Collectivism v Individualism with Robert Breedlove

[@713daehkcarc]

I love Peter for this channel and what he's done for Bitcoin. I don't want to minimize him in the slightest, but I don't think he's quite grasping the idea of the Network State. It's like democracy, but it's consentualism, where freedom of movement is the key deciding factor in the tax basis. Freedom of movement is a universal human right, and currently, the hurdle rate is much too high to be acceptable.

[@acenull0]

A network state sounds amazing

[@Yourmomanon]

With a guy like Thomas Sowell around still writing books into his 90s...this shouldn't be a discussion if our education systems were actually useful. He's written about historical events where slaves became prosperous quickly, once they were released from slavery. Also, he's written about how during low taxation periods, people saved more $$ and they gave more $$. I think an argument for people being just fine w/o a governing body to organize us can be found just in Sowell's writings alone

[@wadehoek6740]

Completely agree. I have a hard time seeing this 50/50 world. As people/governments join the cipher punks why would anyone hold dollars? If BTC keeps governments from printing out of control why would anyone trust any centralized ledger "saying" that their currency is perfectly pegged to BTC. Sure people will continue to hold fiat for as long as they can but I see fiat going to zero. Fiat is based on (failed) trust and force while BTC proves trust and is based on voluntary participation. Honestly I believe there is a decentralized country, Bitcoin Nation. It's simply a decentralized nation of participants that already exists. It will continue to grow in size and the network will grow stronger over time. As it soaks up all value it will eventually consume everything and return property rights to the individual. As for centralized money and power continues as Peter states, I don't see that either. Sure the large holders will continue to hold wealth, but they will either need to create value or they will spend all their value and be reduced to nothing. There will be no socializing their losses. As people realize their money appreciates over time they will be less prone to give it to anyone without a return on value. As such, as everything else including real estate will depreciate against BTC, the holders will be less likely to hold any other property or spend it on coercion as it will have negative returns when people are less willing to accept handing their appreciating value over. Currently we don't see this because we are flooded with money, but under BTC this will not be the case. Just my two cents and what I see. I may be wrong for all I know but I may be right...

[@jonathanlondon728]

Very interesting conversation. Robert Breedlove is a very deep thinker and your interview challenged him and led to a phenomenal exchange of ideas. Good job Peter, much respect, you are deepening with all these interviews. Watching this show has changed the way I view the world. This is the best show on bitcoin in my opinion!

[@MonrauchGroup]

First time commenter. I have followed you both for a long time. This is by far the most intriguing, colorful debate/discussion either of you have delivered individually on your respective shows. I love the civil, intelligent pushback from both ends of the table. Thnx.

[@bujin5455]

Funny watching Peter's mind explode trying to get a grip on what Robert means by fiction. Peter is suffering from the exact categorization problem that Robert is trying to explain with the word fiction. Humans like to think in categories instead of continuums, and when you create a category you're emphasizing the differences at the expense of the continuities. Peter has locked in on the idea that fiction is "not real," and thus, nothing fictional can be real, so you can't use fiction to describe a thing that is attempting to describe something real. However, no abstraction can ever have a perfect connection to the reality it's attempting to describe, and thus the avatar of thought we use to grapple with what is really going on is always a fiction. Anytime you simplify something beyond its inherent complexity, you are now dealing with an abstraction and a break with reality, and thus you are now employing a "useful fiction." This basically described the entirety of human thought, however, the main problem here is most people don't realize it. They don't realize they have a blind spot in the very foundation of how they conceptualize the world, and that those conceptualizations can approach reality, but they will never arrive at reality.

[@trevorm9551]

Exactly, extremely well put 👏👏👏

[@Paulrobe85]

Great comment

[@vonnykintore]

Agree. Well put…..was a good conversation but would enjoy if Peter allowed just a little more philosophical room before he pushes back on Robert’s framing:)

[@zechsmerquise3132]

this was really well said. Peter should've understood what Robert meant instead of arguing with him on almost all his ideas. Peter's knowledge base isn't on par with Robert, though, and common sense, too.

[@patricebaumel]

Bingo. This was a bit of an intellectual mismatch. Peter gas to be applauded for his courage to go at it anyway, in public.

[@BorgCreations]

This is the best podcast you have done Peter. And take care Pete, don't wear yourself thin arguing with plebs on social media.

[@safelysnortingbitcoin9923]

The distinction that Robert makes at the 1:01:30 mark is extremely powerful and important. The part about people being mad about property rights violations without knowing what is actually causing their madness.

[@fete82]

Fantastic interview. Breedlove is great. And well done, Peter!

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

Many thanks!

[@cryptofriday]

Fantastic job Peter & the WBD team! When Breedlove speaks, I listen. I love his highly philosophical angle. This was not an interview, but more a discussion. And it was an excellent back and forth.

[@johnroff2704]

Best show yet, Peter! For me, Robert is the most interesting and enjoyable guest you've had. And you did a great job on drawing out so much of what I wanted to hear him talk about. Thanks to both of you!

[@leoncoombs5788]

Awesome conversation, Thank you to Breedlove and the WBD team as always. Keep up the good work!

[@vpnconsult]

I love the paradigm of this discussion. Great value, i follow both your Podcasts. Have fun at Bitcoin 2022!

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

Much appreciated!

[@georgegalvan9066]

What a debat!!! Great talk. Healthy conversation. Nothing wrong with challenging someone.

[@aescubed]

This was great! Bravo to Peter and Robert!

[@samyguindy8490]

I wish many more people understood what Robert Breedlove actually meant Bitcoin property solves so many of our problems I don't think people see it yet it may not solve every problem but it solves a lot

[@killertrails]

I've been really enjoying the podcasts lately! The quality, guests and topics are top notch, and you're churning them out! It's nice to hear some discussion points around Bitcoin that I've not heard before. I would love to hear you interview Jason Lowery for that reason. I heard him on Pomp's show recently, and I've never heard someone describe Bitcoin in the way he does. I think he would be a great guest on WBD.

[@Mysticoach88]

Breedlove is bringing up a good point when things are not clear. My family does that all the time with each other and it makes us feel like crap.

[@pogi8638]

WOW JUST WOW!!!..one of the best talks so far. My mind has been blown. Two men that i really love listening to dropping some crazy facts. Schools should show this in classrooms.

[@nekrokulter]

On how to spot logical fallacies

[@HHH78709]

Great talk, keep em coming boyz!

[@ethanknight24]

Breedlove is gonna go down as one of the great thinkers of our generation. Appreciate your work gentlemen.

[@TheAgentGold]

This was a good discussion of sharpening steel against steel. Robert's discussions on his own channel are always good food for thought, and seeing him and Peter challenge each other with different viewpoints or different aspects of reality helps to keep everything in check and keep the thinking moving forward. (Nobody will stone me in the streets if I say I find myself somewhere between the two, right? Okay.) I think my favorite takeaway from this one is "Freedom From" and "Freedom To". Not a concept I've thought much about, but I can put a _lot_ of types of freedom in those boxes, and it might help with weighing out how important each individual freedom is (i.e. is it okay to remove this freedom for the sake of collective benefit, or is it a freedom which absolutely must be upheld?).

[@cleanjimmy]

Steel blunts steel, sharpening stones sharpen.

[@topgun213]

pretty obvious that breedlove has already thought deeply on the topics peter brought up. can't say the same about peter

[@CorwinYoutube]

Holy crap! Great conversation man. The quality of your work is outstanding and much appreciated. Thank you!

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Lucasvoz]

This conversation went completely over Peter's head. I really appreciate how much he's grown but I find his arguments to not only be weak but they also hit so far below what Robert is talking about that it doesn't even feel like they're discussing the same thing.

[@slop123456789]

Just because you disagree with him, doesn't mean his arguments are weak. I enjoy Robert's What is Money podcast, but it was refreshing to have someone actually challenge his highly theoretical and philosophical lines of reasoning with some more practical and grounded points. Like Peter, I am skeptical of the utopian vision of total and absolute individual freedom Robert paints as it has never worked at any point for any complex society in human history. And also like Peter, fairness and equality of opportunity (not outcome) are very important values to me, and I just can't see how these values would fit into an anarcho-capitalist world. This vision also fails to take into account the existence of asymmetric threats in our modern world. As crazy and dysfunctional as our current governments are - I trust them with nuclear weapons a lot more than whoever happens to be the highest bidder at their closing down sale.

[@P__114]

@@slop123456789 well said

[@cleanjimmy]

@@slop123456789 tell me you don't understand the advantages of freedom in individual decision making without telling me you don't understand the advantages of freedom in individual decision making.

[@n2thatguy]

Might be your best episode yet as you were prepared and on point. This brought Robert to a higher level of thought and conversation. Win Win. Good job both of you.

[@masem.2671]

My top two bitcoin guys in the same podcast... hell yeah.

[@thehairycontrarian]

one of the better talks Pete, thank you

[@didactica9326]

I think its really uncomfortable for most people to imagine living under a different structure than the current government structure. Especially physically weak, financially comfortable people.

[@dogfacedponysoldier87]

It would be comfortable for me if the government would listen to the people and be fired instantly by the people if the people are fed up, just like it is in the business world. ( employee refuses to mop up the floor - fired immediately)

[@athensv8795]

Great discussion, important topics being layed out here

[@paul1887]

That was like Clash of the Titan's but with foils as in fencing! Very polite, dynamic, powerful, and graceful conversation.

[@trevorm9551]

Yeah…I mean Breedlove showed a lot for restraint… I woulda been pretty annoyed

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

Probably why you weren't at the table

[@TrudleR]

Man, Robert really mastered rhetorics. No matter the argument, he just sits there and talks calmly while Peter gets kind of "into it" when discussing. His point of view is very refreshing, but I think collectivism will never go away. If you get rid of states, the next thing you will have is mafia. Choose wisely. :)

[@JeDxDeVu]

There is nothing wrong with collectivism. It's the forced vs consensual collectivism that's the issue.

[@aescubed]

I just want individualism to be given a higher preference than collectivism (by the collective).

[@jasonjacobson2089]

Frickin love Robert Breedlove!

[@thst_bot5368]

The main observed difference between human behavior and other animals is in the games we play. All of us participate is 3 games. Humans appear to participate in a forth. Games of chance. So basically we gamble.

[@edgarc98]

Wow awesome podcast. I’ve listed to Breedlove and didn’t realize how big he was. Also, love the jersey…can’t wait till they ship out!

[@essexdrone6595]

The production quality of these podcasts is the best. So easy to listen to…..and now watch!!! So many podcasts I listen to have terrible sound quality and so basic with regards to content. These podcasts take it to another level. Well done Peter, Danny and the team!!!

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

Glad you like them!

[@TylxrDxrdxn]

Robert: *states fact* " I don't think you can argue this". Peter: " I disagree"

[@donaldbiden9492]

Somewhere around the mid thirty minute mark they start discussing the idea that they want to improve Democracy but Democracy suffers the same inherent flaws as other forms of government and cannot be improved. In reality, it's man as a collective that needs to come to terms with his negative aspects then the solution will appear as natural as sleeping and eating.

[@cleanjimmy]

Democracy at its core is the will of the majority over the will of the minority.

[@samyguindy8490]

Robert Breedlove is a genius

[@pagexx]

Peter is like a plate. I really appreciate this being served great guests that have meaningful things to share. But if there’s a button to skip his parts and listen only to the guests, I’d click it to save time. Not out of hostility or annoyance or anything at all negative but mere nonchalant practicality. Anyway, thanks for another good episode.

[@toolegit2quit173]

Agreed, other than him being a sort of “Every-Man” whom average people can relate to, Peter brings very little to the table. Breedlove podcast conversations are amazing though.

[@JackFate61]

100%

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

All my guests appear on other shows, perhaps go and listen to them with hosts you like. Anyway, see you on Wednesday.

[@donnahaight4272]

Peter is like an Ethiopian meal!

[@trevorm9551]

@@donnahaight4272 haha, what does that mean??

[@codyr2318]

I show up for Breedlove every time, he’s one of my favorite voices in the space and I love his highly philosophical angle. “The stronger your freedom from, the more abundant your freedom to.”

[@P__114]

Meh, he lives in a fantasy world IMO. It’s easy to sound intelligent when your arguments will never actually be tested.

[@didactica9326]

@@P__114 Breedlove literally bases what may come on what has come before. It's called history. You know- that thing you can study?

[@garyf.3328]

Totally agree, I love listening to his podcast.

[@MrHarrilasagna]

He's a BitClout scammer....

[@Casey_Smith80]

Great conversation!

[@ericcson3429]

Peter argues from effects of consequences. Robert argues for absolute freedom (damn the consequences). Peter's argument logically leads to the following: if the consequences of ending slavery 'hurts' the masses, then ending slavery is wrong.

[@fusion9619]

This is why leftists can't solve problems... despite their hearts usually being in the right place.

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

“Man is born free but everywhere is in chains.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

[@falkobalko9006]

good podcast peter! finally a Bitcoiner who dares to ( carefully) question certain narratives around bitcoin and individualism

[@JorgeHernandez-dd1so]

Hahahaha Peter is a dumb statist. He thinks slavery is being constraint in chains. Slavery didn’t went away becuase of “liberal democracies” it just evolved.

[@finnhansen1548]

Totally agree

[@sandercooijmans21]

Agree too! Nice said

[@westtexashodler2646]

Love Robert Breedlove!

[@bridgerlogan1923]

This is great and very informative. Gets into it

[@User-pu3lc]

This was a fucking excellent back and forth. Well done to you both. More of this please.

[@alexfield1485]

Great episode! Thanks

[@RobvandeGeijn]

Would like to see Breeslove back in a new episode. But the discussion was a bit strange to lissen to. The arguments were about the perspectives of words but could be more about exploring ideas. I think both had a good conversation but in moments they talk past each other

[@wiljam12345]

Robert is fire.

[@javieralvarez7318]

31:10 As someone from "the South", I applaud this remark.

[@davidd6147]

This was good. Very interesting. Thanks.

[@ncpdigitalfamilyoffice2124]

Fantastic job Peter! I have the utmost respect for Robert too. He is a thoughtful smart guy and he raises many strong points but it's a theoretical perspective that many bitcoin believers find too narrow from a practical civil society perspective. As you rightly point out, tyranny and oppression can be wrought by the minority as easily as the majority. I think politics is as broken as anyone but I agree with you that hitting the "red button" to burn it all down has its own set of potential adverse consequences. I certainly don't have the answers but thank you for being a voice of thoughtful inquiry, in the bitcoin community. Bitcoin probably suffers crib death without the maxis, and for this, they are owed a great debt. But for its true potential for good to be achieved, I think it will take a broader view than the hard libertarian line.

[@rioc2012]

💯 with Breedlove on this.

[@theodorelux]

great conversation.

[@fusion9619]

Rob is correct.

[@macekpusch7609]

Simply excelent guys, thx

[@frmcf]

The notion of a pure 'individual' is just as fuzzy as that of a tangible 'society'. Let's demonstrate this with some questions: • At what age does the individual take on the right to exert their own will? • Can someone who is mentally or physically incapacitated or otherwise dependent on others for survival truly be considered an individual? • In a situation of war, does the individual exist in any meaningful sense?

[@MrTimothyjoemurphy]

100% Breedlove seems to dodge questions by just saying things are arbitrary or fictions. Pretty useless to debate with. He isn't actually say much.

[@joshuarasmussen641]

@@MrTimothyjoemurphy ahhh yes random stranger on the internet who thinks his comment has any value or worth 👍 well done

[@didactica9326]

What a weird comment you made. So I as a pure individual am "fuzzy" because of age, someone else's mental capacity or hypothetical war? None of that is demonstrating that my pure individualism is non-existent. Is that what you meant by "fuzzy"?

[@arc6571]

You guys need to make this a yearly ritual !

[@ericl1421]

"Then you're 50% a slave." "I don't feel 50% a slave." "Yea..." 😂.

[@oliverb6967]

love robert. have him on more plz

[@AllyBigGuns]

This dude is a word salad extraordinaire.

[@officialdiadonacs]

The wave/particle duality 😊

[@natasspin3015]

I love this guy, fictional economy as fictional democracy. We as people are just finding a way to optimize the way we repesent and order ourself. Time goes by and slowly we cut down all the middlemans, bureaucracy have to disappear. It's about evolution we don't need elections or politicians if we cast our vote everyday, for example when we choose to buy a product or another we make decisions that are similari to voting

[@ovalwindow]

The cows get up and say “We’ve had enough of this ranching bullshit, we’re gonna start our own City.” As hilarious as it is brilliant. I doff my cap to you, Mr Breedlove.

[@slop123456789]

Great interview. I enjoy Robert's What is Money podcast, but it was refreshing to have someone actually challenge his highly theoretical and philosophical lines of reasoning with some more practical and grounded points. Like Peter, I am skeptical of the utopian vision of total and absolute individual freedom Robert paints as it has never worked at any point for any complex society in human history. And also like Peter, fairness and equality of opportunity (not outcome) are very important values to me, and I just can't see how these values would fit into an Anarcho-Capitalist world. This vision also fails to take into account the existence of asymmetric threats in our modern world. As crazy and dysfunctional as our current governments are - I trust them with nuclear weapons a lot more than whoever happens to be the highest bidder at their closing down sale.

[@trevorm9551]

You make a valid point, but tho you say that the utopian vision of absolute and individual freedom hasn’t worked out thus far, we also haven’t had a technology, and monetary system like bitcoin ever before… and tho it may not make a utopian society, it may be the best chance we have of getting the closest to it… also Robert does acknowledge this.. he states multiple times, he doesn’t think this is what WILL happen, he just believes this is the direction bitcoin will lead… which is basically better than anything we currently have. And that’s enough for me.. one step at a time.

[@chrisjoyal6094]

Great discussion. I’m more freedom maxi but appreciate you pushing, although didn’t get a great answer from Robert, on what a non democracy world looks like. Like I need him to paint it out very specifically how it could look for me to come close to giving up all aspects of democracy for anarchy

[@dek2000utube]

To Peter: The good can be the trap that keeps you from the better ....

[@leandrobiff]

It doesn`t matter if you want a small government and small taxes, we are moving towards the end of government. Descentrilized economy will eliminate the state.

[@paulkieffer1189]

So stoked for robert @ bitcoin

[@tcjoyce11]

Robert Breedlove for Bitcoin CEO

[@petercampbell137]

A fiction is a story. A story is captivating because it embodies generalized truths. If it didn’t it would be incomprehensible and useless . In that sense a story - a fiction - is a coherent abstraction of reality that offers greater insight into reality. As such, a fiction that has utility, that helps us understand and navigate the world, is a useful fiction.

[@Avidcomp]

@22:18 - No sane person is calling for anarchy. Think of the words "limited government". Your answer to prevent slavery - which is a violation of property rights - is right there. You just can't seem t get your head around a limited government. And for such a thing, yes enough would be paid voluntarily to hold such a thing in place. Breedlove answer is right.

[@CJ-hg5vo]

Was the book mentioned @ 48:27 ‘when money dies’ ?

[@theelectricorigins846]

How do you know that "only the individual is real, thinks and acts"? When an individual identifies itself with a group, he's no longer able to think by itself, he becames irrationally emotional, and would accept the group beliefs to hold cohesion. It would use bias and motivated reasoning to argue against any cognitive disonance it faces upon. What do you think about ants or bees hive mind? And about collective unconscious, and conscious? Philosophically speaking, I cannot be sure any other human is really conscious (if they are determinists, I may think they are 'Philosophical Zombies' who just passed the 'Turing Test'). Hence, if objective consciousness cannot be "perceived", how can we be sure that our cells have certain degree of it or that the planet has a higher level?

[@dek2000utube]

Holy being on different wavelengths, Batman!

[@TheRealDerekS]

breedloves my dad 💪

[@GreenNutGuy]

The road to hell is paved with "good intentions."

[@trevorm9551]

Who’s that quote originally from?

[@GreenNutGuy]

@@trevorm9551 Im actually not sure. its jsut a really old proverb. Lol

[@yiguanas812]

@@trevorm9551 I think it's somewhere in the Old Testament. The idea being that man's actions matter more than his intentions. Hence the importance of wisdom and ethical monotheism.

[@trevorm9551]

@@yiguanas812 yes it’s a very good idea that I’ve always tried to put in words, but everyone is so hell-bent on intentions being the most important thing, it’s good to have a tangible quote to draw from with some citations to back it

[@JeDxDeVu]

Realising youre 50% "slave" is liberating. I see the bars I see my shackles. Now I can begin the process of freeing myself.

[@trer04]

LIke #666 here... I appreciate the intellectual honesty of both parties here. Important to remember to operate in good faith and give the other the benefit of the doubt.

[@trer04]

Peter had a check-mate moment at 36:00 ish when he brought up how the weak are treated in societies. Seems like a good litmus test for the virtue of any given system. We're only as strong as our weakest link.

[@nickycxjd791]

This one is soo good

[@adrenalinedump9924]

I Love Peters Podcast. People respectfully disagreeing. Rules not rulers work when the rules can be enforced by code, in the real world WHO ENFORCES THE RULES? If we have rules we need someone to enforce the rules, and we need those rule enforcers to come from the consent of the ruled (those who agree on the rules and agree to fall under them) democracy is the best way to facilitate the consent of the ruled. Until they answer who enforces the rules in the rules not rulers world I don't know what they are actually asking for???

[@osx86x]

Love Robert, calls bullshit for what it is

[@kevalan1042]

What I like about Peter is that he thinks for himself. Recall the feudal times, where a local lordling would come and collect taxes, maybe a tenth of your harvest. That was not easy to get, they had to get it through force (or credible threat). Would that be different in a Bitcoin world? Breedlove says it would be too hard, therefore the world would become more peaceful, but I think demand for wealth is inelastic, and therefore the more likely outcome would be strongmen becoming more violent.

[@BorgCreations]

Good point. I think part of the assumption is based on that such a hierarchy would be meritocratic and based on Hans Hermann Hoppes historical analyses of similar societies, which are much more nuanced than current historical analysis of monarchy=dictatorship=bad.

[@Renseru]

"Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari will help clear up the bit about useful fiction.

[@Mexicomank2]

The what state book at 1:09:00? somewhere in that minute

[@allandehn]

Honestly it was quite painful to get through this one. I don't care much to listen to interviews that come off this advesarial. I can't tell if it's merely a mood thing on this particular day for Peter, but man this was one of the less constructive ones. At times it even felt like Robert and Peter were in completely different worlds, and I must commend Robert for his patience in this interview. I hope you get to do another one with Robert where you are in a mood to actually have a conversation. Love you and your work Peter 🙏

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

I did listen to him but I fundamentally think these ideas need challenging. This one was more of discussion and less of an interview.

[@allandehn]

Thanks for clarifying. To me it didn't come off as a discussion even. It felt a lot more like you taking a certain position/perspective and staying there all the time. For me there was no sense of progress or elaboration of ideas, merely statements of perspective. I more enjoy the ones that has a sense of progress and/or depth to them. Actually, this one, though not at all at the same intensity, reminded me of the first episode you did with Eric Weinstein. And I completely agree on the fact that ideas should be challenged. Guess I'm clarifying for myself which form I enjoy more. Thanks for engaging!

[@1dullgeek]

@@MrObnoxiousPod I had the same reaction to this episode. And I'm reminded of the ideological turing test proposed by Bryan Caplan: If someone can correctly explain a position but continue to disagree with it, that position is less likely to be correct. To me it seemed like you were not able to correctly explain Breedlove's position. Meanwhile he was explaining your position pretty well. Could be that I have a bias towards Breedlove's position that makes me see it easier. But as it is, this discussion felt to me to be pretty unproductive. My challenge for you would be to take the ideological turing test and see if Breedlove agrees that you fully understand his position. Explain to him how less collectivism could work. At that point being able to identify gaps has more credibility.

[@trevorm9551]

@@allandehn completely agree

[@Recoveryplus]

I think you guys are trying to solve a spiritual problem through material means

[@dustyb316sa]

Nice interview! Great topics! Huge respect for you both! :) I'd love to see you guys debate views in the written form, almost like a slow chess match online for viewers to observe... ;>

[@xbmcme9768]

This episode was tough to watch. The first 20 minutes was just arguing over semantics. Peter, I understand part of your job is to ask good questions and even challenge the guest, but arguing over the definitions of words is not the best way to do that. Ie, see that infamous Jordan Peterson vs Sam Harris debate. I hope you bring back Breedlove and give him a fair shake as this podcast seemed overly combative. Just to show I'm not picking on you, one thing I disagreed with Breedlove was his point regarding policing. He said he rather pay zero taxes and let people themselves contribute to "security". We have this already, it's called "protection money", but others call it what it is, extortion. I don't agree that paying zero taxes is the way to go.

[@MrObnoxiousPod]

If it doesn’t make sense to me I am going to want it explained. If I disagree I’m going to challenge the guest. I have no other way of operating.

[@codyr2318]

If taxes are voluntary… then who exactly covers the city works/maintenance costs?

[@didactica9326]

City? Why would we want that? Cities cause all the poison in society

[@cleanjimmy]

Whoever wants to profit from them. Asking who builds the roads is a meme that displays your ignorance.

[@jonp.1084]

Tension makes for great podcasts

[@jonathansmart2482]

Not sure why but this debate just didn’t hit the mark. Possibly the constant chase of various trains of thought left it difficult for the audience to follow along. A bit like mixing two very strong liquors together and coming out too bewildered to describe how it tasted. Not overwhelmingly good nor bad.

[@safelysnortingbitcoin9923]

Thank you!!! ✊ 👆 the real first

[@mistakejuice6496]

Peter: “freedom 2 where there are rules to keep it equitable” Rob: “sure as long as its consensual” Peter: “yeah Nevermind then” 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@its4you984]

I think the future is neither capitalism, nor socialism, but voluntarism. For most of the things we won't need money anymore like in Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek (not what came after him). Bitcoin is the last money and his destiny is to be like the real doctor who's job it is to not need him.

[@jelio123456]

Why were you debating? Next time let the guest share his ideas without constantly interrupting him.

[@onurdurgun5643]

Brilliant

[@randallstephens1680]

Individualism is all about individual rights. While individual rights do empower the self, they do not do so at the expense of individual rights of others; in fact just the opposite. Individualism places an obligation, and even a burden, on each of us to recognize and yield to the individual rights of others. If you believe that your individual rights come at the expense of others, then you're not an individualist and do not understand individualism. Collectivism is all about persecution, because it is the majority, or the powerful, that defines "the common good", and they always do so at the expense of a marginalized cohort of society.

[@mh3667]

It's a shame this episode was scheduled to get published after the event haha

[@nickrichards8516]

Some call it: Maya the illusion Under maya’s influence, the atman, (the soul) mistakenly identifies with the body. He accepts such thoughts as “I am white and I am a man,” or “This is my house, my country, and my religion.” Thus the illusioned soul identifies with the temporary body and everything connected to it, such as race, gender, family, nation, bank balance, and sectarian religion. Under this sense of false-ego (false-identity) the soul aspires to control and enjoy matter. However, in so doing he continuously serves lust, greed, and anger. In frustration he often redoubles his efforts and, compounding mistake upon mistake, only falls deeper into illusion. In ignorance (tamas), he is fully convinced that right is wrong and wrong is right. In passion he is unsure, hesitant, sometimes enjoying and at others times repenting. Only in goodness does the soul begin to develop wisdom - to see things in the real light. Thus enlightenment means moving away from tamas towards sattva. By so doing, the soul gradually escapes the clutches of maya and moves towards liberation.

[@oliverb6967]

Let's gooooooooooo

[@mopbucket7297]

No idea how ppl think breedloves ideas would play out in reality.

[@didactica9326]

Could you imagine explaining the way people live today to someone who was alive 150 years ago? They would say the exact same thing you just stated