cautiously
optimistic with things like that because I've also
seen it in the past. It seems to
come in waves,
and I feel like the people who rule
us do a good job of keeping the
divide and rule going enough to kind of
distract us from the solution that,
that I'm obviously trying to present and that
I think a lot of people would and
should find themselves if it wasn't for all
of these divide and rule tactics that go
on. Yeah. Yeah. Most definitely. Well, why don't
we start with, you know, introduce yourself. Let
us know, you know, the project and how
it came about, and then we'll get into
the, you know, nitty gritty of it and
break down the, you know, how and why
and all that. So go ahead and introduce
us to Nations of Sanity.
Yeah. Well, the Nations of Sanity is based
on the assertion that crime and therefore also
law
can and should be defined by the concept
of individual self ownership and established as the
terms of a peace agreement. So the nonaggression
principle, which is the principle of individual self
ownership,
is basically the idea that you can do
what you want as long as you don't
violate the same self ownership
rights and freedom that obviously comes with that
that everybody else has. So we'll have the
I mean, it's it's equal rights in its
truest sense. The one right that everybody can
have in equal measure is right over themselves.
And this is the only kind of foundational
right
that really,
you know, that provides the foundation
for all other rights. Like, rights as a
concept isn't really coherent without self ownership. Like,
if you don't have right over yourself, then
you can't coherently have right over anything or
anyone. So there's a kind
of objectively
undeniable moral truth to the concept of individual
self ownership. And I think if we kind
of all come to understand and accept that,
then the solution that comes from that becomes
almost self evident.
Yeah. Most definitely. And, again, I think this
is kinda what people are starting to grapple
with. We're always presented. I mean, we're, you
know like, come speaking from an American perspective,
but it it's very similar in the West
in in in most places of the world.
You know, I'm we're brought up in this
mindset that there's some some inherent
empirical, you know, morality or truth in government
because they're there. And, you know, it's something
that I just it's it's ridiculous when you
look at just anything other than what they're
saying. But because of all the shifting of
everything happening today, people are starting to, I
think, find the courage to actually look into
this and realizing that it's it's an it's
an it's a it's not a balanced relationship.
And as you kind of highlighted there, this
is, you know, if you're being doled out
rights by a power structure, it could just
as easily be taken away, which from an
American perspective, that's not how the constitution is
presented, but it's how it's being applied today.
And so that's you know, it just represents
the a a collecting power structure at the
top will inevitably end up in this position.
Even as the founding fathers of The United
you know, of the of the, of The
United States said in the beginning, we just
can't learn from these these, long term lessons.
But, you know, let let's start with the
point of, you know, implementation on all this.
Because as you write in your documentation, it
you know, you have a three part piece
agreement.
And so then we get into, like, how
you know, what my audience is gonna come
from and just like I would too. Very
skeptical minded and as I as I know
you welcome. Right? That's important for all of
this. Is it is like how would this
actually work in the world as it is
today? Because I'm right there with you. I
think that these this is the right path
in regard to, you know, if you were
to start something from an you know, no
one understood what government was. This would be
an easy thing to to to get people
to agree with. But because we're in this,
who's gonna build the roads kind of a
mindset, it becomes very difficult. So how how
would this be implemented? Hypothetically,
it was, you know, the global agreement we're
gonna go forward on this. How would this
begin?
Well, I mean, I think the best way
for people because I think the reason why
people struggle to envisage envisage it is because
all they've ever known is government. So Yeah.
Few things that are provided by government currently,
it's hard to imagine how could we do
it. You know? But the obvious kind of,
parallel to that is the abolition of slavery.
You know? How are we gonna pick the
cotton without slaves? Well,
first of all, the question is kind of
a side note to the simple fact that
slavery is wrong. And it's like, well, we
abolish slavery and deal with that question afterwards.
But, also, that question
kind of answers itself once you abolish slavery.
Once you abolish slavery, then the cotton industry
is forced to use, like, consensual employment,
and then it goes on from there. And
it's kind of a similar thing that I'm
trying to say that we do with this
is once we abolish
statism,
which is, you know, a kind of wider
I mean, because the other thing as well
is
another reason why I like to use the
parallel of the abolition of slavery is because
what I'm saying is is
let's abolish slavery
like we did, but we didn't do it
properly. There was two things we did wrong
when we abolished slavery the first time. One,
we only abolished a very narrowly defined form
of slavery,
whereas, like, you know, you I would argue
that statism and the kind of ownership that
governments claim over its people
is basically just another form of slavery,
what some might call free range slavery because
we're not, you know, chained to specific manual
labor that we are forced to do. But
we are still there's still a claim of
ownership over us, and we're just given a
bit of more free reign to choose our
job, but the government still claims ownership by
demanding taxes from our income, you know, taxes
from our property, taxes from our trade. You
know? Basically and and even though they don't
take a 100% of it, the fact that
they claim any percentage and they're the ones
who decide the percentage is essentially an ownership
claim over the whole thing. So, basically,
just as people could, you know, struggle to
imagine a world without slavery before slavery was
abolished because it's all what was ever known
in, you know, throughout
remembered history.
But, also,
the other problem with it is
when we abolish slavery, in addition to only
abolish abolishing this very narrow,
you know, form of it, is we also
also abolished it under the authority primarily under
the authority of the same ruling governments that
are guilty of these crimes. It would be
like, you know, a slaver abolishing slavery for
everybody but him and continuing to own, you
know, his slaves. So,
so those are the two problems. And what
I'm saying is, okay. Well, let's do that,
but do it right. So the two things
we need to correct is we need to
not just abolish this narrowly
form narrowed narrowly defined form of slavery,
but we need to branch out to statism
and to all not violating coercion. Any coercion
that violates your ownership over yourself
is needs to be abolished, and that's what
we would do by establishing this law. And
then the other thing that we're gonna do
different is instead of establishing this law under
the authority of a ruling government, we're establishing
this law
as a peace agreement, as the terms of
a peace agreement. So there's no ruling authority.
No one's saying I own you or you
owe me. We're all equal owners. And and
it's a little bit like how international law
works today. Because that's the thing. There's already
the precedent for this. We have law that's
established through ruling authorities, but we also have
law that's established,
I e, international law, as peace agreements between
sovereign governments. Now, obviously, we don't recognize governments
as legitimate, but the same principle applies to
individuals. We can have a peace agreement between
us as equal parties. No one rules over
anybody else, but it's the terms of peace,
and it's formalized as the law in that
sense. And by doing that, we would abolish,
well, I would say abolish slavery properly, but
we would abolish statism. We would abolish all
forms of not violating coercion. And by simply
just nailing it down to self ownership,
the
you know, because, obviously, there's all sorts of
different laws that come from that, but they're
all objectively identifiable
from that one simple fact that you own
you and I owe me. So we don't
need to vote on whether rape, murder, theft,
and assault are crimes because they clearly are
by the fact that it's a violation of
your self ownership to do any of those
things to you. So there there's a kind
of undeniability
to it, and and there's also also, there's
a precedent that we can look to in
history where something similar to this has been
done. But the two things that were wrong
with that, we can you know, because that's
the thing. It's like a little bit like
the constitution.
Obviously, this is, you know, superior to that
too, but there's elements of that that we're
saying, okay. Well, they got that part right.
They got that all men are created equal
part right, but then they established a government
that kinda contradicted that. And it's like, okay.
They got the abolished slavery part right, but
they only abolished a small part of it,
and they've done it under the authority of
what essentially are slave owners. So, you know,
we just do it right. We we abolish
slavery, but we do it, you know, in
its fullest sense, and we do it through
a peace agreement rather than any kind of
top down authority.
Mhmm. And for those that didn't hear me
mention the beginning, NAP is the nonaggression principle
is what he was mentioning guiding the whole
the whole point. And so, you know, it's
it's a
it's definitely it's it's I see, you know,
your general point is in in the question
being implementation. This is something that is sort
of takes on its own. You know, it's
already inherent in all of us. Everybody as
as you make clear and and we'll get
to in a second, the the the gray
area versus the black and the white. Like,
it's it's inherent reality. Like, you know violence
when you see it. It's very clear. Now
there are nuances and we can get into
that. Like, there there's areas where it might
become questionable or debatable. But when you punch
someone in the face, no one's gonna debate
whether or not that was violence. Right? Or
or or yelling loudly, whatever. Like, there are
those lines. And so it's interesting. This is
already something that we already all deal with.
Just from what I'm getting in my mind
from what you described, the only moment that
the government law the way it is today
becomes
it it ultimately always ends up in a
place where it's no longer about whether it's
right or wrong or moral, but rather that's
the nuance of the government abuse of it
and using it for their benefit or control
of the population.
So going back to the implementation point. Right?
So here we are with this discussion again
saying that let's just say you get a
universal I mean, I know this is unlikely
because I know I I do wanna get
into the some degree some agree, some don't.
But let's say the world universally goes, I
agree. We all want this. We agree that
nonaggression principle is the guiding force.
How how do you implement this going forward?
And I think you already answered it, but
kind of for those that are wondering how
this becomes, like, day one, what would you
argue happens?
Well, the the key is about formalizing it
because that's what I mean, again and looking
back to the abolition of slavery as an
example of this, it was formalized. You know,
before it was abolished I mean, again, it
wasn't abolished worldwide in one click. You know?
I mean, the the British Empire abolished it
before America did, and and and then peace
agreements between nations, you know, sprung up after
that.
So, obviously, all was all done, you know,
like, in one fell swoop. But the fact
of the matter is is when it was
abolished,
it was done in a formal way. You
know, there were many people speaking out again
and this is the difference as well between
what we're doing today where, you know, we've
got people that speak out against statism and
against the crimes of the government and stuff.
But what we haven't done is actually abolish
what they're doing, and and that's the kind
of hurdle that we need to overcome. But
it really is about formalizing our understanding,
about having it, you know, written in stone
for one of another word. But but, you
know, because it's all very well having this
kind of loosey goosey understanding of, yeah, everybody
owns themselves. But if there's no formalized agreement,
that actually that's when that's when governments can
step in and kind of take advantage of
the ignorance, take advantage of the ambiguity. So
that's why I wanna kind of have it
set and say, look. This is what the
law is. You own you, and I own
me. And that's how you know, we can
get into the details and and and, also,
we need to get into what we do
about the gray areas, but the that basic
principle
is there. You know, it's like like America
has its constitution that says, you know, this
is what you can do and this is
what you can't.
There's still gonna be, you know,
disagreements over interpretation, which is why you need
to be as explicit as possible. And the
more complicated law gets, the more it's easier
to manipulate and pervert and corrupt. So that's
why it has to be really, really simple
and just say there's there's no there's no
ruler. There's only one, if you want, ruler,
which is this principle. That's the only ruler.
And the the validity of that just comes
from subjective moral truth, which can be, you
know, scrutinized, but it always comes back to
the same thing because anybody that would wanna
complain about this law being applied to you
know, like, a rapist couldn't make a coherent
argument that they have the right to rape.
Mhmm. You know what I mean? That you
know, because it would just come back on
itself or what you know? So this is
like I said, there's a certain undeniability
to cell phone shit. I do think it
strikes at the heart of what most people
kind of understand even if they don't, like,
articulate it in an in an intellectual level.
You know, we most of us those of
us that aren't overt criminals do already treat
each other interpersonally that way. Right. You know,
there seems to be a disconnect when it
comes to government for a lot of people.
But as, you know, people, how we treat
each other, you know, individually,
that is how most of us behave anyway.
So I think this I think,
you know, for all the things that are
against us, the things that are on our
side is the, like, the undeniability
to it. You know, once it comes under
scrutiny, it just becomes stronger because,
you know, people try to poke holes in.
They realize there's no holes. You know?
In the what block light areas. Right? Then
we agree on that. Like, that's the but
but the and the nuance is what we'll
get into is that you can create a
conversation where someone's gonna go, well, I think
it is. I think it's not. And that's
where it gets in. And, again, I think
your information make explains it very clearly how
that would just be an inherent reality. But
to the point though, like, what's the hurdle?
What is the day one look like? So
now we've done that. Like, so you're but
what is the let's get into the details.
So what is the the absolute agreement? How
does that work? What would that become? Is
that just our individual choices? Since there's no
status government mindset, how do you formalize that
amongst individuals or communities? Like, how does that
begin?
Right. So, I mean, this is where the
whole three part agreement kinda comes into play
because, initially, when I was first sort of
conceived this idea, it was, well, you know,
the kind of simple logical progression.
The first few steps of which is just
what all libertarians take upon themselves of, you
know, self ownership. The only justifiable force is
that which protects rights and not that which
violates it.
But then from there, you realize that the
only justifiably enforceable law is the map. And
from there, you should then realize the only
way to establish this principle as law without
contradicting it is to do it through a
peace agreement. So those kind of things kind
of follow on from there. But then the
other thing that you kind of brought up
there is the issue of the gray areas.
And, okay, well, what about differing interpretations? Even
if we all agree on this basic principle,
what what what happens to the gray areas?
And there are no matter how,
and I think we can do a lot
of work to cut through and then to
identify black and white where people think there's
gray. But no matter how good a job
you do with that, there's still gonna be
gray areas. There's still gonna be fuzzy edges.
And one of the kind of, metaphors I
like to use is the desert and the
grassland. I say, look, you know, imagine, you
know, you've got a big load of desert
and you've got a big load of grassland.
If you walk from one to the other,
there's gonna be an area in between where
one slowly becomes the other that's that's kinda
hard to define. You know, if you're in
the middle of the desert and you've only
got sand around you, you know you're the
desert. That's nice and simple. And if you're
in the middle of the grassland, you know,
likewise. But if you're in that kind of
area in between where it's a bit arid,
it's not quite grassland, but it's not a
full desert because there's still a bit of
struggle, you know, That's when things kinda get
get hard to play. And I think we've
got a very simple approach to that, which
is still objective because this is the point.
We have to be objective
Mhmm. From, you know, from this thing. So
the way we we approach and this is
sorry. I'm just I don't mean to be
all over the place. Go back to the
three part piece agreement. Is part one is
the basic agreement.
Part two is what I call lines in
the sand where we
separate the black and white from the gray
area, and we kind of draw this line
because we can we can accept that because
we're all equal individuals, none of us has
the authority to say, well, this is the
correct interpretation.
Right. Right. So we can accept differing interpretations,
but there has got to be a limit
of tolerance
to the differing interpretations.
We can't let people take it to the
extremes where they're actually encroaching into the black
and white and calling it gray area. Mhmm.
But with that in mind, our approach would
be to take and this is the same
approach that we already take with criminal law
today. Just like how you have to have
a beyond reasonable doubt
that someone committed a crime
before you can punish them. Because if you
don't have that, you're then guilty of potentially
recklessly
imprisoning somebody, you know, who's innocent and all
that.
So by doing that,
that kind of, you know, obviously, polices it.
So we we take the same approach to
the principle itself. So is this a nonaggression
principle violation? Well, if we have a beyond
reasonable doubt certainty of it, then we are
justified in enforcing it. So So if I
can say beyond reasonable doubt, not only that
you committed the crime like murder or whatever,
but if it's something that but that that
what you could or the crime you committed
is actually a crime, that it is actually
a non aggression principle violation. And if I
don't have that beyond reasonable doubt certainty, then
the force that I would apply to you
would itself be criminal. And this is the
kind of self policing element of this because
if we establish this principle as law and
you've got, say, competing courts and competing law
enforcements and what have you,
the best guard against, like, a kangaroo court
system
is the fact that while the law is
rigid,
the the the right to enforce it is
something that belongs to everybody. So you can
have competing agencies.
And because one of the things that guarantees
corruption today
and why you have true kind of kangaroo
courts through government is the fact that you
have, like, qualified immunity and prosecute your immunity
and all these things that basically mean that
there's no accountability
for miscarriages of justice. Whereas if you have
other courts that can take you to court
because they've seen that you've done some sort
of kangaroo system and imprisoned somebody, they can
then prosecute you for kidnapping and imprisonment and
all the rest of it, which you would
then be guilty of if you didn't meet
that burden of proof that we've already discussed
about being beyond reasonable doubt. And that's and
that goes back to drawing this line in
the sand. So that's what part two of
the three part agreement is about. It's about,
yeah, it's about drawing that line in the
sand and say, okay. There is a fuzzy
edge. But like with the desert and the
grassland, we don't have to lose the definition
of a desert just because there's a fuzzy
edge between desert and grassland. We can still
say, okay. When there's only sand,
we know we're in the desert. And the
same with the non aggression principle. If it's
definitely a violation, if we can definitely say
that, you know, you're encroaching on my right,
then I can stop you. If it's debatable,
then,
basically, I can't use force against you. And
when there's a kind of gray area where,
okay, well, there's a decision that has to
be made one way or the other because
sometimes it's not a simple case of inaction
is good enough, Right. Then you have a
self ownership answer as well. Because, for example,
if there's, like, an encroachment of personal space,
this gray area, well, who came to who?
You you can still fall back onto first
use principles. Because if we're both equal, then
the person who approached the other person
can't complain about the invasion of personal space.
Right. But the person who's been approached
can do.
A similar thing, like, with children, like, we
have, like, age of consent, and you've obviously
got you know, you can have a clear
understanding that children can't consent, but competent adults
can, and that obviously
segregates things like, you know, legal contracts or
or consenting to sex and things like that.
But there's obviously, again, a gray area in
between. So what do you do about that?
Who has the authority to make that gray
area decision? Well, in the case of children,
it would be parents. And, again, that's not
an arbitrary, I just think that's a good
idea kind of thing. That comes back to
self ownership because,
like, I'm responsible for my child because I
brought them into the world based on self
ownership. You know? Like, if I push someone
in the water and they drown, I'm to
blame for them drowning. And if I bring
a child into this world, that's obviously you
know, they can't,
what's the word, provide for themselves and survive
on their own. So if you if you
brought a child into the world and then
just didn't look after it, then it started
if you would be guilty of of because
you put it into peril. So there's a
duty of care that parents owe their children,
again, based on self ownership. And
that duty of care also gives them certain
rights
with how they how they fulfill that duty
of care. They're they're basically the rightful guardians.
I'm the rightful guardian over my child, which
means when it comes to the gray areas
of of raising that child, including when I
can release them as a competent adult and
when I still have to hold on to
them as a as a parent who's responsible
for them, that gray area and, again, I'm
only talking about gray areas. I can't step
over the black and white. But if it's
a gray area, then it's my decision. It's
my domain. And the reason for that, again,
it's subjective and comes back to self ownership
because anyone who'd want to step in and
say, oh, you know, like, I'm abusing my
child by abandoning it too early or,
or, you know, or holding on to it
too late, like, you know, like, imprisoning when
it's actually an adult, stuff like that.
They would need that beyond a reasonable doubt
standard to step in and take my child
away from me. So if it's a gray
area, you know, like, you know and and
and, again, I think this strikes to most
people's common sense because if your neighbor if
you didn't agree with how your neighbor's parent,
but they weren't stepping over that line of
child abuse, then as much as you might
disagree and as much as you might wanna
peacefully persuade them or whatever, like, maybe they're
overfeeding them or spoiling all the things that
are kind of, like I say, debatable,
then we have to say, okay. Well, they're
the parents, so they have a higher right
than me on how they raise their child.
But if they step over that black and
white line, then they're no longer acting as
parents. They're no longer acting as guardians. And
then we and and, again, it's the same
with everything. So I didn't mean to go
on there. But there's so many things it
applies to, but then you can still find
an objective approach even if there's not an
objective answer. Does that make sense? Right. Totally.
And I think this is a really important
part. And so here's what it comes back
to for me on this. And we still
we we still have the part three, but
in this this part's really important
is that, you know, we have a circumstance
where what you're describing, and by the way,
I agree entirely with, is is what we're
highlight outlining is is how it's applicable to
the individual, right, to individual society choices, to
my versus you, my neighbor. But and this
is where I'm coming from with it. There's
a lot of good ideas like this out
there that I will I support, but I
I still find it. I don't see where
and how this becomes real with the way
our system is today, which is why I
appreciate
what your pro your,
outline because I really do think this has
merit in this regard is it's easy to
understand. But what I would like to flesh
out is how to get it beyond the
government that's there now or, hypothetically, what we
can get into more in the Nuance maybe
right now is that, like, we do it
here, but then that that group right next
door doesn't care about our mindset. You know?
And so how do we like, the pointed
question would be who decides in the analogy
you were just making? What court? What entity?
What power structure? Right? How do you figure
that out? K. Is that is that something
you formulated, or is this still on the,
personal part? Well, to clarify the question a
little bit for me so when you say
who decides, what do you mean precisely? We
come to the the analogy we're just laying
out about, you know, any one of the
things you laid out, the neighbor, the child,
whatever. And it comes into one of those
inevitable gray areas, which will be there in
any circumstance. Even if it's not gray to
me, maybe somebody else disagrees on what's the
gray area. Right? There there will be disagreement.
And so suddenly now you've got one side
saying that's a you know, they violated the
law. The other side saying, no. I haven't.
Who decides?
Well, you would you would have to prove
your case, and you would have to prove
it beyond a reasonable Who? Sorry. Go on.
No. To to who would be the person
you're proving that case to? What power structure?
What Well, well, this is the well, this
is the point because it could be anybody
that would challenge you. So so this is
the thing. There's no, like, there's no particular
person that has this divine right. Right. Just,
you know, it's like when they say who
would enforce this law? Well, anybody could. Now
one of the ways so so, like, for
example, if you had some kind of kangaroo
court and you and you thought, well, that's
a miscarriage of justice, then you could hire
another court to to take them. And if
they feel that they've got a good enough
case that there wasn't a miscarriage of justice,
then they would step in and use force
as a more competent law enforcement that doesn't
have kangaroo court systems. I mean, obviously, there's
a certain degree of,
free market meritocracy that's gonna be applied to
all these courts with regards to you know,
the kangaroo courts are gonna struggle in many
ways because there's gonna be, you know, more
legitimate courts that are actually following these laws
more faithfully Right. That will just prosecute them
for being criminals, you know, for imprisoning people
falsely and you know? Just jumping really quickly.
So that this is this is exactly what
I'm getting at is that so that's in
the hypothetical world in the future where this
exists.
So I'm saying, like, day one right now.
Like, now together.
Yeah. Right? And this is and this is
in no way meant to invalidate the idea.
I think this is exactly where we should
be going. It's about working together to figure
out how we implement this. Right? It's just
like, that's my issue is it's like right
now, you've got the government that in no
way is going to allow this. And maybe
this is getting a little ahead. Like, we're
for more much more we could talk about,
but I this is where my mind always
goes to is how do we get past
the power structure that's currently there.
And and back to that point specifically is,
you know, so I
can decide that I can you know, we
let's even say the group around us can
collectively go, oh, wait. I think that this
person's right. And that's kinda what you're saying
is that would be sort of the the
societal kind of moral guiding guidance. But then
what if the power structure that exists comes
and says, nope. That's a that's a against
our US government law or whatever. Like, how
do you get beyond that now? Maybe the
answer is we don't know. You know, but
I I was curious if you had thought
into, like, how this becomes real day one
kind of idea. Yeah. Well yeah. I mean,
it's I mean, obviously, there's got to be
a tipping point to actually enact this. But,
again, I I draw on the parallels with
the abolition of slavery. It's like, how did
we do it with slavery? For all the
imperfections I've already spoken about about how we
didn't do it properly and we didn't do
it expansively enough, but it's the same principle.
And because the thing is there's no point
in my mind trying to shrink the government
as it is or convince the government to
reform itself or any of these kind of
crazy notions. You know what I mean? It's
like what you need to do is you
need to take the malignancy out of it
because you we don't have to tear up
the roads and the institutions. What we need
to do is we need to abolish the
criminals who rule us and overthrow them with
this law, with this abolition of their immoral
rule over us, and then take control of
those institutions.
So, I mean, I mean, there's even one
of the articles on my site is called
overthrowing the government with the nation's insanity. It's
like saying, well, this is how we would
overthrow the government, not violently by storming the
capital and not by doing all this, but
by convincing enough people to formally abolish the
government as a ruling entity Okay. And force
it to become a voluntary collective just like
we force the cotton industry
to become regular employees rather than slavers. You
know? It's it's it's No. Then you just
answered my question. If I'm if I'm hearing
you correctly, so if,
so you you could see a world in
which or the next steps being
introducing this hypothetically through a body, a governing
body right now and allowing that to take
place. But, eventually, the goal would be to
get them out of the way entirely. But
a starting point would be to, let's just
say, from a US perspective, for my audience,
to have congress introduce this law as the
universal law. It may not happen, but you
so that's what you're saying is we'd have
to go go ahead. Go ahead. I wouldn't
well, no. No. I I still
I mean, you know, if if people wanna
try that method, but that that's not what
I'm advocating because that's still
advocating
their authority. I agree. What I'm what I'm
saying is I think we need to over
throw their authority. So I I'm not interested
in what congress because I don't think they
would anyway. But, also, I don't recognize their
authorities.
The people need to say congress doesn't have
this authority. President doesn't have this authority. The
people need to make question. No. No. I
just this this is now back to the
same question of, like, okay. Well, then how
does this become implemented if there's not some
formal process through which we can universally say
now this is the reality? You know? That
that's the stopping point for me is that
you know? Because but I look. Back to
the individual point. I'm all about the idea
of changing one person at a time and
the mindset and that and I think we're
doing that right now, quite frankly. I think
that's why this is something that people are
gonna be more open to. But at some
point, there has to be that, like like
you said, the tipping point to where it's,
you know, it's not just us. At some
point, it's gonna be people like us hoping
the government doesn't step their foot on top
of us. You know what I mean? And
so that's, like, how do you get around
that point? But may maybe that's just still
what we have to take it one step
at a time. You know? Well, no. No.
It's a it's a valid point, and I
understand what you're saying. But my point is
is I agree that we need to formalize
it. I mean, that is kind of the
crux of what I'm saying. Yeah. But what
I'm saying is just don't confuse
the idea that we have to formalize this
with the idea that we have to formalize
it through government authority. Right. Do you see
what I'm saying? It's like like I go
back to the international law example. There's two
ways to establish law. We can establish it
under an authority,
you know, like like, when the British Empire
said slavery is legal, then under their domain,
under their territory, under their authority and they
even attacked other nations and, you know, that
were, you know, committing what they now considered
to be a crime.
But they've done it under their authority. They
said slavery is wrong because we say so.
You know?
And but later on, treaties were then applied
through international law where it's not one government
saying I own you and this is what
the law is because I tell you. It's
two governments or three or four or however
many are all part of the international law
agreements
that are saying we're all equal,
but we're gonna set as law through peace
agreements, through treaties as the terms of peace
between us.
But it's still formalized. It's no less formalized.
It's just not done under the authority of
a ruling government. So I just wanted to
address that point because you're right to point
out that this needs to be formalized. You
know? And, again, using the abolition of slavery
example,
there were plenty of people that weren't practicing
it and speaking out against it and all
that you know, there's lots of good work
that, you know, like you say, that's akin
to what's being done today that needs to
be done to get to that tipping point
where you actually have that formalized abolition.
But that formalized abolition is what you need
to all get to. You know what I
mean? It's like it's not enough to just
decry slavery. We have to abolish it. And
it's the same with statism. It's not enough
to just decry it. We have to abolish
it. But you're right. We have to do
it in a formalized way, but I would
say not under the never never take that
step of saying let's do it under the
authority of government and then remove government offers
because
they'll they'll pervert it, and we're we're doing
it the wrong way. It's like I say,
we need to look at the abolition of
slavery,
and they've done it. There's two things wrong
that they've done with how they've done it.
They they it was too narrow.
It wasn't all slavery, and it was also
under the authority of essentially slavers rather than
as the terms of peace group. And those
that just so I'm just saying, let's do
exactly what we've done with the abolition of
slavery. We formalize this law, but we abolish
all slavery, statism, and all that violating coercion,
and we do it as the terms of
a peace agreement rather under the dictates of
some ruling authority, which would be criminal under
this law. Yeah. And and sorry. And just
one other thing. Yeah. And to go back
to what this would mean. So, like, say
this happened in England. Say I could get
enough people in England to do this, and
we could overthrow the UK government.
Not a single building gets burned down. The
only thing that happened maybe a few people
might get arrested within government, but but the
only other thing that would really happen, everything
carries on. Like,
you wouldn't have to I wouldn't even have
to think about a single thing, although I'm
not saying we shouldn't think about these things.
But you don't even have to think about
a single thing on how government would shrink
or how institutions would shrink or disappear
because
freedom would do the rest. The market would
do the rest. All of a sudden,
tomorrow, you would wake up, and now
every tax that you are currently forced to
pay would now be voluntary.
And every institution that's now being supported through
those coercive taxes would either continue under a
voluntary system because enough people find value on
it, or it would die the death that
it should do
because it's only being kept alive through coercion
anyway. Does that make sense? Totally. Totally. I
mean, look, we're we're exactly the same mindset
with that. What I'm trying to, you know,
can,
put together my mind is and I just
think nope. What I think you just answered
is the how of it. And so when
we put this one forward then with what
you just highlighted then so it would you
could high you could say it would take
a form
of a peace agreement put forward by anybody
that then gets signed by
the majority of the population of the planet.
And then that gets implemented in a way
that's then just we collectively agree. And so,
like, you're saying that would no longer it
wouldn't need to be like we you know?
Essentially, it just begins to be the reality.
You can't enforce that at the barrel of
the gun. You can't invade that foreign country
whether they do or not, but then we
can collectively point to that and say you're
breaking our inner so that that would be
a way you could see that being implemented,
hypothetically.
Okay. So yeah. Then then I then I
can Sorry. And, yeah, and just to give
a little shout out to Stefan Kinsella who's
recently done a document called,
principles of liberty, I believe it's called. I'll
send you a link if you wanna,
you know, have a look at it. But,
basically now this is he's not proposing it
as a law exactly, so it's not exactly
what I'm talking about. But he's basically setting
up, like, an agreement, like, agreeing to this
principle and also laying out the various implications
and connotations. Now I've not even gone through
it myself in detail because I was only
made aware of it quite recently, and I've
not had a chance to read through it
in detail. But a quick glance,
it basically would be a perfect stepping stone
to exactly what I'm talking about. Because although
it's not actually proposing this as law, it's
just saying, hey. Let's get some let's get
some registered agreement. Like, you can click on
it, and you can sign the document by
through this Google app
to just register your support for it. Is
that this one? That's exactly it. Yeah. So
Your account go ahead. Go ahead. You know,
so that's a good example of, like you
know, if you were to, like, say someone
wants to think of this like a constitution,
then there's a good example of it being
presented in that kind of way and saying,
okay. This is what it means.
And like I say, I've not actually read
this in detail to fully endorse it, but
Stefan knows his stuff, and he's been very
helpful to me with regards to my own
kind of refining my understanding of these principles
and helping me kind of refine my presentation
of this idea.
You know, so he's not he like I
say, he's not advocating the exact thing that
I am with regards to saying, let's make
this law. Let's do it through a peace
agreement. But he is presenting an agreement
that articulates this principle, and this could be
the sort of thing that may be a
kind of precursor
to exactly what I'm talking about.
You know, like, you know, it's yeah. I
think it's great, and it goes into a
lot of details of of implications. Like I
said, I've not read through it in detail.
Whereas, like, my peace agreement is a little
bit more kind of sort of surface level
and just saying, okay. Well, these are the
three dimensions that we need to have agreed
to have this agreement. We need the basic
agreement to establish this law. We need our
lines in the sand approach where we understand
that we have to have a black and
white certainty that something is a non aggression
principle violation, just like we have to have
a black and white certainty that someone's guilty
of the crime.
And then part three, which is about ratifying
wife's ownership, which is again really just reaffirming
what property rights really is from self ownership.
And just to quickly cover that, you own
yourself.
First use principles. If we're both walking through
a forest and we come across an apple
tree, if you pick an apple, then that's
your apple now. If I took that apple
from you, I'd have to regress. You didn't
have to regress to pick that apple. It's
so simple. You know, we have things like
creation and voluntary trade, which ratify self ownership
more or transfer over to somebody else, But
that still just comes from self ownership. If
it's your Apple, you're allowed to give it
to me or send it to me or
you know, and all that. So, you know,
again, it comes back to the fact that
although there's so many details
that need to be gotten into Right. Just
like we've got maths and we can work
out complicated sums because we know the two
plus two equals four, we can work out
more complicated stuff and still have a find
a correct answer.
We can do the same with this principle.
We know that you own you and I
own me. So who owns that Apple that
you just picked?
Yeah. Yeah. Right. And so and this this
is why I mean, I I I think
this is self evident, but I know people
I know there are people out there that
might have their difference of opinions. So I
I just have what you've already presented. I
think this is, you know, it's morally sound.
It's exactly what you know, and I'd like
to believe it is the same that any
you know, most people would see it the
same way. That it's just like, well, obviously.
But we all know that there are people
that think differently. And so let's let's go
through some of the, you know, like you
said, the details, which we may not it
may not be an answer for it or
maybe undefined, but let's let's I want your
opinion on some of these things. So, for
example, what the next logical
after implementation and in reality is in your
mind and and I think we probably already
kind of discussed this, but who who ultimately
would decide if the law is broken? And
I think you already kinda just said people
well, go ahead. What's your answer? In in
a circumstance, who would decide how the law
is broken?
Well well, like I said, no one person
would have the the the rightful authority. Any
any any court could come along and challenge
another court. So say, for example, somebody law
guides.
Say again. Sorry? I'm sorry. The the law
guides, not the individuals, but the law itself,
the nonrefreshment. Yes. Yes. Exactly. The principle does.
Just like you have a constitution that tells
you in America, supposedly.
But, I mean, in fact, this is actually
a really good example, actually,
of of what I'm talking about because you
have a constitution in America, which in theory,
tells your gov you know, tells you how
laws are applied. But as you, I'm sure,
are well aware,
that's completely violated in the most overt ways.
I mean, half of your government agencies are
overt violations of the constitution, the ATF,
the CIA, you know, the DEA. These are
all
agencies that shouldn't even exist under your constitution.
Yeah. And you've obviously got loads of laws
that violate the constitution in pretty clear and
obvious ways, all your gun laws, you know,
all these sort of things.
But so so, so someone could point to
it and say, okay. Well, even with the
constitution,
you know, it doesn't get followed. But the
reason it doesn't get followed is because there's
nobody to hold because the only people that
has the authority
under this constitution to enforce this law and
create laws as well is the government, and
no one else has the authority to hold
them to account. Whereas into this system, you'd
have this kind of constitution, for want of
a better word. It's not. It's a peace
agreement, but, you know, you know, like the
constitution.
But unlike the constitution where you just got
this one big criminal gang that can basically
violate it and enforce it because there's no
accountability and they've got their immunities and all
the rest of it, you would have this
decentralized system where you'd have competing
law enforcement agencies, and any one of those
could
arrest the other one if they were, you
know, basically violating the laws they're supposed to
follow, and they can point to this constitution.
I mean, like, imagine
even though it's not what I'm talking about,
but imagine you had American constitution exactly as
you did, but without this monopoly on force
given to the ruling government. So you had
your constitution,
but everybody had the right to enforce the
law. Do you think your court system would
be more or less corrupt than it is
today?
What exactly. And I think it's well, here
let let me answer with another here's what's
interesting to me is that what you framed
is actually really important and is, you know,
in partly what I would argue is happening.
But let me give you a different perspective
from from, you know, from an American perspective,
which is that the constitution
in its original state was designed
as something that is a is inherent it
it is a a declaration of rights, not
necessarily
to gets to
dole them out and was very clearly outlined
as inherent rights, god given to people. We
could only enforce it within these boundaries so
it will be applied here, but hopefully, the
world will follow suit. It's kind of the
original mindset from the founding fathers. Right? And
so what's interesting is it was founded as
something that's a universal law that's not bound,
but but what government did, as I'm sure
you know, was bastardize that and turn it
into and convince Americans that they were given
those rights and they could be taken away.
So we are effectively there, but it's so
interesting. So this is where my mindset's all
coming from. Right? Because we've lived through this.
This is like, I wanna see this succeed,
but how do we get around that very
problem? Because you can have something that is
instituted.
But if you have enough powerful people to
say we disagree or we don't wanna follow
that, something like this is where you always
get into the conversation about anarchism and libertarianism.
This is always where it comes to. I
believe it is possible to what you're talking
about, but that's why it's so important to
have these conversations to kind of flesh out
that that nuance right there is that it
it becomes back to the constitution, a point
to where they can just simply choose to
disregard it because in in The United States,
the way it was supposed to play out
was that Congress
would hold them accountable if they didn't. Hypothetically,
executive branch, they'd impeach them. Well, today, everything's
broken. We all see it, and the congress
does nothing. Right? And so you can see
that that's the enforcement arm. So, you know,
in that kind of analogy, like, can you
see that
being a problem in the line of
or rather the path of nations of sanity?
Like, could we we could see ourselves reaching
that point. Right? Well, thing is, it is
a problem, but it's a problem that, like
again, a little bit like where we have
to learn from the mistakes of the like,
just like we can take inspiration from the
abolition of slavery, but we also have to
learn from the two errors that it got
got wrong. We can also take inspiration from
the constitution. Like I say, you know, you
fought wars and created, you know, a whole
new nation
based on this constitution, but you need to
look at so you can still, you know,
take a lot of heart, and that was
implemented and, you know, it was done. You
know, just like abolition of slavery, it was
done. You can take inspiration from that. But
what you should also do is learn from
where they went wrong. And where they went
wrong with the constitution was is it allowed
for government. It gave due it gave the
duty to control the government to congress.
It's like it it still
it it dealt with this immorality of authority.
And my what my point is is, like,
the constitution would have been perfect if it
was all men are created equal and just
stop there. Yeah. None of none of this
none of this congress has the no. Congress
has no power. No one has any power.
All men are created equal, and that tells
you everything you need to know about what
is and isn't a crime, what you have
authority over. You know, your authority is over
yourself,
maybe over your children to the point that
you're their guardian,
but that's about it. You know? And then
over your rightfully owned property, which again is
still dictated by your authority over yourself as
a free individual. You know? It all just
and I think, I suppose, what what I'm
saying is is where these things went wrong
in the constitution's,
case, it had too many contradictions to that.
What was the founding like, what seemed to
be the founding principle that all like I
say, that all men created equal. If that
was the entirety of the constitution, it would
be almost perfect.
But all the other stuff ended up ruining
it and contradicting it. They gave authority to
people that didn't have authority
under their own
professed idea that all men are created equal.
Then what the hell is this congress you're
talking about? You know what I mean? It's
kinda It's such a interesting point, though. And
and here here's what I find. You know,
if there's two ways to look at it.
If they were genuine in their intentions, and
I question that like anybody should, then it
appears to me that if you listen to,
like, you know, the statements made, you know,
were built with crooked timber and so on,
the point being is they were very aware,
you know, it's a republic if you can
keep it. Right? They they knew that there
would be power structures. They knew that people
would try to take control of it. And
I guess the argument would be that they
thought this was the way that they could
keep that at bay knowing it's inevitable. But
I'd like to believe it's not inevitable. You
know what I mean? Like, I'd like to
try at least to go in a direction
where that's not the assumption that eventually
the power structure is gonna win. And so,
you know, that's why I'm so interested in
this idea. Well, I would say and just
to add to that, I would say that
it's not it's not about it being inevitable.
I think it's like
it's always a danger. There's no guarantees. Like,
you know, you you can you make the
you can make rape illegal, there's still rape
still happen. You know, even when slavery is
abolished, slavery still happens, but it has to
happen in the shadows. It's not it's now
formally recognized as a crime. So that's kind
of, like, the fundamental part of it. But
it's just a place of, like, looking at
these things and saying, okay. Well, there is
these dangers,
but when you have a rule when you
have a monopoly on force, when you have
a ruling government, those dangers become pretty much
inevitable. They become you know, corruption is pretty
much guaranteed when you have this coercive system.
But in a decentralized system where everyone is
truly equal,
that's the best like I said, you know,
like, the best policing against kangaroo courts is
to everybody to have the right to
prosecute everybody else. You know what I mean?
That that doesn't mean everybody's gonna be going
around doing it because everybody wants to do
that. You know? Like, it's not everyone doesn't
have the obligation to enforce the law.
And and and, again, the other beauty about
having it,
having this, like, abolition is we don't have
to start again. We already have the infrastructure
in place. And by just simply having this
new law that abolishes all coercive authority over
people
and makes law
purely defensive, purely about protecting rights, then the
existing law enforcement can continue and as long
as they can continue under that new paradigm.
But
competing agencies can keep them honest and keep
them but but the the public owned infrastructure
already has an advantage over the private sector
as in it's already established. It's like a
little bit like again, I don't keep wanna
keep harping back to the slavery example, but
it's like, you know, you didn't have to
do anything to the cotton industry that wasn't
just gonna happen as a as a as
a consequence of market functions once you took
the coercion out of it. And I'm just
saying, let's do the same with government. Take
the coercion out of it, and then we
don't have to lose all our public institutions
and collectives. Like, the socialists
can have their socialism,
and the capitalists can have their capitalism. And
all we're saying is just don't force the
other to do what you're doing because
they're free they're as free as you are.
And there's a certain fairness, I think, in
that that would appeal to people.
But a lot of the points that you
raise about, like, these concerns, they're valid concerns.
But I think when we actually think through
them, there are actually bigger dangers when we
have a monopolistic government than they are under
a system where everybody is just of equal
rights and authority. Yeah. Oh, and the question
is how to get there. Right? And and
so let let's let let me ask you
one question here to kinda wrap in it
to to finish, wrap up here that I
think, you know, I was what I was
thinking about over the last week in general,
you know, what what
is is how would this from a mind
of a of an entity or a government
design with the with the the intention to
stop something like this. You know, what could
they do? Well, how could it be manipulated?
That's, you know, some of these other questions.
So you've been doing this a long time,
and I'm I guarantee you've thought about this.
And so in a world where this is
beginning to happen, like, let's say the momentum
is there and people are signing this document,
you know, it how how is what ways
could government
manipulate this? You You know, you'd be the
best person to ask this. I'm sure you've
thought this through. Like, what what ways do
you see them stepping in to try to
worm this back the other way, and how
can we be on guard to that? Well,
one of the ways would be,
the suggestion you made about, oh, what if
we tried to get get congress to do
this under the authority of government? You know,
they could try to preempt it and say,
oh, yeah. We'll abolish this under our authority.
You know what I mean? It's a little
bit like you know, I mean, maybe they
that.
You know, well, maybe that's what they've done
with the abolition of slavery. Maybe they just
decide, you know what? People are cutting onto
this, so we need to throw them a
bone, make make them think they've won something,
and and, obviously, give them something genuine. We'll
abolish slavery, but we'll do it in this
narrow defined, and we'll keep it. And we'll
do it under our authority, which is further
you know? So that's one way. We we
that's why it needs to be a peace
agreement. We we can't be letting it go
you know, as much as I would love,
you know, to have the NAPA's law even
under the you know, you know, swap all
our current corrupt laws just for NAPA law
because that's a fair law, but it's not
fair that only one group has the right
to enforce it, that they have monopoly or
power, you know, all of these things. So
I think that's one of the things that
could go wrong that I'm kinda guarding against
by being very explicit about it's gotta be
a peace agreement.
And the other thing as well is I'm
keeping it simple
so it can't be corrupted. You know, like
I say, the constitution was corrupted because
it it it got the first bit right
about all men being created equal, but then
it instead of stopping there, it went on
with a load of other stuff. And the
more stuff in there, the more people because,
oh, well, we have this congress, and they
have this power, so let's do that. And
then that ends up violating a part of
the constitution. But because you've got another part
of the constitution you can use as your
kind of justification, there's kind of this conflict.
There's no conflict with this peace agreement. It's
quite simple. You own you. I own me.
There's nothing else to it. You know? And,
you know, this should be you know, we're
we're saying we wanna formalize this as law
and establish it in a formalized way, and
we wanna do it through a peace agreement.
You know? These things are just explicit parts
of that, but we're not because because sometimes
people have and I've had lots of great
ideas myself and other people come to me
which I've of ideas, you know, oh, well,
under that system, we can have this. We
can have that. Those are all great ideas.
Or maybe they are, maybe they aren't. You
know? They can be tested. But my point
is is none of that is part of
this. Right. This is just the idea of
that. And whatever works or doesn't work within
that,
you know, you know, you know, like, you
know because, you know, because the thing about
it is I'm not trying to, you know
I want conservatives to be conservatives and liberals
to be liberals,
socialist to be socialist as long as they're
voluntary forms, and capitalist to be capitalist again
as long as it's, you know, NAP compliant
stuff.
You know, it's like I'm not trying to
change, and I'm not trying to dictate any
element of even though I'm not saying we
shouldn't, you know, all have good ideas and
conversations about that, but I don't want it
to pollute what this is. This is just
this one you know, it's like the abolition
of slavery
would have been perverted more if it had
loads of other stuff. It's a little bit
like the joke with when congress passes one
valid thing and they'll throw in a bunch
of other crap to go with it, you
know, like pay rises for themselves or whatever.
You know? It's kind of like that. Don't
let any crap attached to it. Let it
just be this one simple thing,
one simple moral truth. Law is defined
by this one
objective,
simple moral truth that you own you and
I and me. That's what defines law. Not
any government,
not any and, you know, and like I
say, even though we need to formalize this
and we need to abolish not violating coercion,
you know, in this formalized way, I mean,
you do it for a peace agreement. But
the fact of the matter is is there's
no more to it. So, you know Yeah.
I mean, it's like I say, there's no
guarantees, but I I think that's about as
foolproof as we can make it. You know?
Keep it simple
and and be regimented on what it is.
Don't let it be changed into anything else.
You know? Yeah. Well, I this is exactly
why I I reached out in the first
place because you know? And as I said
when we talked, you know, before we we
did the interview,
is, you know, I'm at a point right
now where,
obviously, you know I mean, I think most
of this country, the world seems to be
at a point where we're starting to challenge
some of these classic held, you know, the
government should exist. You know, the fact that
people are even asking that question today is
blowing my mind. I've been bringing it up
forever, and people are so oh, yeah. That's
a good question. You know, is it people
are starting to ask these things? And that
that
left right politics, at least from a US
perspective, is just, you know, it's it's the
same thing. The false binary exists everywhere, but
it's just it's just
it's it's overwhelming in this country right now.
And I'm trying to find something to give
people as an as a as a a
solution. You know? Because we as I I
mentioned Derek Bros' work, you know, we talk
about solutions often. And I thought, you know,
something as simple as, you know, just simply
just the non aggression principle, the reality of
how that can change things and to lean
in and, like, not left, not right, not
voting again, none of the president. Just find
this path forward. And, you know, it's simply
one of the many that you could, you
know, put forward to people, but it is
a solution that is easy to digest. It's
simple. You know, I think that it could
reach people for that very reason alone because
of how, you know, people are just overwhelmed
today. And I get it. It's by design.
I think you probably agree. It's just like
this overwhelming left, right. You know, it it
it's a cacophony. It never goes away. And
so if you give somebody something like that
that just makes sense, it's simple, and actually
does have the potential to change, you know,
this may be the one that, you know,
reach people. So I'm glad I'm glad you
joined me today, brother, and I hope that
this does get more reach. Anything else you
wanna leave us with on the way out?
You know? Any final thoughts, any upcoming events
that you're working on, or anything else on
the way out?
Yeah. I suppose, like, the final thing I
wanna say to people and anyone listening to
this is I mean, I I do think
there's a certain undeniability about this idea, and
I think it's not gonna,
it's because it's not about me as a
person or you as a person or anything
like that. I think we really need to
concentrate on this idea. And one of the
things I really appreciate about this conversation
is the scrutiny because
the more people ask the questions that you're
asking because these are valid questions. You know?
But because,
because this is so true in itself and
so objective, the more it's scrutinized, the stronger
it gets. I like like, the biggest weakness
of the nation's society
is that it's a tiny project that no
one's heard of
by somebody that no one's heard of. You
know what I mean? And all of these
sort of things. But I think once it
gets out there as an idea,
not, you know, not with necessarily me promoting
it or you promoting it, but with lots
of people. Just and it doesn't even have
to be the nation's society project, but this
it's the idea that's important. It's it's basically
saying, let's abolish
I mean, like I say, let's abolish slavery.
Let's abolish statism. So I suppose my message
to everybody is really think about this. I
welcome scrutiny because that's what's helped me refine
the idea to this point, and it may
may well need further refinement, you know, through
the kind of pushback and and and scrutiny,
like what you've offered today.
But I'd ask people to really consider this
in their mind because I feel like it's
the elephant in the room in a way.
I feel like it's like we're all kind
of dancing around what in a in a
way is a kind of obvious solution. You
know? And it's and it it appeals to
a universal truth that I think the left
can get the left people on the left
and people on the right that are, you
know, sane, rational, decent human beings, which many
are,
I think they can recognize this as well
as a lot of the people that don't
even
identify with that particular puppet show. I think
they can recognize it. And the few people
that genuinely oppose it
will be a much smaller number once we
kind of push this out here. Like, it's
almost like and so one final thing. I
don't wanna go into it, but one final
thing I say, I've got an article where
I say, unite and divide. Because I do
wanna bring people together, but I also wanna
divide people. I wanna divide people in the
right way. I wanna divide all the people
I wanna divide us from the people that
want to violate us. Right. All the people
that want to live free and respect each
other's rights,
I want to unite them, and I wanna
divide us and separate us from all of
the people that actually because all the people
that oppose this, they're gonna then expose themselves
as wannabe criminals.
And there's a certain like I said, there's
a certain way that this could become undefeated
if it ever kind of reached the kind
of levels where it was under that kind
of intense scrutiny. That's when it would its
strength will really shine through. So so I
didn't mean to go on so much, but
that's kind of my parting message. I think,
like,
the sunlight will show how true this is.
You know? Yeah. No. Thank you, man. I
couldn't agree more. I'm glad you did. And
I I think it's just it's it's it's
undeniable. And I I I thought you were
gonna say and you kinda did is that,
you know, if somebody comes out and goes,
I disagree. It's like, well well, there you
go.
Yeah. Violence on everybody. How clear is that?
You know, it's it's it's you you'll probably
find it. You know, I'm sure you've seen
the overlap out there, the interesting connection between
the, you know, the general,
prevalence of sociopathy and psychopathy in the population
and how interestingly
exact that is when you look at the
general the prevalence of politicians that exist in
our world. It's actually crazy when you look
at the numbers. The percentages, it's, like, identical.
So it's like the people that want to
rule over you and decide how you know,
it's usually because they know what people would
do to them if they were in that
position. You know? That I think is clear
in and of itself. And if given the
opportunity, I think people I would like to
believe the majority of people gravitate towards something
like this. And I I I really do
think this has the potential to to to
change people's understanding of it because of everything
you said today, especially the end part where
this is not about a personality. It's not
about a program. It's about an idea, and
it's about trying to change things for the
better. And I'm of the mind that most
people seem to be getting in that path,
man. And I think most of the ones
that didn't even realize they weren't that that
that, like, weren't there before thought they were.
They've just been tricked by a bunch of
fast talking politicians and people in media. And
they're and I think for whatever reason, people
are finally starting to see it, man. So,
Matthew Sands, thank you again. Thank you for
for your work and what you're doing. And
I I plan to connect again in the
future and kind of, you know, force us
back out there again. So thanks again, brother.
And everybody out there is always question everything.
Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.