DEBATE: TANKIE vs. LIBERTARIAN

so let me show you this email that i got

um hold on

this is the email that i got all right

i'm a libertarian capitalist who

destroys

mls daily he goes

infrared people call me anomaly

i've been running a political discord

for a while and was informed that you're

the new

ml in town i'm emailing you to

officially challenge you to a debate

i've looked up your content and you

don't debate capitalists much

let me know when you have time to debate

so i can

quickly destroy you

so i was excited when i saw this free

content man

i didn't have any content lined up for

today so free content you know

i was super excited i was like okay

debate me tonight join vc when you're

ready

and then he responded just joined and i

was like you know what i'm gonna do an

early stream because this is free

content dude

free content

okay before we begin because i'm gonna

actually just get right into this

like right now

oh yeah look look how look how he says

after i just very formally

boldly said just join bc when you're

ready he has to fucking cheerlead

himself in the email like

he has to mentally prep himself

sending the email to dude who are you

cheerleading you're sending this to me

sharksy gorillas does that make you feel

better

does that make you feel better

he's mentally prepping himself for what

we'll see when we debate what are you

prepping yourself for a little boy

okay anyway jc that appreciated

12 donated five dollars he is a moron

sharks cannot survive on land

obviously they would lose to monkeys no

i'll be any type of gorilla i'll be an

aquatic gorilla and i'll go into the

fucking sea and rip a shark in half

anyway let me just say something

usually i'm more polite to right wingers

but wow

if you if you email me promising to

destroy me

wow you better

you better you really better destroy me

i don't care who the fuck you are

because i'm not gonna show you any mercy

all politeness is off

you say you're gonna destroy me this guy

doesn't even know who the fuck i am

he just knows i call myself an ml beyond

that he doesn't even know who i

am he doesn't know even know my ideas my

position is nothing

but he thinks he's gonna destroy me wow

i hope i hope i pray for your own sake

for your own manhood

that you know what you're talking about

when you say that

because if you don't destroy me and if

you don't do it quickly

your manhood belongs to me

you understand when you talk a big game

you have to follow through with it

if you don't follow through with it your

manhood belongs to me

i'm gonna address your political discord

directly now

people of anomalies political discord if

anomaly

fails in doing his job tonight i want

you to know officially

that i own anomalies manhood all of his

credibility

all of his infamy on that discord

all of his followers i will be your

follower i will be your alpha

i will be your king if he does not

follow through

with destroying me

then i own that whole server you become

my follower

you come to my fucking discord

you understand

that's what we're fighting about

you've become my follower he forfeits

his manhood

he will become my court eunuch

all right i'm going to bring him in now

anomaly i know your bitch ass must be

watching this

get in show cue right now he didn't show

cue i'm gonna drag you up we're gonna do

this right now

anomaly where the fuck are you choke you

now

thank you indigo placebo sin get the

fuck out of show cue you fucking idiot

anomaly get in show cute

here he is

i'm dragging him up now unmute

hello and i can't hear you i can't hear

a word you're saying

fix your mic you're supposed to be an

infamous guy on discord

so you know how discord works fix your

mic

you're a discord debate and your mic

doesn't even work

[Music]

now he's he's both mute

he muted himself and he also deafened

himself

so nothing works

already off to a bad start honestly

hello nope can't hear a word

hello

no your mic does not work there is

literally nothing coming out of your mic

hello i thought you were a capitalist

can't capitalists afford

uh mics that work

uh raise your mic volume you're barely

audible

raise it up all the way

but it worked then i heard you then

where did he go he left

where did he go he's probably i'm gonna

guess he's gonna go fix it and he's

gonna come back

just wait all right he's back he's back

hello nope it doesn't work

you had it working before you left but

it was too quiet

yeah hello okay raise your mic

volume all the way you're barely audible

can you talk uh louder

you can talk louder

let me ask the audience speak hello can

you guys hear me

how's this how's this guys hello

you can hear him okay i'm gonna put the

filter on and i'm gonna put the gain on

a little more talk again hello

talk again hello

how's that talk

hello it's good now

okay i put the filter on okay anomaly

you sent me the email that you're going

to come destroy me quickly so have at it

my friend

all right so just a little backstory on

what's happened i i've been getting a

variety of fans in my

in my discord and um you know they've

just been

wanting to debate me super hard so i was

like you know what let me just get to

the source and stop debating these

little chumps so

here i am okay have at it my friend

alright so basically when i debate these

losers

um constantly they just keep laughing

about are you going to keep bitching

about other people are you going to

debate me i'm not here to

talk to you you're here to debate me my

positions my ideas i'm sure you've done

your research so have at it my friend

all right so i mean i guess we could

specifically talk about china

um sure since that's what you guys like

to talk about so much

uh so basically my

just based on my framework i don't

really see

china as china basically is not what you

guys think it is

this is kind of my point china china is

basically prospering right now because

of how capitalist they are

and india is not capitalist and what

what do you say

is india capitalist uh yeah i guess

so why isn't india prospering in the

same way china is

well i mean i'm not saying all

capitalists are equal i'm saying china

they're not all equal do you think

china in your view since china's

capitalist is it more or less capitalist

than america

uh i would say in in a way it's more uh

that's interesting because do you know

the proportion of uh

the china economy which is governed by

or

uh held by state-owned uh enterprises

soes do you have those in america soes

do you have the same level of

intervention into the economy

in america that you do in china do the

chinese

exercise the same amount of control over

capitalists

as the american government does over its

own capitalists

no i mean china obviously it doesn't so

no we're not going to pretend here that

china

is more capitalist than america now

china might have a more dynamic

market economy it might have a more

dynamic kind of grassroots and pro

people policy where you know they don't

have this government red tape

bureaucracy that fleeces the people on

the ground

but by no means is china some kind of

libertarian capitalist economy

and despite that it seems like you agree

that china is in a

very well flourishing uh very

uh dynamic and very prosperous economy

if

among the most in the whole fucking

world yeah i do agree but

i think china's doing so they're

allowing for the average person

to actually trade and that's why

but i don't see but according to the

chinese themselves

so i don't know what other authority you

need according to the chinese themselves

markets are not incompatible with

socialism

okay well that's that's not what i hear

from all these lefties i debate

but well don't talk about the lefties

talk about the source

and by the way anomaly you do not sound

like you have the same level of

confidence and certainty that you did

when you sent me that email

i'm hearing a lot of i thinks and

what-ifs you sound like you're

nervous a little bit you sound very

quiet and tame

why didn't you approach me with the same

level in your email that you're talking

to me now

where's all that bravado that you had

when you were typing on your keyboard

well i mean i guess we wouldn't be

debating if i was passive right we're

debating here right now if this is how

you're going to get my attention

don't don't take what you can't dish out

because i'm going to give you exactly

what you were looking for and asking for

then i'm not going to be polite dude i'm

not going to show you any mercy little

boy that's fine that's fine

i didn't ask for it

so go on go on continue

all right so my kind of my overall point

about china is

yes they are authoritarian and yes they

do intervene more than the us does

but they allow for the small the average

person to trade

the us does not what's your product wait

wait the us

does not allow for the average person to

trade

not when their governments collude with

with already established big

corporations to

to no no i agree china's but here's what

you're missing though

and this again chinese marxists are

going to tell you the same thing

the reason why china doesn't have these

you know this red tape bureaucracy

colluding with this overwhelming

uh power of monopoly capital is because

the chinese state which calls itself a

socialist state

elevates itself above the interest of

any particular economic interest

and is able to use its overwhelming

state

power to stop big monopolies forming

which do choke

and hamper the small guy from being able

to trade and participate in the economy

so as you can see

a very strong socialistic state

and ruled by a communist party is

perfectly compatible with the little guy

being able to trade and flourish

on a real market rather than the fake

market

and monopoly capitalism we have here in

the united states

yeah but china could at whim come down

on any company if they want it

whatever it's because of that but that's

the exact reason why the little guy in

china has a chance

unlike in america as you pointed out

it's thanks to socialism

that that's the case yeah but the way

they

intervene is not capitalist in any way

of course

no because china is a socialist country

that's my position that's been my

position from the start

and so you're saying the u.s is not a

socialist country that's what you're

saying it's not

no so all of these brighton handouts

that's been that's been happening over

the last year you're saying that's not

socialist at all

no socialism is not uh printing money

and giving handouts to the population

uh whimsically that's socialism is far

more dynamic and complicated than that

i think that what's going on in america

is more the economy of a collapsing

empire i wouldn't say that socialism

china's a thriving socialist state

estate

infrastructure stop interrupting a

little boy everyone agrees

soviet union was a socialist state but

the soviet union

didn't just give print out money and

give handouts so

i don't see what's so socialistic about

biden's policies whatsoever

well you're saying biden's

infrastructure programs are not

socialist in any way

no even even if biden was able to pass

every facet and aspect of his so-called

infrastructure plan

that would not equal socialism because

socialism is a system

not a policy or set of policies

socialism is a specific relationship

between a government or a state and for

example

the economy and the us does not possess

that relationship even if biden was able

to

shit out money and throw his money

wherever he wants to

it would not establish the same

relationship to the economy that the

chinese state has

because ultimately the us government is

controlled

uh by private interests who come from

the u.s economy

by financial capital by wall street by

the banks

it's a completely different system you

you know the government can decide

to throw money at this or that place

that doesn't make it more or less

socialist it just means

uh it's using its money in this or that

way that it has it doesn't change

the underlying systemic realities

all right well let's let's get some root

of yours so what issues do you have with

libertarians in general

libertarians seem very diverse but my

issue with libertarianism is its

one-sidedness it doesn't understand the

dialectic we just went over about how

you need a very strong powerful and even

socialist state

that looks out for the interests of the

people in order to curb the inevitable

and yes

inevitable growth of monopolies that

arises

from a normal capitalist economy in

order to maintain

a moderately free market you need a very

strong and powerful state

to curb the power of the various private

interests that may emerge in the economy

i think american libertarians should

join

help us reforge the communist party

because the communist party

will allow for what the libertarians

really want

which is they want to get rid of the

state bureaucratic red tape they want us

get rid of the monopolies that are

hurting the small guy and they want to

get the government off the backs of the

people on an everyday local

level these are perfectly compatible

with what communists want

communists don't want the government to

intervene

and lord over people at the local and

small level

actually if you look at china's

government governance

china is a very localistic type of state

china allows

people the chinese government is not on

people's back at the local level

it's very much promotes a culture of

self-governance

and which is of course uh maintained by

culture and other things

so that's my view of libertarianism i

don't think liberty and another thing

too is that even if we

assume all of the values of the

libertarians are correct

i don't believe american libertarians

will ever accomplish

any of their real goals and it's simply

because of that same one-sidedness

libertarians don't recognize the

necessity

of maintaining a strong state

powerful state

yeah but states inevitably become

corrupt that's sort of the point

even if states inevitably do become

corrupt

the process of fighting corruption from

the

grassroots level the level of the people

would become an inevitable part of the

life cycle of a state

actually the conception of a state as a

static thing

is very modern there's pre-modern views

of the state which is cyclical that

states become corrupt

the people put the state in check and

somehow and the cycle continues i'll

give you a concrete examples of this

from china alone

after the uh 1949

rise to acquisition of power by the

communist party of china

the chinese bureaucracy uh soviet

inspired bureaucracy was

pretty corrupt in many ways especially

at the local level when they were ruling

over peasants

the cultural revolution was precisely

about people rising up and challenging

that corruption and and they did uh just

recently

xi jinping got to power on an

anti-corruption campaign

he fought and root out corruption within

the chinese government

so instead of thinking this is a static

thing

corruption if it's inevitable should be

thought of as a in a cyclical way

corruption may inevitably

occur but at the same time

anti-corruption campaigns

will inevitably arise that's because in

a communist state

the state does not consider itself

all-powerful the state recognizes that

its power lies in the people

so there's a dynamic ever-changing

relationship between the state

and the people the state unlike in

america and in western countries

doesn't pretend like it exists

independently of the people and has no

material foundation in the people so

then how how do you know that china's

not corrupt right now how do you

determine that

china could be corrupt right now well

how would you like to measure it because

i think by any corruption index you will

find

that china is far less corrupt than it

was before xi jinping

assumed power if there's maybe there is

uh corruption within china but who's to

say that corruption will not

fall victim to another anti-corruption

campaign in the future

this is the business of the chinese

people certainly when the chinese people

find out

about any instance of corruption

there is uh social media grassroots and

so on so on campaigns

and public pressure to see justice done

and see them removed

so if there's corruption going on in

china it's just that the chinese people

don't know about it

which is possible but what's the point

well i mean the point is if if you don't

if you can't see

corruption if it's at a local level you

you might not be able to see it from a

national level but there could still be

corruption i don't think so because

china's

especially with the new social media

culture china seems like a

uh internally seems like in terms of the

public the

public perception governance in china is

pretty transparent if people

if there's local abuses going on it it

gains national attention and public

outcry

this has happened multiple times

actually in china's history since the

reform and opening up even before

the g era okay

um so you're saying that that china is

able to detect

corruption efficiently you're saying

that much more efficiently than in the

united states and elsewhere

here in the united states we have all

sorts of corrupt

political we have the clinton machine we

have all sorts of corrupt

entities and corruption going on here in

the united states which

the public doesn't even know about no

one even cares about the government in

the united states doesn't even make it

a formal priority to root out corruption

because it doesn't even recognize any

corruption

meanwhile in china even if you're going

to argue that there's still corruption

which there may very well be at least

the chinese government has made it

almost

uh a very top priority to root out

corruption

that's it's an official formal goal of

the the government is to root out

corruption we don't have that in america

i mean the people in america know that

the government's corrupt of course

but our the government here doesn't even

pretend to work for the people in

america

at least in china the government's only

official purpose

is to serve the people

so what you're saying is china is more

like china is more libertarian than the

us as well i think so

yes with the big state

all right and and you're justifying that

by saying that the chinese government

could come in and break up big companies

that's an example of it yes and it also

has a very uh

wealthy grassroots popular culture

of participating in uh civil life civic

life

holding corrupt entities

accountable the chinese people unlike

what western media was trying to say for

the past few decades are not a passive

flock of sheep they know they have

a voice they have opinions about their

own country

and china is not perfect i'm not trying

to say it's perfect

but i think american libertarians

would be much more interested uh in

learning from china than they would

learning from uh europe or learning from

wherever else

uh example

okay and and what if china decides to

to intervene in a small company you know

for whatever reason culturally or

the people who are doing the

intervention are government officials

and they're accountable to somebody so

they have to have a pretty good reason

for doing anything they do

if they can't come up with a reason um

you know there's going to be a problem

now if they're doing it for

self-interested private reasons as a

government official that would be an

example of corruption

uh but we've already talked about

corruption and its significance within

china so the chinese government does not

act

arbitrarily its only official purpose is

to serve the chinese people

yeah but you do understand that the

politicians are still humans so

of course but when we when we let the

markets decide

that's that's that's demands of many

people

but you can't let a market decide when

it comes to governance and statehood

what do you mean by that meaning uh

what do you what would what do you mean

what would be all the alternative if

markets inevitably lead to monopolies

markets are inevitably like

infrastructure

structure sorry you're letting like

infrastructure

we can let we can let private companies

build roads and bridges and whatever

else that china builds

instead of well then why don't why uh

why why don't they

where in the world do you find an

example of private companies being able

to build infrastructure with the level

of efficiency

that china does well they can't right

now because

the western governments are are so

involved but i'm saying

everything the buck stops somewhere the

buck has to stop somewhere and the fact

of the matter is that private companies

are would be much less adept at building

infrastructure because infrastructure

doesn't work like a market

you don't for example when you drive on

the highway you don't it's not a market

decision

when you get your cleaning uh drinking

water it's not a market decision

infrastructure is not a matter of going

to a bazaar

and making a consumer choice but

businesses need those things

so they would inevitably build it google

would build a road if they

it to get from one place to another they

would do it

okay what's your point but google

doesn't do that because google relies

on the infrastructure that already

exists yeah but

which is much more efficient from a

business perspective they don't have to

waste expenses

and that's why china's infrastructure

policies

are much more friendly to businesses

because businesses don't have to uh

create a state on their own they can let

the state

take care of that at no cost to

themselves besides

taxes and stuff uh and they won't have

to build their own infrastructure

yeah but that doesn't necessarily mean

so you're saying that google could not

build a

a road that's as good as what we have

now that's what you're saying maybe they

could

make it interesting anyone with money

can maybe do anything maybe they could

maybe they couldn't but let me tell you

there's multiple layers to this

so let's take roads alone for example

right

for google to have to build its own

infrastructure

google needs educated people it needs

people who know how to build roads and

so on it needs that kind of things right

it needs ownership of land uh the land

necessary to build the roads on

somewhere along the

lines the bucks stop somewhere where it

requires

some kind of state infrastructure state

institutions

which build the infrastructure for this

to be possible because google cannot

build

a state of its own which a provides

complete education over how

infrastructure works technical engineers

uh provides all the raw materials

necessary secures the

flow of raw materials uh the the supply

chains that allow those to be

somewhere along the line the buck stops

at geopolitics statehood things like

that

and uh this is the significance of

infrastructure in general maybe google

could build

now i'll tell you what's going on in

america the reason why we all suspect

that google would do a better job at

building infrastructure than governments

would in america

is because our state in america is very

outdated in general our laws are

outdated our government is outdated and

our infrastructure is definitely

outdated so if google undertook

the project of building its own

infrastructure it probably would

maybe be better than the current

infrastructure that exists now

but that would come at a tremendous cost

to google i don't think google would

want to

undertake that cost i think google wants

the government to take care of that kind

of thing

so that google can focus on the things

that google

i mean there's building they build

campuses all across the world

and they and they put that bill but

their campuses

are for working at google yeah but i'm

saying they can build it without taking

10 years like it does in the u.s or 20

years

the u.s is uh very

outdated but the government in china is

not outdated like it is in the us

the infrastructure builders in china

their method and their ways

is not outdated like it is in the u.s

china is an example of a state china's

state-owned enterprises and china's

infrastructure building is an example of

a state

uh a state sector of the economy that in

the world that is not

actually outdated with regard to the

private sector

yeah but when you say china well first

when i say

efficient what i'm what i mean is it's

the quality of what they're building and

also

how timely they're building it at so

you're saying that china

would be able to china is able to build

infrastructure

better than google would be i think they

are yes if you look at the record

look at the china's look at the past

decade or

two and how long it took china to create

an extensive

country-wide high-speed rail network

that is no easy task my friend that's

not something

countries do with ease china's very

f china's infra china is known and

renowned throughout the world

for the efficiency and speed with which

it is able to build infrastructure

i i just don't find that moral that the

government is

is doing this why is it immoral

individuals should be able to do you

think that if a private company is

building infrastructure that this is an

individual is doing it's not an

individual's doing that there's never an

example

individual i mean the the company

started from an individual point of view

it started from a couple of people right

it started

the communist party was started from a

few people what's the point

yeah but the communist party were

elected they didn't

produce anything they weren't they're

not producers

google only got to where they are

because they prefer google is a

google map i don't see what's so

individual about google whatsoever

google is a company that's not

controlled by any one individual never

was

and by the way no individual made google

possible

a series of investors made google

possible not to count

not to discount the countless engineers

and all those people

who made it possible it wasn't any one

individual who made google possible

it does well i mean it's individual in

the sense that it's it's by

individual people that came up

governments are by individual people as

well

yeah but the the way of markets and the

way free markets work

do you seriously believe that google

emerged out of a free market

google was made possible by the

infrastructure and network created

between the united states

the military and the research

institutions during the cold war

this is the infrastructure that made

google possible in the first place

furthermore

do you are you do you really want to

lead us to believe that google arose

out of some kind of consumer bazaar free

market no google arose out of a

combination of government monopoly

uh shareholders and investors

and speculators who have nothing to do

with any market that's accessible by an

ordinary people

so no what you're saying is patently

false

you know these big companies these big

tech companies are the worst example

you're using

of private enterprise and free markets

because the the goddamn truth of the

matter is is that

we as consumers don't really choose what

these companies are even even able to we

don't even have a choice

you do you think the masses are happy

with the big tech censorship that's

going on

i mean not necessarily they're not we

don't have an alternative

we have no alternative there's no free

market to choose an alternative to that

you don't have to use google you don't

but you're going to be isolated from the

world and i know about all the

alternative websites right

right wingers like to use they like to

use uh what is it

gab and what else but those are failures

they're all failures there's still

alternatives and then there's

not alternatives that will ever able to

rival

these monopolies these big tech

monopolies

i mean but that's the that's the market

right people get to decide

but this is where you got it wrong

because it's precisely not because of

the market

because these big tech companies have a

monopoly and this monopoly goes very

deep it's not just that people prefer to

use them

they have partnerships with other

companies they have special

relationships with the government

they have special relationships with the

local governments of countries

uh whole estates like in california so

no

google and uh these facebook and all

these big tech companies

have not gained the prominence they have

because of the free market they

they've done so because of their

monopolies

i mean i i do agree that the us has

definitely been

a huge investor in some of these

companies but that's just because that's

what we live in right now in in america

but what i'm saying is even if it was a

completely free market

google and amazon and these companies

would still be large

and they would but they're monopolies

they're monopolies which hurt

free markets

yeah but again if the mark if the

customers are deciding which product is

better if google always has a better

search engine

i'm fine with people choosing google

over another platform

so why do you have a problem if the

overwhelming majority of chinese people

choose socialism with chinese

characteristics

i mean i don't have a i mean i'm not

anti-china in the sense that

most you know libertarian right ring

right wingers are i mean i don't really

care

what china does they can do whatever

they want with their own country but i'm

saying

here in america because we do already

have a more of a free market

uh you know system already i'm saying we

just need to abolish a lot of these

government programs

but we don't have a free market economy

in america you just told me we didn't

more than just

we don't allow the small traders to have

a have a chance here you that's was your

words not my words

no what i'm saying is if yeah but i'm

saying if we abolish a lot of these laws

and

and policies that we have in place it

would it would go back to like

the 19 you know like the late 1800s

type of america the late 1800s is what

gave rise to the america we know of now

the late 1800s was the era in which

monopolies arose and monopolies uh

were only able to be challenged by the

power of government

so you can i agree there's a lot of red

tape and bureaucracy in america that

doesn't need to be there i 100 agree

with that

but one-sidedly saying you're just going

to get rid of those and

let things be to me you're just going to

end up with a

uh a catastrophic situation in which

you're going to

uh you're going to have the unfettered

rule of monopolies and it's going to

stifle the ability for ordinary people

to have a chance

but can you agree that that could have

been technological too you don't know

that if that that would be the case now

that would be the case a lot more the

individual person has a lot more

at their disposal that they didn't have

in those there at times you know

what do you mean uh whether it's cell

phones whether it's the ability for them

to be

independent contractors like you

probably are as a streamer

you're you weren't able to do this

before so

even even if we had zero laws or you

know

the all these crazy policies that we

have in place you would still be able to

make money on twitch

nothing stopping no i wouldn't i really

wouldn't

because twitch you're you're you're

trying to isolate something from a

from the greater whole you're not seeing

the bigger picture you're not seeing a

bigger picture and how

big tech as it currently exists relies

upon the government to maintain itself

so you're saying that twitch wouldn't

exist without the government

i don't think it would no how do how do

you justify that you can

i mean you can just say that but there's

no i don't see any proof behind that

okay sure

what makes twitch possible let's begin

from there

i mean before even amazon bought it

twitch was uh

you know it started from the ground

right sure what makes what makes twitch

possible

what do you mean by that what do you

mean technologically or the company

i mean any kind of way i mean just the

advancement of technology i mean a

couple of guys

let's be specific let's be specific

i mean what i mean is a couple of guys

entrepreneurs started a company

to allow people to stream on their

platform okay you sound like a guy

who's never looked at their own the

ground upon which their feet stands

you think that you're just floating in

mid-air you don't you don't stand on

some kind of ground

so you're saying even for the ability be

more specific what makes twitch possible

what do you mean by that the internet is

what makes twitch possible

okay who created the internet okay the

government yeah okay

what else okay let's then let's forget

about the technological

software side of things even though

we're skipping a lot of important

details

let's look at the hardware side of

things what makes the internet possible

so you're wanting me to debate from what

happened i'm saying what

makes what makes the internet possible

isn't elon musk shooting up what makes

the internet possible can you

i mean what do you mean by computers

okay so yeah governments created a lot

of these things it's not just that

governments created them it's that the

supply chains necessary for our

computers to be built

are geopolitically maintained by the

american state

and negotiated at the level of the

american state if you don't have a state

your supply chains that allow you to

secure the raw materials necessary to

even build the fucking things

falls apart oh so you're saying that

there wouldn't be supplies if the us

government is what negotiates on the

world level or

negotiations may be a bad word because

that assumes they're they're doing so as

equals

they're using their big stick to make

american companies have the best deal

when it comes to securing raw materials

okay but in the build of fucking

computers individuals trade

you don't know about the significance of

government in relation to negotiating

trade

individual companies could do the exact

same things you're saying no they can't

an individual company would never be

able to establish something like the imf

an individual company would never be

able to establish something like the

world trade organization

an individual company would never be

able to do something like negotiate the

level at which companies

countries participate it can institute

tariffs and all that kind of stuff

in a way transnational corporations

could do those things

they couldn't how could they without

being sovereign political states and

powers in and of themselves

because remember these are things trade

policy

is something a sovereign state does to

over

determine what the companies within it

are allowed to do not just one company

choosing for itself what it's going to

do

but all the companies within the state

yeah you're explaining what's happening

now which i don't disagree with what i'm

saying is if we were in a more free

market

uh you know society we could still do

those things no okay

please give me a hypothetical example of

how you could do that

yeah i mean you're saying like the

internet you know how the government

created an internet one now which is

obviously true

but i said a whole lot of things i

talked about the supply chains

i talked about the relationship between

trade policy that makes it all possible

in the first place

yeah i mean all of that but i'm saying

individuals can do that too you see elon

musk

no starting his own elon musk

would not be more than a fucking sewer

rat

were it not for the us government

subsidies and funding he received

where not for the partnerships and

collaboration he's able to establish

with nasa

his fucking rockets would never be able

to leave the ground so no elon musk is

not an example of an individual just

doing things on his own

that's probably the worst example you

could give me but even even if it was

even if it was elon musk

again relies upon the trade policies the

monopolies and state

policies at the level of the u.s

government geopolitically

that allows him to have anything in the

first place i'll give you an example of

this

what does elon must need for his cars

he's lithium

where do you find lithium well you find

it in other countries

one of those countries is bolivia the us

helped orchestrate a coup in bolivia so

elon musk could have access to the

lithium there

how is elon musk going to do that all by

himself he needs a state to do it

so you're saying individual companies

can't negotiate with states is that what

you're saying

no not with not with the efficacy that's

that which states are going to

and by the way you're going to create a

chaotic scenario if

if states are only going to be able to

negotiate with individual companies

somewhere along the line there's going

to be a conflict of interest because

there's

millions and millions of companies and

there's only one state they're

negotiating with

it doesn't make any sense for uh this

would never be able to

replace trade policies and

bilateral agreements between states when

it comes to trade

i mean depending on the size of the

corporation it could basically

sort of have the power of the state no

it couldn't

i mean it could it would not be a state

though

in no meaningful sense would it be a

state if there is

only one company out there that is

shooting satellites

up into space they're gonna whether it's

you know if it's a company

they're gonna negotiate with bolivia for

example and it's going to be just that

one company doing so i mean companies

does this company exist in the either

which country is this company based in

i mean in this hypothetical i guess it

would be the u.s or the west

the us you don't think that tesla has to

comply with the united states national

security

regime you don't think that tesla has to

comply with the interests of the

of what's established by the u.s

government you don't think that the u.s

government itself is what's propping up

tesla i mean it is right now yeah but

that's because we're in crony capitalism

as you mentioned earlier

but i'm saying in in my ideal society

there would be no state doing that

i'm saying individual corporations would

have the ability to negotiate

and guess what the better i think that's

precisely where we're finding a problem

here

you're saying my ideal society but as an

individual

your perspective is very limited you're

not taking into account

into how all of these things you're

describing rely and interdepend upon

each other it's easy from your

individual perspective to isolate one

thing and say

oh i just want that without all the

blemishes oh i just want the ice cream

without the cows that make it possible

without the the grass that feeds those

cows you're isolating one thing that you

like

from the greater whole with which it

depends

this is why it's wrong to think in terms

of individually contrived

ideals and it's important to take into

account a more material

scientific analysis of the greater whole

well i i think individuals are smart

enough to if

even if we didn't have a state

individuals would be smart enough to be

able to

you speak of individuals as though an

individual

isn't a being that's crawled out of uh

some woman's

uh pussy like you're speaking of an

individual like an individual doesn't

have a mother

you're speaking of an individual as if

an individual

raises and clothes themselves you're

speaking of an individual

as though at one point in their life

they weren't a screaming infant that was

absolutely nothing there's no such thing

as an isolated individual

in the history of humanity and there's

certainly no such thing as an isolated

individual

when it comes to modern economies of

scale individuals rely

upon now of course individual brilliance

is a huge part of the world

and of societies an individual

initiative

is a huge factor but individuals alone

can't do anything

your society caps that that intelligence

by individuals

how is that because of the state the

state but in china as an example

china can't possibly be pointed out as

an example in which individual talent or

initiative is somehow stifled

china is an example of a country which

draws out the brilliance and initiative

individuals in a way that

is more than america can i mean you can

say that but you don't know that

because an individual the chinese the

state of chinese society and its economy

speaks quite plainly for itself

so i think i can say that yeah but you

don't know

what policies the chinese state has put

in place that has

stifled progress for an individual

person that was affected by that

then find them and point them out and

bri and raise it as an issue with

chinese researchers and academics would

be more than interested in hearing what

you have to say

if it's an original and profound point

china's not interested in uh

closing its years from the truth if you

have something to say if you

have some concrete evidence that china's

stifling individual brilliance in a

concrete way

go bring it up with chinese academics

and researchers and they'll hear you out

i'm not saying just china i'm saying the

state itself will stifle

some individuals freedom enough so to

where they

why is it necessarily the state which is

going through that can't time and

circumstance itself do that

yeah but that's something we don't have

control over

i don't see how the state necessarily

stifles individual talents i can see how

it can do that

but only in so far as the state colludes

with the prevailing economic powers that

be

if the state works in the interests of

the people at the expense of those

prevailing economic powers

then as a matter of fact this state can

be is probably the only instrument with

which

individuals can be freed from the

shackles

of the everyday institutional and

established

economic powers and burdens which do

stifle their ability to uh

draw out their potential so i think the

state is actually a weapon

with which individuals can

express their inherent and latent

potentials okay so when uh when a state

goes to war with another state and bombs

and kills millions of people

those millions of people that they

killed you're telling me that they

didn't

they didn't objectively you know stifle

some individual on whose behalf does

america go to war and kill millions of

people

yeah i'm not saying it's on behalf of

what

it's on behalf of oil cartels it's on

behalf of

wall street it's on behalf of the rich

and the powerful and the

established economic interests that be

china isn't a country that goes

in and bombs millions of people yeah i'm

not saying china specifically i'm saying

the state and

the state itself but the states we can

actually confine

the realm of states who do do that to a

limited set

yeah let's use the u.s the us does it

all the time they kill millions of

people right

you tell me arabic people from all over

the world kids that are bombed and

killed you're telling me those

those pretend that potential wasn't

spoiled

yeah yeah but i'm saying the state is

the one that

has the power yeah like i said the state

in collusion with established economic

powers and interests

that's what i said already okay

so so you do agree to an extent that the

state will

stifle progress to some degree

the state only in so far as it is in

collusion with the established economic

powers yes is a profound tool

with which progress development and

human flourishing is stifled

america is an example of that but all

i'm trying to say

is that this is not a something specific

to states in the

abstract or states in and of themselves

but a

state rather

which is consolidated and controlled and

serves the interests of established

economic powers

this isn't does not reflect on states in

general

okay so you're saying that states like

china

is is sort of set up to where that

couldn't be allowed is what you're

saying

so if they were to ever go to war with

another state for example

you know this hasn't happened now but if

they were to ever go to war with another

state you're telling me that

i'm saying that itself is stifling

progress

well okay then you're speaking about

wars in general but you don't imagine

that in the absence

listen the the most bloodshed we see the

biggest example

of uh real war and real conflict that

stifles individual potential are in fact

wars in which there is no consolidated

state civil wars

err for example china's era of

warlordism

where there was no real central state

just competing and vying warlords

at least when it's a war between states

you mitigate that by sending the troops

overseas and they're

they're fighting in specific local areas

at least some segment of the population

is free from the war

when there's no state it's always a

state of war all the time

for everyone yeah but the state has the

power to

eliminate millions of people a small

warlord tribe

or you know whatever example you're

using here can't no in the aggregate

millions die

in the aggregate the the sum total of

all those small

warlords and their conflicts lead to

more or equal amount of death

and what if what if that what if those

warlords were more centralized then

then what they they would still they

would still

have less power on average than the

united states would for example

they would never be able to create a

nuclear well what you're talking about

for example is the

militaries of scale which have uh

overwhelming destructive power like

weapons of mass destruction

i don't see how privatizing anything

would solve that problem why couldn't

corporations

in your view then possess wmds which

they could themselves use because

you can't blame states for war war is

something that will happen with or

without state so long as the underlying

antagonisms responsible for war

persist there will be war

yeah but to what scale is kind of my

point i mean if there's two

what skill well you can have the

aggregate of uh

chaos small local instances of chaos is

probably more than uh

between states okay

yeah so like this guy in chat is saying

google should be a lot of people please

just speak up i can't hear anything

all right i have my money i have my

volume okay

um so what i'm saying is just hey

hello yes sorry my spot if i was playing

go ahead okay

yeah so what i'm saying is the state

will there will never be a privatized

organism that could ever uh create

vast destruction like the states can it

never could happen it would be

individual scopes i i i i agree

i agree with that but the nuclear weapon

i agree a private organization could

have never developed something like

nuclear weapons but

the weapons are here so what's going to

happen to them when the state

is eliminated

well i mean i don't know i can't predict

the future but i mean someone's going to

have

have hands on that i'm guessing but i

don't know how that would be the

underlying

antagonisms that endangered the

necessity of nuclear weapons

have persisted so whether a state is

going to take on that burden or

something else is going to take on that

burden which inevitably will have to

become a state is different

okay well my overall point is that we

just need

to allow individuals to maximize their

their abilities and in the states stifle

that

states stifle that just but with their

policy it could be unintended

i don't see what your point is uh we

agree that

states in collusion with established

economic powers stifle individual

initiative

states which act in the interests of the

people at the expense of those powers

allow for the individual initiative to

flourish

so i don't see what's so relevant about

the state

it's not just the state that stifles the

individual initiative the key parts is

the established

uh economic order in general and

established economic interests and

powers which do that

yeah but it's not just economics that

make the state so powerful

if it was you know what i mean it's not

just economic it's

also other you know well the issue is

not

it's not about how powerful the state is

it's to what extent does the state

act to supplement economic powers

parasitic economic powers that need the

state

to subsist that's the point the reason

why the american state

is so uh powerful and stifling

individual or uh small businesses for

example

is because the americans because these

big corporations would not survive on

their own

in a so-called free market so they rely

upon the

big stick the american state to maintain

their monopolies

i don't i don't agree with that i mean

you can abol if the united states

dissolved right now

google would still be here in some form

i promise you

i i am willing to promise you something

if the united states dissolved

absolutely no big tech company would

survive

absolutely none of them not google not

that none of them absolutely not

they may not in the form that they that

they're in right now no they would not

survive whatsoever what's

do you know what a corporation is

i mean i know the corporation itself is

a government no

i mean like yeah what do you know what a

corporation what it means for a company

to be

incorporated yeah i mean i do get it

conceptually i understand that the

government's

that is a government government's

incorporation companies

yeah that's a government instrument i

understand that but what i'm saying is

you can call it whatever you want but

how would google maintain anything

google doesn't even have its own police

force if

if 50 homeless people ran into google's

headquarters naked

they have to call the police you're

saying if the american state

the whole american state collapsed

google would still be around no they

wouldn't

yeah but i mean you so you're saying

there there are no security

companies out now you said you're saying

there wouldn't be a market for

i'm just that was just an example of the

way in

how much google depends not only on the

federal government but the local

california

not only the local california government

the local city government

yeah but what i'm saying is there there

would be a market for that obviously

if it dissolved there would be a market

that's one thing that's one thing i'm

trying to tell you google would not be

able to survive

google depends upon the us government to

survive

yeah currently but what i'm saying the

whole organizational

apparatus of the company in the

corporation how it pays its employ

the whole fucking thing from top to

bottom would collapse

nothing would be able to be sustained

nothing google isn't just one guy hiring

companies

google is a system it's a corporation

from the shareholders down none of that

would be sustained because the

underlying systemic matrices

that they're coming from and they're

operating within are defined by laws

defined by the institutions

core of the us government yeah i mean i

agree that's how it's set up right now

but what i'm saying no

it's not just right now what what

essential organ of google would survive

if the us government collapsed

what is the central nucleus called

google which would survive

all of the employees who have to be laid

off because the underlying fucking uh

institutional ability to hire people the

process of hiring people the process of

negotiating

contracts with your employers not this

is this is forgetting about the whole

investors and all that kind of stuff by

the way

which alone would collapse the whole

fucking thing we're just going to assume

the company is going to be able to

operate

without the shareholders and investors

which is the joke in and of itself

without do you understand how much laws

permeate everyday economic life yeah i'm

not

saying that you would see how is google

going to define the extent and sphere in

which it even owns property

why should anyone respect google's

claims as to its ownership of property

that that whole records of google's

property ownership is indexed by local

and state and federal governments

what about google's intellectual

property that's probably the biggest one

who's going to enforce google's

intellectual property

well i guess they would no they wouldn't

they would have no way of doing that

short of becoming a state in and of

themselves they would have no way of

doing that

what is google gonna do put people on

fucking toyota trucks armed with machine

guns and go

uh go uh attack small startups to

enforce their intellectual it's complete

what we are talking about is an

absurdity right now what we are talking

about is literally an absurdity

the whole thing is an absurdity i can't

even believe i'm talking about it it's

so

stupid i mean you're you're

yeah of course because this is a

hypothetical and you know it's just

super hypothetical

the idea that google would survive if

the us government collapsed

is the most stupid fucking thing i've

ever heard on twitch

i'm not saying something i've been on

twitch since when february march

this is the most stupid thing i've ever

heard someone try to seriously

argue i'm not saying no you're

misquoting me i'm not saying google

would exist in the state that it does

now

whatsoever it doesn't have to be the

state it is this now whatsoever

the idea that google would exist

whatsoever

if the us government collapsed is the

most stupid fucking thing

i have ever heard on the history of

twitch what i'm saying is there would be

another form of google

wow how what okay order to be

another form of google we have to draw a

distinction between the essence the

nucleus of google

and the incidental unimportant

inessential qualities and features

what is the permanent survivable nucleus

of google that would survive

that would allow it to still be google

uh well i guess the infrastructure

what infrastructure the infrastructure

for example is owned by

the company the company's ownership over

that infrastructure

is only made possible because it's

recognized by the government

so the infrastructure would still exist

but it wouldn't be google's it would

belong to some fucking local warlord

not googles i mean

i guess you can make that hypothetical

but we don't know that

how would google exist at all what would

be google

who is google if the us government

collapsed what is google

who is they who are they i mean

individuals still have the ability to

cooperate together

to to form what we would call a

corporation it wouldn't be

no they because a corporation is

literally

only something possible by a state it's

incorporated

it's not a corporation if there's no

state because it's not incorporated by

anything

yeah i understand that you're saying it

wouldn't be recognized by others no it

would not be a corporation is what i'm

saying it would not be

incorporated do you know what a

corporation is

i'm i'm using the word corporate so you

mean a company you mean a company then

you're trying to say a company

yeah it wouldn't be a corporation it

would be a company yeah well i was using

it to not you know

i was here okay a cooperative economic

enterprise

correct yes okay

yeah and what i'm saying is it wouldn't

you're you're making yeah of course

okay okay let me ask you a question this

cooperative economic enterprise would

not just have to be an economic

enterprise it would also have to create

its own state

its own laws it would have to have some

kind of way to

violently defend its property claims and

it would have to trade in some kind of

universally recognized currency which

right now in the world does not exist

now i know you might say bitcoin or

something

yeah um cryptocurrency right

but how who's going to create the

infrastructure that allows the

blockchain to even exist in the first

place

that cannot be privately done if

warlords are running around with pickup

trucks and machine guns shooting

everything

how is there going to be a stable

infrastructure network that's going to

survive all that is everyone's just

going to agree

like compile to the caribbean they're

going to have the pirates code

that we're just not gonna fuck with the

infrastructure that we're fighting over

i mean the united the so-called

dismantle the united states wouldn't be

the only group of people using crypto

like for bitcoin for example

it's computers from all over the world

so listen to something

crypto cannot exist

crypto will never take off and become

significant

without government backing

i mean that that might be the case now

but i'm saying bitcoin already exists

cryptocurrency yeah but bitcoin is not

traded bitcoin is a

bitcoin is not something people trade in

bitcoin is an asset people use to store

their money

but they can trade if they chose to

that's just it's completely inefficient

to do it it's it could never re

couldn't even replace gold in the past

gold coins and by the way

all coinage in history was that's what

governments did governments had a

monopoly on coinage one of the

elementary things that defines a

government

was monopoly of coinage it's never been

done privately

okay i mean but that's that's with prior

technology

we have the even with today's technology

even with today's technology

i'm gonna give you the situation right

now cryptocurrency

can only measure itself in regards to

fiat currencies specifically the dollar

so crypto has not yet actually replaced

fiat or state-backed currencies

and you're not going to see a situation

in which

fiat simply collapses and there's just

crypto

because all money regardless it has

nothing to do with technology

money is inherently tied to politics

money is inherently tied to polities

that's why every state had a monopoly on

coinage in the past

it's not just because of technology

non-state entities could have possessed

the same technology too

it's just that when you're trading

sovereign ownership of coinage

is about taxation that's why money came

into being in the first place it wasn't

just because people were trading for no

reason

so you're so you're against

cryptocurrency that's what you're saying

no i'm not i'm not against it

i'm just saying cryptocurrency

isn't going to be the future but it's

not going to be the future in the form

of we're just going to have bitcoin

and no nothing else cryptocurrency will

probably

take off in some kind of fusion between

state banks like the chinese state

central bank

and a blockchain technology but it's not

going to happen with just

you know the the dollar is going to

disappear and the current monetary order

is just going to poof disappear

overnight

and it's just going to be uh

cryptocurrencies

so for example el salvador is adopting

or trying to adopt

bitcoin as their as their official

currency so what you're saying is

it's not possible for them to do that

that's what you're saying

no i don't think el salvador is adopting

it as their official currency i think

they're just doing something they're

recognizing it or something like that

but el salvador is a state

yeah i understand but i'm saying i'm

using them as a

large scale example and it's a state

integrated within the global

post-bretton woods global economy and

now the pr petro dollar

global economy okay well i mean we're

in this you know free market yeah as

someone in my chat points out

el salvador's currency is also backed by

the dollar

yeah you get it countries when by the

way the countries leading this effort

are socialistic alliance countries like

venezuela

china and of course russia which is not

socialist in iran which is not so

but they're aligned with those countries

cuba all those countries are showing

interest

and getting off of reliance upon the us

dollar in order to possess more national

sovereignty and and focusing more on

cryptocurrencies

but it's not just going to be bitcoin

there's probably going to be something

new

yeah i mean it's hard to debate i'm just

trying to explain to you the decisive

significance of states

in relationship to the possibility of

what you call an economy or a free

market

i understand it it's hard to debate this

with people because obviously i have to

use hypotheticals in a

sense because there's no free market

society that we live in now

so of course there's never been one in

the history of mankind

when you're using examples of what

exists now

so there's never there's never one that

existed in the history of mankind either

yeah i know because there's people that

always want power and and

like like and it turns into a state but

at what point do you just stop

complaining about that you just accept

that a state is an objective reality

which cannot be childishly wished away

but must be soberly accepted

uh and dealt with and actually confront

it as a reality at what point do you

draw the line and say

maybe it is futile to try and completely

eliminate

the state or abolish the state maybe i

should recognize that the state

at least the one we have now is an

objective one and must be respected

on those terms the state is objective

and therefore

undergoes its own development in an

objective way

uh you can pretend the state doesn't

exist so you can close your ears and

close your mouth and pretend nothing

exists

but ultimately states exist and they

even survive

the destruction of governments stalin

has a great quote

he says the hitlers of history come and

go

but the german people and the german

state

survive and stalin said this because

even despite the nazi takeover of

germany

the german state its continuity of laws

its continuity of governor governorship

its continuity of history somehow

survives objectively

even when the nazis collapse the

continuity of the german state

is continued so there's something

objective about states

yeah i'm not saying states are not

producible to the current

government you have the current

government or the current state

machinery that's in place

is not the same as a the state as a real

and objective historical continuity

yeah i'm not necessarily saying to

abolish it outright i'm saying diminish

it to a point where

it's not the state that we recognize

that it is now i agree with that but i

think only a communist party can do that

but but china can't be your example then

because china's uh

very large uh but that's the dialectic

china's

a very large state which also diminishes

uh the state's bureaucratic red tape

it's a dialect

it's not one or the other it's not black

or white

you can't have a large state and also

say that

that large state provides individual

freedoms you precisely can

i am precisely saying that contradiction

now

it's not a contradiction whatsoever it's

a perfectly reconciled reality within

china

i'm not saying china is a perfect

society but it's reconciled within china

china has a very big and powerful state

and it also has a minimalistic state

very pro-people state when it comes to

grassroots local and the the little guy

being able to participate in the economy

there's multiple examples of it china is

a very pro-people economy when it comes

to

taxation at the local level of small

traders uh trading their farm produce

there's so many policies implemented or

i should say

policies removed that just allow people

to get on and live their life

without all this intervention and

haranguing and harassment by these big

states

taxes are low in china for people you

know it's like

but you need a very strong and powerful

state to make all that possible

yeah but taxes still exist and of course

they do they have to exist

yeah but taxes in and of itself saying

that taxes are lower in in china than

the us for example doesn't mean doesn't

mean anything

listen let me tell you something a state

without taxes is no state at all

well yeah obviously the the you know the

governments are going to force but you

told me that your goal is to minimize

the state

not to abolish it well if the state is

existing there's going to be taxes

yeah but the taxes aren't small in

comparison to like the average person's

income it's still

it's still 30 you know 30 20 no taxes in

china are very small for

regular ordinary people they're very

small

so you're saying it doesn't impact them

whatsoever economically the individual

i don't really think it does in china no

so what are the taxes how low are they i

think it depends on the region

and the locale but the chinese taxes are

not a burden for ordinary people

there are other burdens but taxes are

not one of them

okay so overall what you're saying is

you don't so you don't disagree with

libertarians in the sense that

the u.s state is sort of uh not in a

great state you don't disagree there

it's not a what like the you don't

disagree that the us

the united states is not in a great

place you don't disagree there no i

don't disagree

you're saying that libertarians can't

can't

aren't they're more utopian in the sense

that there's no way to

be that's my point my point is not that

libertarians have ill

intentions it's that they're too utopian

about their intentions they're utopian

in the same way

you have utopian communists who think

that you can just eliminate

markets or commodities overnight

and you can just have no you know

private private anything overnight and

who think that the state can be

abolished overnight

so i consider it the same type of

utopianism

yeah well i don't necessarily think this

state can be abolished overnight i don't

even think you can abolish the state

as it currently is now there's no

individual

libertarian that's strong enough to be

able to dismantle the united states for

example

but you can cut down on policies and and

uh you know large government red tape

that we have now

so okay i don't disagree but i what i

disagree about

is how that would be done

i mean i guess in the the current system

you would have to have politicians that

agree to cutting down you know like ron

paul for example

he he was really against uh you know a

lot of but what happened to him

what what happened to ron paul well i

mean

obviously the the the the deep state's

gonna

um you know just do the same thing they

did to bernie

but yeah that's exactly it

yeah but i'm saying we could

hypothetically have let me tell you

another critique i have a ron paul

it wasn't just the deep state ron paul

was never able to muster the ability to

build

a genuine people's movement and

alternative

because ron paul was basically just a

kind of conservative in the sense that

he just was against encroachments that

the government was making but he never

proposed an alternative

government vision of his own

well i i think in some of his uh you

know writings and whatnot he has

mentioned more of his ideal right but

i'll give you an example

trump for example i am against trump

obviously

but the reason trump was successful and

ron paul wasn't

was because trump built some kind of

movement

with some kind of specific vision about

state power

one that i disagree with to preface

but that's why ron paul was unsuccessful

compared to trump

okay i mean but trump was

trump is just an establishment of course

of course i agree

but my point my the point i'm trying to

say is that

i don't think that you're going to be

able to break

the uh current reigning monopoly capital

in collusion with the state i don't

think you're going to be able to cut

down on the state bureaucracy and

red tape that exists both on the federal

and state level

all this ugly corruption i don't think

you're going to be able to get rid of

this

without a strong and powerful

uh people's movement and

my idea for this movement is a communist

revived communist party

i mean from what you're saying it

doesn't sound too bad if you're telling

me that

the state can can you know is not going

to be corrupt and they're going to be

able to

facilitate individuals to be able to

trade yeah

definitely a peaceful state a state that

serves the people

and allows the people to flourish

instead of keeping them down

i mean it sounds like it sounds

idealistic in a sense because i don't

think that's what

actually happens in reality it's

probably uh sort of the

what like china for example that's what

they pitch but i'm not sure that's how

it actually works well it's not

not in a one-sided way because like i

said there does exist corruption in

china but there also exists

anti-corruption

campaigns i am not of the view that

you're going to create a utopia and then

everything's going to be fine it's an

active process

which never ends so

you're saying a sort of a small

revolution every single time there's a

there's a batch of corruption sure not

not just

every time there's a batch of corruption

but whenever there's a consolidation

of some kind of establishment in general

yes you do have

a social rev or cultural revolution

but this revolution doesn't always have

to lead to the overthrow or collapse of

the state it can be a more subtle type

of

revolution like the revolution of the xi

era recently and this is a revolution

that's happening in china now

it's just not one that's resulted in

violence or the complete overthrow of

the chinese state all right well i mean

from what

in maorism there's an idea of a

antagonistic and non-antagonistic

contradiction

in a non-antagonistic contradiction you

still have a great struggle

and you still have a conflict but it

doesn't realize itself in

overt and explicit forms of violence and

conflict and all this and uh direct

armed conflict and even street conflict

and this kind of stuff it's a more

subtle

type of struggle and conflict

all right well i mean it sounds great

again it sounds great but

you're what you're explaining to me now

could be just as idealistic as a

libertarian society

i think it's less but the reason i think

it's less idealistic

is because despite that china is not a

perfect society

china exists and it's an example we can

look to as a way

as a society that has more or less

succeeded in this

well i would need proof for that but you

can i recommend

you learn more about china then

you want to see an example of a

successful version of a society that i'm

talking about

and by the way this isn't my ideal i'm

saying all this because i learned from

china and how it works

i don't see entrepreneurs from all over

the world moving to china

because they're not chinese china's

china exists for the chinese people

okay so you're saying that and so you so

the chinese

state can stifle individuals from moving

across borders you're saying so so no

i'm just saying

china doesn't have an obligation to make

the country more amicable to foreigners

rather than its own people

yeah i'm not saying it has to but i'm

saying that they are stifling

a potential uh uh i guess interaction

i don't think so that would otherwise i

guess i don't think so because

china china's cities for example are

very

diverse and full of people from foreign

countries but here's the thing

most countries in this world are not

like america where it's like a melting

pot and everyone

all across the world comes and moves

there moving to another country is hard

you have to learn their culture you have

to learn their language

you have to learn all this kind of

customs and stuff america doesn't really

have its own

particular culture so that's why it's

easy for people to move across the world

to america because in america it's kind

of a culturally neutral place

but it's much harder to move to china

it's much harder to move to the middle

east it's much harder to move to india

it's much harder to move to

uh you know uh even russia it's hard to

move to eastern europe it's hard to move

to europe too in general

and we see we see the immense uh

conflict that immigration has

created in western europe so not

everywhere is going to be like america

where people are

you know all across the world are moving

there

yeah of course but i'm saying if so yeah

because they're stifling individuals

like

no that's not it's not and that's not

because the government is stifling

individuals just because

it's a different place with a different

people a different culture a different

language

different values a different way of life

yeah of course i understand their

justification for it what i'm saying

though is

no it's not a justification it's an

objective fact even if there's no

there's no government in somalia is it

okay to move there

i mean a person can move there i'm not

sure they can

but is the government is the

non-existent government in somalia

stopping people from going there or

maybe it's because

there's other reasons well i mean people

might not want to move there because

there's it's not

gonna be profitable okay but if

but if it was profitable people would

move there listen the idea of

open borders existing freely

unmitigated movement of peoples word not

for government restrictions

is a myth there's no such thing because

let me tell you something

to even travel

you need where airplanes are out of the

question because

airports and all that kind of stuff

there's no those don't exist without

governments right air travel regulation

all that kind of stuff

that's not possible at governments so we

would have to travel by boat

it's just not economical for people to

just do that at the scale you're talking

about

it's not i mean i don't know why you

would say that there would be no air

air travel with that there wouldn't

because we don't want to get in this

discussion because

first of all airport security you need

federal

state regulations uh regulations

about aircraft being safed you need

federal regulations

and before you say let the free market

decide i don't think fucking people

want to be the test subjects to see

which planes work and which ones don't i

think they just want the planes to

fucking work before they even

think about stepping foot on them i mean

if if a company is known to have bad

airplanes people would stop yeah but how

are you going to be known to have bad

airplanes if not

you know people stepping on you know

someone's going to have to be sacrificed

and i don't think people want to be

sacrificed yeah

listen do you we look i'm trying to help

you even though i don't have any

obligation to

like i said in the beginning i'm trying

to help you right now please do not try

to sit here and argue for a free market

of airplanes okay

we can go here because okay okay we have

to okay let's go here then please let's

go

here all right well first people already

die in airplanes now

okay but much more would die if there

was a free market of airplanes

yes i do know that because the fucking

federal

regulations which are a burden and

expense on these companies

would not be in place and you would see

a lot of tragedies and horrible things

happening that just don't need to exist

there are markets out there that there

are it's less expensive to make a shitty

plane than one that complies with

federal regulations

so yeah someone somewhere along the line

there's going to be a problem

okay yeah but what i'm saying is we

would have more efficient planes no you

wouldn't

i don't know a plane is a very student a

plane is a very simple fuck

do you even know like how planes are

made

do you actually think planes are like

fruit you think planes are like no

planes require

a lot of institutional infrastructural

just to make them require so much of

that right

yeah and that alone relies on the

government the institutions that

educate all this the network everything

you need government to make planes

you know there are private plane

companies now right like this isn't some

abstract

yes i know they're private but i'm

saying they can't exist without the

government

i mean the government is currently

involved in all these things

okay we can agree okay but then if we if

we get to the

piece by piece every single way in which

they're dependent on the quote-unquote

current government

at one point you're gonna find yourself

having to stretch

to say that private companies can

replace everything

yeah i mean again you can't prove your

statements

you i mean it can sound great i'm trying

to have

a reasonable common sense discussion

with you i don't want listen

i don't want to have to get to the point

of proof because it's going to be so

humiliating for you

so let's just focus on common sense all

right all right we'll just move on all

right

let's focus on common sense a free

market of airplanes

is a very silly idea okay okay

all right well in that case uh like i

said i even if it does have to come to a

point where

the government would have to put you

know regulation in place it would be

very simple

it would not be you know thousands and

thousands of pages of laws

i don't know to what extent i don't know

what extent

federal aviation regulations

are too burdensome or not

i think it it would have to be

investigated but

i'm just trying to tell you that we got

to this point because i talked about how

air travel can't exist without

governments

yeah again if we're if we're going to

say

i just want to strip down as much

regulation as possible so if you're

telling me that

air travel has to have government then

let's have some regulation in place

okay but then my point my point was

government is not stifling people from

moving to china

because if there is no government within

china there wouldn't even be any

airplanes to be able to travel there

okay but i mean i'm talking about what

exists now so we have

travel now so what i'm saying is even if

we had

a situation where the united states okay

how is china stifling

people from moving it doesn't make any

sense to me

what is it stifling then why does china

so you think you're entitled to china

that's my issue right now you're not

entitled to china's territory

i'm not saying china has to do anything

i'm saying objectively china

china's stifling your rights your

natural god-given rights

by making it harder for you to move to

china and make a living there

yeah i mean if no because china doesn't

fucking belong to you

yeah i mean what i'm saying is china is

objectively stifling

an entrepreneur's ability to move there

if they chose okay but that entrepreneur

that entrepreneur has

no entitlement to the territory of china

yeah but what ha why does why does the

state get to determine that

because states serve the people and

states define the extent to which

people own their country or you're

saying the average person you're saying

countries should no longer exist and

businessmen should be able to carve up

the world according to how much money

they have at the expense of people's

tradition you realize states and borders

borders right borders are defined by war

borders are defined by sacrifice borders

are divided by history tradition

culture all of this is meaningless to

you

i mean i don't necessarily i think the

individual right for people to be able

to move freely is more important than

everything you just mentioned who

guarantees this right

if not a supra global state of some kind

which dissolves the realities of each

and every nation and country into thin

air and says that it's a free-for-all

i mean again we would go to hypothetical

land

that question would lead us to

hypothetical situations

this is not listen people will never

accept this

people will never accept this the people

will never accept this

again i'm not saying make the entire

world uh stateless

i'm saying we can start with the us for

example or

even if u.s isn't not an excuse you need

to realize

anomaly you're a citizen of america

america is your home you have a say in

america

china does not belong to you you have no

right to china

you have no right to any other country

okay so yeah i mean this is the country

you are legally a citizen of yeah

that's that's how it is right now yeah

this is the country

you have tradition and your culture and

your whole being comes from

just like your mother gave birth to you

that's your mother

this is the land that gave birth to you

you understand

i mean you're you're saying that but

land i mean this is just a

dirt a piece of land it's not no it's

the land that gave birth to you

it's the air you breathe it's the food

you eat it's the place you grew up in

it's the people you know it's everything

that defines lived

i've lived in like 10 different

countries before okay

that was born here well then then it's a

matter of the laws because we need some

kind of laws to determine this

what i'm saying is i was able to travel

maybe you're less homegrown than others

but legally speaking

you're an american okay

so what that that doesn't mean that we

have we shouldn't have the ability to

move

you have no business in any other

country in terms of having the right to

do this or that that's up to the people

of that country

and its government and the government

that they

ascend to okay

yeah but that doesn't necessarily take

your problem is that you're making it

seem like nations and states don't exist

and that's fine and well ideally but to

a chinese person you're a foreigner

you come from a foreign state and a

foreign country

so for you to say you want to have the

unconditional right

to do whatever you want in china as an

entrepreneur at the expense of the

chinese people

they're stifling your right and you have

a right to china

no you don't have any such right no i'm

saying i should have the right to

to be able to move to wherever i want

i'm not saying that i i you but i should

you should how could it be a right if

it's just a matter of should

i mean we can you think right okay then

what is a right is right

then if it's just should then according

to your own words

a right is something rather than natural

and god-given

something purely instantiated in the

state's recognition the state grants you

your rights and

you're not rights you're saying you

should have the right rather than you

have the right

if you should have the right who's going

to give you that right

well i mean right now it would be the

state obviously but that's because so

who will give you the right

what who will give you the right well i

mean right now it's the state right

so you want the state to give you the

right as an entrepreneur to

move to china and do whatever you want

well objectively that's what how it

would work right if someone wants to

move to the us the u.s has to accept

them

i'm saying countries should be able or

should allow people to be able to move

wherever they want

why the chinese state exists for the

chinese people

yeah but i don't know those are the

people it actually has

a material foundation in and it knows

and it's accustomed to

and it came from the chinese state

has nothing to do with people

you're you're basically a chinese state

has nothing to do with people living in

idaho

yeah but you're basically romanticizing

like someone's birthplace

which i'm not romanticizing it i'm

telling you the plain truth

yeah a state estate doesn't is not just

an abstraction it doesn't come out of

thin

air a state comes from a people and it's

a reflection of a people

like you look in the mirror that's a

reflection of you a state is a

reflection of

a people i mean explain the us then

because

cities that i live in this the us is the

best example because the us

is a state which pretends to be

completely abstract universal but as we

can see

it's a highly racialized state it's a

highly culturalized

state it has highly particular features

anglo-american feature features

african-american latino american

you know all of these specific

determinate people define the american

state yeah but when i

but the pla the cities i live in i see

people from all across the world

but your cities are not the majority the

majority of the american people

whether they're black white or latino

have culture tradition and roots here

okay i mean i'm not seeing this i'm not

sure you may be the country folk

maybe you're not seeing this do you know

that black people have roots and

tradition

in uh the black belt which is what it's

called historically in the south the

black belt

and that uh did you know that do you

know about

appalachia do you know about how the

countryside is the other half of the

whole fucking population

and that the people in the cities by and

large came from the countryside

and that yes there's other immigrants

and foreigners and stuff

yeah i mean maybe people aren't freely

moving but that doesn't necessarily

mean that they can't and that they

shouldn't be able to not know

what is the american state do you know

what the american state is

what do you mean by that it's built

after the civil war

the state as we know it yeah okay

what defined the south during before

during the civil war

before the slaveocracy

yep slave owners owning slaves the

plantation economies all this stuff

all of these are national

particularities

which define the fabric of the american

state

so no the american state is not just an

abstraction

okay well again you used uh you know you

use

these areas of the regions of the us as

examples but like i said what you're

saying is like what joe biden said joe

biden said

america is the only country founded on

an

idea it's not true it's not defounded on

an idea

there's a material objective reality

okay again the point is every place i'm

using my common sense what i've seen

from my existence i see people from all

over the world

in the cities i live in and and those

are cities

there's some people from all over the

world in shanghai there's people but

that's that doesn't reflect the country

i mean it's part of a country but that's

not that's not the material

basis of a state the country is

a country the people even though it's

meant by the people

what is meant by the people is not uh

college student baristas

the people is meant by the people the

real people

so you're saying city people don't exist

that's what you're saying

no but listen i don't want to have a

geographical conversation about because

it's complicated

cities in america are what they call

megalopolises

if they're not just cities they're also

uh they have their own dynamic of

sub-alterns and metropoles like

la for example la's black and latino uh

communities are not

cosmopolitan you know people from all

over the world

but they're in cities but they're not

cosmopolitan

i mean yeah maybe that's the case that's

probably true but so cities

what i'm trying to tell you is that

the majority of any given country is not

going to be people from all over the

world

all i'm saying is countries should

replicate what cities

how cities are where we're at it's not

possible and never be possible

it might not be because even cities

themselves

replicate the dynamics of countryside

versus metropole

inevitably even cities do that as exam

for example new york and la and these

big megalopolises

i mean that might be true even cities

develop their own countryside

of quote-unquote homogeneous cultural

communities

which is not this kind of uh melting pot

i don't care about the sake of culture

or anything like that i'm saying

an individual who wants to profit who

wants to make money should be able to

move to wherever they

want so that they can you know they can

start businesses why should they

what claims do they have on that land

well i mean

again in in this reality we do you know

that a

businessman has feet

this feet walks over something not thin

air

it's called land who owns land

how is that land owned the problem

of the tension landed property has

posed to capitalism

is an issue so significant the whole

school of classical political economy

was built

in an attempt to address and resolve

this problem how can we get

how can we solve the issue of land how

can we make

the land part of the free market and

they've never succeeded

yeah i mean i can agree with you that

it's a difficult concept to

to think up but doesn't necessarily mean

that we shouldn't be thinking of these

things and outright just letting the

state

no i just thought of it now but it's so

stupid that it went out the other ear

oh okay well i mean i'm probably not the

first libertarian that you've talked to

so you

you are i think you are

okay well i mean again my my whole point

is that individuals should have rights

you can't tell me what to do just like i

can't tell you what to do

an individual is part of a greater whole

just like you have a mother and you

didn't give birth to yourself

okay but now i exist and i shouldn't and

i should have the right to do what i

want and you should have the right to do

what you want i shouldn't have to i

shouldn't be

you can there is no such thing as an

unconditional right to do whatever you

want

yeah it doesn't exist now but it can

never exist

mean it can and no it can't because in

addition

to social limit and not only familial

and communal but also social

restrictions on this fear of doing what

you want to do

there's also objective and natural ones

okay it's very childish what you're

saying i mean

what i'm saying is conceptually so

you're telling me i should be able to

come down and tell you what to do

i should be able to rule over you is

what you're saying if i if i what do you

mean by that

if i happen to be no you're an

individual a state is not an individual

i mean individuals aren't the only ones

that rule over other people in the sense

that corporations do

corporations also do that families do

too

yeah families do too exactly so so i

mean i guess to a sense

families you have to have that but what

i'm saying is

me as an individual should not have to

force you to do anything

you should be able to do what you want

you okay wait wait wait but here's the

issue

you as an individual are a private

interest so for you to

exercise your authority over me another

private individual

would mean that you're using you're

exercising some arbitrary power

to circle to uh limit and stiffen

and in this undignified way my

private interests even though we're both

equals

but a state is not a private interest

it's precisely not

a private interest so if the state is

not a private interest

it does not act over you as though

another private individual

is my job as a private individual is to

do what

it's to live my life make a living find

a girl

marry her have a family raise kids

whatever

right just like you you're a man that's

what you're here for right okay yeah

that's not the state's job the state's

job

is to make sure we have a society that

makes this possible

okay so if a state is ruling over me

it's not the same as if you another just

some other man ruling over me

but but individuals exercise the state

power to

rule over us so individuals are the ones

that are coming down and for enforcing

this on us

it's not the concept of the individual

actors are the instrument of state no

states are not reducible to individuals

they're not i mean but who's

who are the ones that are actually

implementing these things it's no single

one person

i mean it might not be but that police

officer that arrests you

he he represents the state but yeah he's

the one you're right forcing

he's the one enforcing it yeah but the

whole state's power is not now

to him so now i see that as an

individual a state

is a shared convention external

convention

the metaphysics of uh statehood and its

true substance

is an old topic is the state just a

collection of individuals or is it a

super organic whole

that individuals are merely a part of

this is a kind of metaphysical question

but if we rely on our common sense we

can see the state is not just

individuals or the sum total of private

individual interests it's some kind of

external objective interest

um i mean you can say that but i'm

saying individuals don't see it that way

when it happens to them

if a police officer of course but this

is here's the

the kicker here one of the reasons for

that

is because in america for example we all

see the state as a private interest

that we see the government specifically

as a private interest

we don't see it as a people's state we

see it as a government

completely alienated from any of us it

doesn't serve our interests it serves

the interests of men

in dark suits who we will never have any

idea who

they are uh and we they exist at our

expense

this is how people see this state

in uh capitalistic uh or you don't like

that word

uh monopolistic uh

imperialistic countries

okay i mean yeah i don't totally

disagree with that but

but what i'm saying so you're saying

countries like china don't do that is

what you're saying

i don't think so no i don't think i

think in china there's a strong sense

that the

it is a people state it's a state that

exists for whose only

existence is to serve the people so when

that individual cop

kills or and arrests a chinese citizen

for whatever reason you know what often

happens in china is that when a cop

is bothering a person crowds of people

will gather around and

basically tell the cop what are you

doing how long

happens in america though not really i

mean the the

the protests like over the summer last

year that that's that was over one

instance that's just because that was

the boiling point because that happened

so often in america

i mean i wasn't the only one though

there's been others no i know but the

protests

i'm not talking about massive street

protests i think about the fact that in

china they don't have the same culture

of cops

arbitrarily bothering people for no

reason now there was an example of that

that i knew of

earlier in the 2000s and early 2010s

there was migrants from the chinese

countryside who would reside

in cities without huko permits

and there was a specific police force

that was pretty hard on them

but the chinese people are uh you know

they

they have an internal discussion and

debate about these things

and uh i'm not familiar with the same

thing happening anymore

okay well i mean you you're saying these

things and it sounds great

in face value but i don't think that's

how it actually turns out in reality

i think a lot of times people still know

what i'm telling you the reality

i'm telling you the reality the reality

is china is not perfect i'm sure when

people in china are arrested

it doesn't feel good but it's not the

same they don't

but here's the thing especially in asian

countries in general

if you're arrested in china you do not

experience this

as one other man unjustly exercising

themselves over you there's a profound

social shame accompanying it it's the

whole society is against you you as an

individual did something wrong

and society's punishing you like when

you're in school when you're in

elementary school you get embarrassed in

front of the whole class

is one individual embarrassing you know

you're you're

you're you feel ashamed in front of

everyone in front of everything

yeah i mean i agree that asian countries

tend to be more collectivistic but

that doesn't necessarily mean that uh

individuals still don't feel uh

impacted by state you know state force

they still do okay but state force in

china does not exist

as a separate individual private

interest

it's a organic collective national

interest of the whole people

i mean that's what that's what the

government says but that doesn't mean

that it's but in china no one says

as an individual i am the people the

people are the greater whole

the people is someone i don't know who

lives in a province

i've never been to that's the people the

people is something bigger than you

even though you're a part of it you're

not a part of it in a way that is

immediately clear to you

so you're saying that legally or you're

saying that no one in general

in general so you're saying people in

the u.s for example don't feel that they

don't feel a community you're saying

locals don't have community is that what

you're saying i think there is a

incredibly diminishing sense of

community within the united states

especially

yeah but i mean that's like that's sort

of some a metric that you're measuring

like

like out in the open right you're not re

there's nothing on paper that can

measure that you disagree well

i mean i i agree that china is probably

more collectivistic than u.s

is just how it's i think that americans

are especially

among the countries in the world have a

terminal sense of lacking any community

yeah i mean that might be true america

tends to be more individual

individualistic but that doesn't

necessarily mean that

when again when impacted by a state

state for state action that individuals

still don't see it so hold on

a chinese person doesn't say hey i was

arrested by the cops

but you know they don't they still see

that cop that arrested them as an

individual

they don't see it no because i mean um

maybe in a case of corruption where

there's like a few

personal feud with a cop that might be

the case but in general no i mean

no not really they're gonna see it as

you gotta you ran afoul with the law

as they say in america you know no one

no one just think individualizes

everything

okay but anyway anomaly yeah you sent me

an email

you said you're going to quickly destroy

me well i mean it's been two hours

it's been two hours okay so at least

we can agree unambiguously you got half

of it wrong you didn't quickly

destroy whether you destroyed me i'll

leave it for the chat to decide i

strongly suspect you didn't do that

well i mean your chat's gonna always

agree with you okay but i personally

strongly suspect

that neither you nor anyone else could

ever

honestly come to the conclusion you

destroyed me in anything

well i mean in these sort of

conversations destroy is sort of

uh do you have a so i'm gonna ask you

now

okay you came on here with the purpose

of quickly destroying me

okay do you have a trick up your sleeve

that i haven't heard for the past two

hours that's gonna destroy me

uh i mean i mean we can talk about

something else

i'm not gonna give me your hammer give

me the punch that's gonna destroy me

because you promised to come on here and

destroy me that's what you promised to

do

yeah i mean you promised to do it

quickly and you failed to do that for

the past two hours

so in good faith i'm just going to

assume you've been saving it

so please let me hear the destruction

all right well uh what i'm gonna say is

i'm gonna the united states will

i hope the united states in my ideal

world the u.s

will be you know more of a libertarian

country like i said

that doesn't destroy me whatsoever less

laws

and and i would like to see the united

states

you know they're going to still be the

hegemon power you know they're going to

okay

how old are you how old are you i'm 23.

ah i was hoping you said like you were

gonna say like 17

16 no that makes this more painful my

friend

i mean wait how old are you i'm only

about a year or two older than you

okay let me tell you something i can't

believe i have to act like an old man

like your father giving you advice

do not send someone an email promising

to destroy them

when you don't even know who the fuck

they are and are not familiar with

anything they've ever said

yeah i just had some of your fans in my

disciples

i don't care i'm not controlling my fans

i control myself you're an individualist

right

so be consistent you're going to make an

ass of yourself i don't know why i'm

showing you all this mercy because i

could be going hard on you right now

but you caught me at it when i'm in a

merciful mood

so i'm just gonna give you this advice

don't be acting stupid anomaly

what do you mean don't be don't be

talking all this shit

and then coming short i mean when you

say i mean but how you would never admit

to being destroyed if

even if it even if you perceive it don't

never use that language to someone i

don't know

i tell the bread to people i'm going to

destroy them because i do know who they

are i'm very familiar with what they say

and i'm very confident i'm going to

destroy them so you're saying that

so you so have you ever admitted to a

defeat have you ever lost

i've never lost a debate yeah have you

ever lost a debate that's

never yeah so you would never admit it

even if you did if

another case no because i've admitted i

was wrong about specific points before

yeah but it doesn't mean that you

conceded the debate entirely

no i've never conceded a debate yeah

exactly so you'll always say that you

won so i mean you can't extrapolate that

that's the

that's the black swan myth fallacy right

just because you've never seen a black

swan

means there is none no you just never

seen one no i mean i haven't gone

through all your debates but i'm

guessing there's probably no

i'm trying to say that even if i never

lose a debate in my life

that doesn't mean i i i'm unwilling to

concede that i lost one if i do lose one

in the future

i mean you i mean based on the past

anomaly i get it

it's about personal pride i'm trying to

give you the advice

don't put your fucking pride on the line

like this

and say you're gonna destroy someone

because we're gonna steal your manhood

and take it away and make you look like

a fucking idiot

i mean don't gamble with your manhood

i don't think you could ever have a

debate with the libertarian where you

think you would have

lost i don't think you could i think you

would always think you won

i don't care what you think i'm trying

to give you this advice

okay

is that it don't gamble with your

manhood

i don't think i did don't gamble with

your yes you did you did precisely that

don't gamble with your dignity i could

have been way meaner to you this whole

thing

i mean you could have been if you wanted

to yeah

i know you see how i treat the bread to

people yeah i know

so don't gamble with your manhood

because somebody not me somebody's going

to make you look really stupid and

humiliate you in front of 300 people

i mean i do i do like these

conversations right because i learned

new things i didn't know much you're

okay

i agree you didn't know yeah okay so

some of the things you said sounded good

about china you know and whatnot and

and so i'll look at that stuff i'll look

into it but

okay look into it and i guess

that's that's when we find out who won

actually right because if

no we for no debates happen during

debates

not after the debate i mean yeah that's

true

but i mean still i mean people out there

listening

will determine i guess you're right i

agree the people listening will

determine

yeah so all right well i mean it was

good nice talking to you

okay all right