Human Discourse
Over the course of the past four years, I have had many discussions with leftists about philosophy and economics. I have found myself returning to the same points repeatedly and it has been an exhausting process where I feel little headway has been accomplished. To save time and energy in the future, I have decided to post an extensive conversation I had with a leftist here. The conversation started on October 3, 2021. Hopefully, this will allow other leftists to get their questions answered while providing neutral observers arguments from both sides that may enlighten their understanding.
I encountered this individual on Twitter and with his permission, I will share with you his Twitter handle of @thegoobs907. At the time of our discussion, his Twitter name was “Miracle Moist” and so the statements you see in blue with “MM” are him while the statements in green with “NB” are mine. Comments I did not make during the discussion but I am making now are written in red.
Public Discussion on Twitter leading up to discussion:
MM: @NBlakiston I bring activity to your channel and you repay me by deleting comments? Damn bro very masc of you.
NB: I haven’t deleted any comments.
MM: Any rate. I cordially invite you to a good faith discussion on your disagreement with the left in my dms
NB: I’m happy to discuss ideas with whomever.
MM: Before you ask. No this isn’t a debate.
Note: I am not sure why he thought I was deleting comments from my YouTube videos but I did not do so. I have also had issues seeing comments on YouTube videos that I know are there so I expect this is a technological issue with YouTube more than anything else. It isn’t relevant to the rest of our discussion but I wanted to provide the context.
I appreciated his saying it would not be a debate as one of my core philosophical tenants is that discussions should be entered with the objective of obtaining mutual understanding rather than with the objective of proving the other individual to be wrong. I am infinitely ignorant and willing to advance my understanding as new information enters my awareness.
Direct message discussion:
MM: Sah dude
So I’m not expecting any statistics or real life arguments. I just wanna point by point and ask how you feel about certain aspects of the left
no gotchas
No bullshit
NB: Sure I’m down for whatever but work in the daytime so probably can’t give it my full attention until evening. 9pm-12am pacific is usually best.
MM: I get off at 10 works for me
Main direct message discussion:
MM: Ok so I watched your video that was before heaven. (Note: I have no recollection of what the video he was referring to was about) You can probably tell by the memeing in the comments I didn’t take it that seriously. But I’m interested in engaging. So before we go too deep. If you HAD to describe yourself politically what would it be?
NB: I really don’t fit into any particular label. I’m probably most closely aligned with ancap but I don’t like to use that term because to me anarchy implies a lack of hierarchy and I accept hierarchy as inevitable.
What I support is the complete disestablishment of current government structures, and the liquidation of government assets with the proceeds from those liquidations being disbursed amongst the populations formerly subject to the tax jurisdiction of those governments. I believe all causes should be supported by voluntary contributions to those causes rather than through taxation.
MM: So let me clarify. You’re anti state but not anarchist?
NB: It depends how we define state. I support ending the current states that are in existence and transitioning to a society where every land owner essentially becomes their own state.
MM: So again let me clarify. You want land ownership to define the hierarchy?
NB: Land ownership is just one form of hierarchy, it determines who makes decisions with regard to the activities on that piece of land. But I also support each individual being the authority over their own body in the sense that I believe people should be free to leave pieces of land where the owner sets rules they don’t like and (to relocate) to other pieces of land that have rules more to their liking without facing physical violence to their body for doing so.
MM: I guess my first question is why does land have this inherent value?
Or a more specific question would be: How do we determine who owns what?
I don’t wanna gish gallop you
NB: Land’s value is based on the various demands that people have for uses of that land. Value is subjective to each individual so a particular piece of land may have more value to me than to you.
The market price is different to that subjective value, as it is the price where a willing buyer and seller of the land can agree to a transaction. The willing buyer subjectively values the land equal or greater to the market price of the land while the seller subjectively values the land at equal or less than the market price of the land. In the circumstance where the buyer subjectively values the land higher than the price and the seller values the land less than the market price, both parties benefit from making the deal because each party receives more subjective value from the transaction than they give up.
MM: Ok so what determines its your land to sell or trade in the first place?
NB: Great question and one where different people will disagree on what solution is the most just.
I believe the starting ownership that will allow us to transition to a free society, at least within the area of the United States and its territories, where my focus is, is to continue the current ownership in accordance with the legal structure that is in place under the outgoing government administration with assets owned by the government being sold to private bidders and the proceeds being transitioned to the population formerly subject to that government's taxing jurisdiction.
Allow us to transition to a free society the most smoothly and with the fewest disputes that should say
MM: So in your end goal. Who enforces property rights?
Surely that isn't the private sector
NB: I do believe in free market security, in that individuals should be enabled to own firearms and hire private militias to protect their property if they choose to do so, but I also recognize that many people do not have the individual means to protect their property from larger groups that may seek to take it over. As such, I support the establishment of a societal-wide (again, this starts in the United States and its territories) peacekeeping force that will be funded by the voluntary donations of members of the society and respond to calls of assault, attempted theft, vandalism, looting and trespassing.
Those who live in particular regions may also desire to donate to regional security forces
Note: In the writing of my book, I advanced my understanding and now instead of assault, it should say slavery. If someone is assaulting someone on their own land, my proposed security force will default to the side of the landowner and only seek to help the other party if they are being prevented from leaving the property. A full outline of my proposed mandates for this security force is available as an appendix in my book, Human Discourse.
MM: So what's stopping the guy with the most money from becoming king basically?
NB: Each individual who owns land will essentially become king or queen of their own land. If someone decides they want to use (their) money to violently take over other territories, hopefully the combination of the societal-wide peacekeeping force and economic pressure placed against (the) individual through boycotts of their products will be sufficient to discourage or repel such an action.
MM: Who's paying the society wide peace keepers?
NB: Whoever is interested in living in a peaceful society and willing to personally donate to that cause
The American right has donated a lot of money to Republican politicians, to veterans and police organizations, to the NRA and so on. My hope is that many of such donations will be redirected towards said peacekeeping force.
MM: Who makes sure that happens?
Cause let me tell you my foresight. This system begins. Bezos (essentially) buys as many soldiers as he can. And we essentially live in a neo feudalism state
NB: Big business owners will not only benefit from living in a peaceful society to prevent interruptions to their labor force and to supply and distribution chains and therefore be motivated to donate to such a cause, but will also gain positive publicity by doing so, inspiring more people to use their products and support their companies than companies that don't donate to communal causes.
MM: Well so before osha. Did big businesses benefit from maintaining potable water sources for example?
Epa*
NB: When this global financial system collapses, there is going to be a massive transfer of wealth away from those who have benefitted from the current asset bubbles and towards those who have understood economics and positioned themselves to gain from this transition.
Note: My response here is an addendum to my prior comment and one that I sent before seeing his latest question. I address government regulation in response to the potable water question in my next response.
MM: So if I'm gonna steel man this. You think that the world is gonna hit a giant reset button
In so many words
NB: Every service that the government provides as far as regulation can be funded through the private donations of companies and their consumers if people are interested in having safe products for use. And the benefit of a consumer-funded regulatory body is that if that regulator is shown to be corrupt, inefficient, unethical, racist, etc. people can stop donating to it and start using a better regulator.
Yes, we are heading for a massive debt reset. The current debts cannot be paid and will be reset when the fiat currencies that are currently in use collapse in value.
MM: So how would this come about?
NB: It's difficult to say exactly what the series of events will look like. It is possible we will see foreigners participate in an overnight selloff of dollars and a crash of the dollar in the foreign exchange markets, leading the next morning to a bond market collapse. It is possible the bond market collapse will lead the way, destroying the stock market, a deflationary collapse in asset prices followed by hyperinflation. It is possible there will be a shortfall of agricultural commodities for delivery in the futures trading markets and hyperinflation will occur directly in food prices, essentially rendering the dollar worthless. I do not know exactly how things will play out but a collapse in the US dollar is inevitable.
MM: So do you not think there's an alternative to the collapse?
So shit just has to fall?
NB: No, I really don't. We've been living off borrowed money for a long time and eventually the credit card will hit its limit.
MM: Who are we borrowing from?
NB: In the wake of this crisis, there will only be a brief time period to transition to a free society before civilization collapses completely.
MM: Well hang on. Who are we borrowing the money from?
NB: There are many different parties who own US debt. Foreign citizens and central banks own it and we have seen hardworking people overseas producing real goods and then essentially exchanging them for our debt. It is possible these individuals will wake up someday and realize what a bad deal they are getting. The Federal Reserve also owns debt, and that is debt they have purchased with essentially printed money. While we are seeing some inflationary effects from this policy, the lion's share of the inflation has been in asset prices such as stocks and real estate, providing paper wealth to those who own those assets.
Those assets are grossly mispriced though and just like in 2008 when things came crashing down, I expect they will do so again. Companies that have never produced any real profit are valued in the billions based on future expected earnings that will never materialize. In reality, most people working today have very little chance of owning a home outright at current prices, given current wages. It is unsustainable and when it collapses, all the printed dollars that have been running up these asset bubbles will buy up commodities and other hard assets, resulting in hyperinflation.
MM: So In short. The system in which we basically operate (capitalism) isn't sustainable
NB: US citizens have also purchased debt, through their forced contributions to the social security trust fund and through retirement plans that have been grossly mismanaged by investment advisors who follow cookie cutter "safe" strategies, all based on the awful assumption that US government debt is risk-free.
The system we currently operate in is unsustainable but I object to referring to it as capitalism. At best, it is quasi-capitalism that allows a certain degree of private ownership but where economic markets are regulated by a corrupt centralized body that will be exposed as having completely failed in its regulatory duties when the system collapses.
MM: Ok so yes the gov is corrupt...why is it corrupt?
NB: When political power is up for grabs, it is predictable that it will inevitably be controlled by the most ruthless and corrupt interests in society. A politician willing to accept bribes to participate in unethical activity is going to have an advantage over one who isn't willing to do so because they will have access to more funding for their political campaigns, giving them a better chance of winning elections. And a company willing to bribe a politician to do something unethical to give that company a competitive advantage is going to have an economic advantage over a company unwilling to do so. It is a vicious cycle where both the politicians and the corrupt companies gain more economic power over time, making it ever-more difficult for honest companies to compete in the market and for honest politicians to win elections.
MM: So we're going to break this long message point by point so you said that politicians are willing to take bribes why is that?
NB: I would imagine they like the idea of having money and power as they think these things will bring them some kind of internal satisfaction. And, we do live in a society that tends to reward these things socially while socially punishing poverty and powerlessness, so they are not completely wrong.
Note: I don’t like the way I responded to this. While I stand by my comments, I seem to imply that money cannot bring true satisfaction and this is not entirely true. There are many desires people have (e.g. a starving person) and some of these are material things that money can indeed purchase. Thankfully, I point this out in my following comment.
MM: So you think it's so they feel better?
NB: I think each individual is different and there are many different motivators at play. Some like money for money's sake because money can buy us things that we may desire to have. Some people like money and power because they think it gains them respect and admiration in the eyes of others. Some people like power because they think their vision will improve society to a degree that justifies whatever unethical activity is being undertaken to get them there.
MM: I feel like you're making a lot of assumptions about people's character in power
Personally
NB: These all seem like reasonable motivations to me.
MM: Yes no reasonable but you're making these assumptions about people that you don't know personally for instance do you think Mitch McConnell likes money cuz it makes him feel better?
NB: I'm not saying every politician is intentionally corrupt. Just that over time, as government power grows and the corrupt donators gain in wealth, it becomes harder and harder for honest people to compete
MM: So in your eyes who do you think is an honest politician if you had to choose one?
NB: I also think there is a lot of economic ignorance. People think certain policies are beneficial and will help but said policies actually end up hurting those they are intended to help. Social security may have been started out of a noble intention to take care of people's retirement, but the reality of the program is that it has the American population invested in an asset class that will inevitably become worthless.
Honestly, I don't want to cast judgement on who is honest and who is not. I just don't know enough about the inner workings of the government and the back room deals that go on to feel confident enough that I would want to vouch my own reputation on putting in a good word for anyone who is currently there.
MM: What do you think of Bernie sanders?
NB: I think it's good when he does things like point out the outrageous drug prices Big Pharma charges and I expect he genuinely cares about the suffering that takes place in this world. However, as he is a socialist, I do not agree with his vision of an ideal political structure. I don't know the extent to which my perception of his intentions is accurate or whether he has actually participated in great corruption, I haven't studied his track record closely enough.
Ultimately, I'm not as interested in condemning past corruption or misdirected actions as I am interested in transitioning to a better future for all of us.
MM: Have to challenge you on the notion that Bernie is a socialist it just isn't accurate to define him as such
He does in fact believe in private markets to a certain extent
Which negates the idea of just straight up socialism
NB: fair enough
MM: So now I have to ask you what you think of Donald trump?
NB: Hmm. I think he's underestimated as a businessperson and I also think his intentions are more noble than most people think. I think he's greatly ignorant in economics and I allow for the fact that I may be overestimating his good intentions, but I don't think he intends harm. I expect he's been involved in a number of shady dealings over the course of his life but the sad reality of this world has been that it's been difficult to be a person of any significant success without doing so. I like that he calls it like he sees it and doesn't care about the approval of the media but I also think he's a blowhard who lacks empathy and fails to hold space for those who have had a less privileged experience on this planet.
MM: Ok point one. How is he underestimated as a business person
NB: He was responsible for creating some of the best casinos, golf courses and other major real estate projects in this country in the 1980s. He has a great ability to make deals and get things done which has been no easy task in an economy where there has been so much red tape to navigate. Not only that, but he's found a way to stay relevant even as the economy has become more and more fake over the past thirty years, first through the Apprentice which was a huge success and then through his political career.
MM: He did that with the help of his egregiously rich daddy though no?
NB: He came from means but a lot of people come from means and live lives of luxury, never getting a single project of their own off the ground
MM: Ok but like if you look into his business career. He's like....failed a fuckton of times...to which his dad would just bail him out
Isn't he currently in debt and indicted for tax evasion?
NB: I honestly don't know the answers to those things. I do know he's had failures, but every successful person has.
MM: Yes but a lot of successful people don't have a safety net like his dad though no?
NB: I don't know how large that safety net is nor how many times he's used it. I will acknowledge he's had a lot of advantages that other people haven't had.
MM:
MM: In that time period that's insane
Plus you know it's more than just how much money you have. Freddy was heavily connected. As rich people do you'd agree
NB: Yes, it is good to be connected but you have to have a modicum of talent for those connections to be worthwhile. They might get you to the negotiating table but if you can't come up with a deal that the other party will agree upon, the connection will have no value.
And if you are constantly losing people money, you will gain a bad reputation and people will no longer desire to deal with you, regardless of who your father is.
MM: Isn't trumps whole shtick that he's self made?
NB: Well, like I said, he's a blowhard. He certainly thinks most highly of himself but that doesn't mean he's entirely without talent.
MM: But dude talent aside. Isn't he like the embodiment of who you think is corrupting the system?
NB: It is the system itself that inspires corruption. I almost can't even fault someone for taking advantage of the corruption of that system. It's the game that is played and one he has managed to do well in. I would much prefer that we play an honest game but given the game that exists, he's done well for himself.
MM: That basically means yes (he added a crying laughter emoji)
He's benefitting from a corrupt system and furthering the benefits of those at the top
NB: The system would be just as corrupt regardless of whether Trump was ever born.
Yes, but that's the game everyone plays. Even the welfare recipient is doing what they can to get what they can out of the system. The government employee is doing the same thing.
I did the same thing joining the Navy and using the GI Bill to go to school. I've collected unemployment before. I've worked to minimize my own tax liabilities.
I accepted the stimulus payments last year
MM: Of course regardless but you haven't answered my question. Isn't that the point of the system and why it's corrupt?
NB: It is corrupt because we have centralized political power up for grabs. It should be expected that the members of society will do whatever they can to get what they can out of the government while paying as little as possible into it. Most everyone tries to do this, some are just better at it than others, and some are blessed to have been born into circumstances where greater opportunities to do so would be available to them.
As far as I'm concerned, the system has no point and is a destructive force that acts against the interests of society. But different people would say the system has different purposes: to increase equality, to keep us safe, etc. But by my estimation, it has grossly failed if these were its intended purposes.
Note: I now disagree with what I said here about the system having no point. It does provide certain benefits such as roads and fire protection, but I believe these causes could be addressed without the need for a centralized government addressing them. I discuss the transition of government services to the private sector in my book, Human Discourse.
NB: I hate to let you go but I am exhausted and did not get a lot of sleep last night. Can we continue this another time?
Note: I made this request but the conversation continued for another two hours into the early hours of October 4th, 2021.
MM: You know for someone who's willing to invoke spiritual bankruptcy. You can't define Trump as that?
He'd be the first guy
Maybe not the first but definitely a definition of it
Note: We had had some prior interactions on Twitter prior to this conversation and I imagine that in one of them, I must have referred to the concept of spiritual bankruptcy.
He then shared a screenshot of our past few interactions. I am not completely sure why but I have omitted it from this transcription.
MM: Sent that to you so it can't be deleted lol
Just in case you think I was trying to gotcha
I'm trying to get your perspective
NB: I want to be careful in condemning specific individuals as spiritually bankrupt because I cannot know the internal motivations of a specific individual until I have walked in their shoes. To me, spirituality incorporates many principles including accepting that there are things in this universe beyond our control, having the humility to acknowledge where we have been mistaken, cruel, inconsiderate, dishonest, etc., seeking to be of service to others, and turning our will over to God as we understand God. While I can say Trump does appear to have some shortcomings regarding his lack of empathy, I do not feel he is entirely lacking in every one of these areas. And when I make a blanket accusation that others are spiritually bankrupt, perhaps I am being too judgmental out of my own frustrations with my own inability to not be able to affect the outcomes I desire.
MM: You were pretty flippant with me and my mates (he added a crying laughter emoji)
NB: You came in pretty hot yourself
I appreciate you seeking to gain an understanding of my perspective, and I apologize for my flippancy, even though it seems it may have been effective in getting your attention
MM: Nah you had my attention. Then you just made me laugh
Well I took a serious issue with your take on vaccines
And later your dismissal of experts in a field you have no knowledge of it seems
People that I care about could die from this
I have immunocompromised family
Do you not think there are consequences to speech?
NB: I am not a virologist but I have spent a great deal of time learning economics and spent years in business school having to answer questions in ways I did not believe were correct in order to get A+'s on my tests, while having my questions dismissed by professors who knew less about the topics being discussed than I did. I later got to experience life inside a mental hospital where I was educated on the fact that most mental health professionals understand very little of human behavior and emotions, and choose to remain ignorant while conversing with their patients, preferring to diagnose people in various ways to make it seem as though they are less than human and lacking in either the core traits of the ability to feel compassion or use reason. So, my distrust of academic professionals is great. With regard to the virus, that distrust has been heightened by the economic incentives in place for the pharmaceutical companies, the fact that dissenting views have been largely silenced and dismissed from mainstream and social media sites, and the fact that people want to use the force of government to attempt to inject the bodies of individuals without their consent.
Note: At this point, he shared a screenshot of my previous paragraph with the words “I am not a virologist” circled in red.
MM: That's all I needed
Note: It is at this point in the conversation that I felt I was no longer being listened to. Up until this point, I felt as though I was being given an opportunity to make my points and that his questions didn’t indicate any points I made had been missed. I had felt like it was a productive conversation in the sense of avoiding personal attacks or bullying, and that I had been able to adequately address the concerns he had with my perspective.
At this point in the conversation, the dynamic changes. He decides that because I do not meet the specific credentials that he requires to listen to someone with an opinion on coronavirus, he is not interested in listening to mine.
Without listening to my perspective, he cannot possibly hope to change my mind, for he will remain unaware of my reasoning. As such, we have arrived at a point of moral disagreement. In my book, I discuss the fact that regardless of how much discourse humans have, they will not always agree on all matters. In situations where consensus is not reached, the deciding factor in whose morality will reign supreme has always been who has the power to enforce their desires upon others. The conversation thus shifts from a conversation regarding morality to a conversation regarding reality, a shift that also occurs early in my book, Human Discourse.
I would prefer for humans to settle their moral differences using words rather than a contest of force but such is not possible if one side of the discussion is unwilling to listen to the other. The following quote by the man commonly referred to as the “Father of Modern Science” in academic circles sums up my feelings on the topic:
“I’ve never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him” – Galileo Galilei
NB: I'm not trying to convince you vaccines are bad, I'm just letting you know I won't be getting one.
Note: I’m focused on reality, not morality
MM: Got it...profit motive bad when convenient. Also intellectualism bad when convenient
NB: There's nothing intellectual about an appeal to authority that cannot be questioned.
MM: It's not about question. You can question all day...but if your questions suck or are baseless. And just a base dismissal of expertise as a concept. You already lose
Sorry it's just facts m8
And if your questions are actively killing people (anti vaxx grifters) then I could give a shit if Twitter or YouTube doesn't wanna platform you
Private companies AMIRITE?!
NB: The facts are I have been around hundreds of unvaxed people and don't know a single one to die from this "pandemic". That millions of people have been trapped in their homes and displaced from their jobs for the sake of this invisible virus, that our pending economic catastrophe is being entirely ignored, that masses have suffered from domestic violence while trapped at home, suicides and drug overdoses are through the roof, that there is now a precedent for the President to determine by executive order what medical treatments a person should receive if they work for an employer with over 100 employees, that global warming could have been solved if the 6 trillion squandered on fighting this "pandemic" that has killed less than 1/1,000 of the global population had instead been used to triple the global population of trees, and that I have no reason to trust a corrupt media and academic establishment that has been so gravely mistaken in the fields I have studied the most.
Sure, private companies can make the decisions they think are best, just like individuals can, and if I think those decisions are cowardly, I can call that out also
Note: I did not mention it during this discussion but I would like to add now that I don’t dismiss expertise as a concept. If I trust someone else, it is reasonable for me to rely on information they provide me, and I trust the expertise of other people every day (e.g. I trust the expertise of other drivers when I choose to share a road with them).
The issue with trusting the medical authorities that have been pushing the coronavirus narrative is that the governments, academic establishment, and pharmaceutical companies have proven themselves repeatedly not to be trustworthy, and that corrupt incentives are baked into the system. Any doctor or scientist who goes against the prevailing narrative is routinely shunned, resulting in a single-minded doctrine that cannot be questioned. Companies that go against the authorities can face fines or losses of funding or licensing.
In my book, I will discuss how reputation is important and how consumer awareness of a company’s reputation will be a better driver of good company behavior than government regulations ever have been.
MM: This...again....without your expertise or data...is just cope. Sorry. This doesn't prove anything
NB: That's fine. Like I mentioned, I'm not trying to prove anything, I just letting you know I won't be taking it.
Note: He tries to guide the discussion back to the morality of the vaccine, but he has lost me. He has refused to consider my perspective, considering his own to be infallible. I have come to accept that I will not be able to shift his perspective on the vaccine but he needs to understand that his decision not to consider my perspective also results in the reality that I will not be shifted to his moral position. I will stand firm on my ground and if he wants to change my behavior, he will need to use force.
MM: Ok. And don't expect to have special privileges from doing so. If a company or establishment requires it to enter or be employed there. Pay for those consequences and don't cry on Twitter or YouTube about it
NB: Well, I'm fortunate to have circumstances where none of my regular activities are being restricted. If the restrictions increase, I'll just have to make my best judgment as to how to handle that situation.
Note: He has now shifted from discussing morality to discussing reality, and our conversation can progress along those lines. He outlines some consequences he expects I will face and I inform him that I have not yet faced such consequences. When and if they arise, I will make the decisions that seem best to me at the time.
MM: Hey at least you're both crying. I still think your reasoning is bankrupt and based on nothing but fee fees
Note: It looks like he made a typo or two here and it’s difficult to decipher his point but I notice the word crying combined with an accusation of my reasoning being bankrupt. I have found in conversations that if a critical point is missed, it typically will reemerge later and it didn’t necessary for me to attempt to decipher what seemed to be some typos. I decided to make a general statement to demonstrate the self esteem I have and my willingness to face my creator and account for my behavior.
Ultimately, MM believes he has the morally superior position and expects that through discourse, he will be able to convince me of this. By referring to my own self esteem, I demonstrate that he has not convinced me to adhere to his morality, and that I feel satisfied with the actions I’ve taken. I expect this will trigger a sense of frustration within him, but my ultimate hope is that it will lead him to the place he needs to get to, which is intellectual humility. He needs to acknowledge that he has been dismissive of those who have disagreed with him, and he needs to gain an understanding of what they know.
Our economy is heading off a cliff (I’m writing this 12-15-21) and freedom is the only solution that can prevent a complete collapse of civilization. Eventually, people will need to come to terms with this and face the consequences of the misguided decisions they have made. Doing so will require a huge dose of humility, combined with a great effort to rebuild this world. I hoped that my comment would ultimately lead us back to our needed destination.
NB: I've been living on borrowed time for 14 years and believe I'm going to a better place when I die. Nothing in this world is worth crying over at the current time. I've done what I can to try to make this a better world and I feel good about the decisions I've made. The rest is in God's hands.
Note: He then shared a GIF of two people hugging and the words "Gods plan starts playing." I suppose this was meant to be flippant but I like talking about God, even with those who do not share the same beliefs. I find that allowing my faith to be attacked on an intellectual basis has strengthened it because for all the arguments I've heard from atheists, I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for the miracles I've seen in this life other than divine intention and at least occasional intervention.
NB: We will see what he has in store
MM: 700,000 dead Americans so far and millions worldwide it seems
NB: Well they count people who die within 14 days of the vaccine as unvaxed deaths and there have been reports of medical personnel marking deaths as covid deaths if there's a positive test even though the pcr tests are questionable and they're were underlying other conditions present so who knows what the real numbers are. This is why I just trust my own eyes telling me that no one around me is dying, and that the urgent cares I visited last year were empty.
The delta variant didn't even start appearing until people were getting vaccinated
Note: Now, my strategy changes. Where before I steered the conversation away from morality and towards reality, now I decide to give him another chance. He makes a moral appeal, referring to 700,000 reported dead Americans and millions worldwide, and I respond to that claim with some refuting information. I call into question the relevance of the statistic by pointing out corrupting factors that have been reported to exist, and present some contradictory evidence (my own eyes) that tells a different story.
MM: Wow...it's amazing how little you think
This is why virologists exist
To answer your dumb ass (he added a crying laughter emoji)
The delta variant is a MUTATION of the virus. The vaccines were meant to establish her immunity. Less likely for a virus to mutate
But thanks to people who think like you. It will never happen
Thanks for that
You're doing your part I guess
NB: What would help with herd immunity is if people stopped wearing masks and social distancing so they could exchange germs and boost their natural immunity
Note: I ignore the ad hominem as he once again appeals to authorities that I find to be untrustworthy. He then blames the unvaccinated for spreading coronavirus and allowing the virus to spread and mutate.
I respond by pointing out that herd immunity can be achieved not just through vaccinations but also through natural immunity from prior infection. For thousands of years, humans have lived on this planet as viruses and bacteria have spread amongst them, attacking their immune systems and trying to kill them. It is evident from the increased illnesses when people travel or are around people they’ve been isolated that some degree of regular exposure to other humans is necessary to maintain a robust immune system and this aspect of the discussion seems to be one that is routinely ignored by the mainstream narrative. Even with stories of immunity debt arising from places where there have been lockdowns, this concern has been widely ignored.
MM: Omfg you're so inexperienced on viruses
You know what happens when you do that?
DEATH
NB: Lol
MM: FUCKLOADS OF DEATH
Did we do that with ursinia pestis?
With measles?
Influenza?
NO WE FUCKING VACCINATED
Massively strong viruses don't fucking go away without inoculation
Small pox, polio, mumps, rubella
These fucking things didn't just go awY
Note: He then linked an image of someone dunking over someone else. I think I originally met this guy in an NBA related conversation so that would explain this image.
I missed a couple points in our original conversation that I could have made. For one, this so-called vaccination for covid is not a traditional vaccine but a gene therapy treatment. Even my mother who routinely watches mainstream news sources acknowledges this. For another, vaccinations have only been around for a couple of hundred years and animals survived for millions of years on this planet without them.
NB: I've been doing it for 18 months and I'm not even sick. I got covid according to the pcr test last thanksgiving and had very mild symptoms. And now, according to the Israel survey they try so hard to discount, I have better immunity than if I'd taken the vaccine
MM: Are you every citizen?
Does your anecdote supercede stats?
NB: I'm an obese one and so should be higher risk than average
MM: Dude risk isn't assured...you're a gambler you should know that
You can still fucking live
Trump is fatter and less healthy than you
And he lived
Herman Cain? Dead. A bunch of other people? Dead
700000 Americans? FUCKING DEAD
NB: The stats of the hundreds of other people I know who haven't died from covid or the bullshit government stats intended to make big pharma richer?
MM: Again that's not a fucking stat
That's your anecdote
Note: An anecdote becomes a stat once it involves hundreds of people rather than just one.
NB: How many people in the nba, nfl or congress have died from covid? There are hundreds more samples for you
MM: And do you take ibuprofen?
NyQuil?
Robitussin?
Would you go to the hospital if you had an illness?
NB: Probably not anymore tbh, I'm starting to expect the entire medical profession is entirely incompetent and I'd be better off taking my chances on my own
Note: Also, there’s a difference between taking an over-the-counter medication that has been used for decades and a product that just came out and that governments around the world are attempting to coerce people into taking
MM: I've heard you speak. You really shouldn't be calling anyone else incompetent
Ok last question
Am I afraid of masculinity?
NB: Lol. I don't think so, I think you're just afraid of being wrong.
Note: This also refers to a prior interaction we’d had on Twitter. I imagine I’d accused the pro-vaccine crowd of lacking masculinity and if I did so, that was a generalization, something I generally advocate avoiding. There are exceptions to every rule and despite the fact this individual was at one point unwilling to consider my perspective with relation to the vaccine, I will credit him for at least sticking around in the conversation for as long as he did.
Looking back on it, he did still avoid being empathetic towards those of my viewpoints which would likely be the most triggering for him, so I cannot give him an A+ on courage, but I will at least give him a B which is above average.
MM: Hmmm interesting
NB: I still think most of the pro vax crowd is (afraid of masculinity) but your sitting here for hours conversing about this makes me think you aren't
MM: Hmm do you not think someone who lost someone to covid maybe has some serious vitriol for people like you? Cause I gotta tell you dude. You're inability to accept your rabid biases and hatred for people who know more about viruses is pretty telling
Here's my anecdote
I know plenty of people who got vaccinated and never got covid...bam you lose
Note: I do realize this is an emotional topic for people but in fairness, he had resorted to an ad hominem in this discussion while I had not. Not only that, but I’d let it slide under the rug for the sake of showing compassion, forgiveness, and a willingness to move the conversation forward constructively. Just as my generalization about pro-vaccine people fearing masculinity was ill conceived, his generalization that all unvaccinated are worthy of vitriol seems ill conceived, for I had addressed every reason he had provided for me to vaccinate and expressed my rebuttals towards those reasons.
NB: I don't hate people who are pro vax, although I do take issue with those who want to use government power to enforce their will.
MM: Again the way you frame an inability to take basic human responsibility for public safety with bitching about "the gubmint do tha thing!"
NB: That's great and I'm happy for them. Hopefully it is effective enough that they don't have to worry about people like me getting them sick.
Note: I’m referring to his prior comment about his knowing vaccinated people who haven't yet contracted covid here.
MM: Again
You don't know how vaccines work
The circle is complete we're back at square one
We're back to ground zero of this convo
Holy shit
It's incredible
NB: The economic threat is a way greater threat than this virus even if you do believe the government numbers.
Note: OK, we discussed vaccines, went in a big circle, and neither of us have moved off our original position. Fine, now let’s discuss something I want to discuss.
MM: Man money means more than lives
Who's spiritually bankrupt again?
NB: Yeah, you're just banging your head against the wall trying to change something you have no power over. And even if you did convince me, there would still be millions of others who wouldn't be convinced. It's a massive waste of energy.
MM: This is literally...the most pathetic do nothing bullshit I've ever heard. Is that what you're gonna teach your kid? Don't try to change the world you live in?
Note: It looks like I neglected to respond to this at the time so I will now. There is a sphere of things I have influence over in this universe and then there’s an infinite amount that falls outside of that sphere. I can only control that which is within the sphere and seek to expand the sphere through gaining information.
For his sphere to increase regarding convincing me to get vaccinated, he’d need to listen to my reasoning and refute it. It is unlikely that he would be able to do so and attempting to do so may cause him to notice ways his behavior has hurt other people. To avoid this reckoning, he will need not to expand his understanding but if that’s the decision he’s making, he will need to accept that the size of his sphere influence will remain constant.
NB: Lives are dependent upon food consumption and when this credit bubble collapses, people will quickly discover they have no means of obtaining it.
MM: You're right man. We don't have grocery stores FULL OF FOOD that only isn't getting bought cause people can't buy it. You're so small minded it's sad
NB: There's a big complex process required to harvest, transport, produce, package and deliver that food and the grocery shelves will eventually become empty
MM: You're right man without the big capitalist overlords how are we going to grow corn holy fuck
Without the bosses how are we gonna send the corn?
It's not like WORKERS DO ALM THAT SHIT
NB: You have land, seeds, the knowledge to produce that corn, a way to generate the electricity to cook it, and a way to protect it from thieves? Along with a clean water supply? If so congrats, you may be one of the few who survives.
MM: Aren't those things being exploited by the guys that you think have the big ideas? Again you may need to get the taste of boot leather out of your mouth
What's stopping them from maintaining that control when your big reset button gets pushed?
NB: Ok let's say you're right and they can continue production. What makes you think they'll give it to you after they produce it?
MM: No I'm saying you me and every other average Joe take that shit from them and collectivize it..that way everyone gets fed?
Note: He proposes a communist revolution.
NB: I don't know anything about growing corn and I'm not interested in stealing.
Note: I decline the offer.
MM: Or is that too big an idea for ys
Bro you literally just let people steal from you every day
You don't get paid what you produce for your job
To any degree
This is literally how the system works
Grow a pair and fight for your child
You're gonna let these goons take your precious world from you?
NB: I engage in a voluntary transaction (referring to my employment). I have no interest in being a business owner at this time, I like the steady paycheck and lower responsibility that comes with being an employee.
MM: Jesus literally preached the philosophy I have. Helping the poor, healing the sick, etc.
Ok here's an analogy
You land on a deserted island with one other person
NB: Voluntary charity is fine, that's entirely different from stealing
Note: This is a critical point that I feel like libertarians do not mention enough. I’ve even heard prominent libertarians criticize the idea of giving to charity.
In the absence of government stealing money to attempt to address societal causes, those causes won’t just disappear. Compassion is important and I believe libertarians’ frequent refusal to acknowledge suffering and the need that exists is to their detriment when appealing to a general audience. While the left may not understand economics, those on the radical left are driven fundamentally by compassion and a desire to alleviate the suffering of others in this world. This is a noble ambition, and I agree that Jesus would support this ambition.
My differences with the left is not on whether suffering should be alleviated, but on the mechanism by which that may be achieved. In my book, I discuss how voluntary charity will be a superior mechanism to address societal causes, empowering those who care the most about causes to be the ones responsible for addressing them.
MM: They wake up before you
Note: We’re back to the deserted island.
MM: Hoard all the coconuts
They say they'll give you one if you suck their dick
NB: Lol
MM: You got freedom?
NB: You're always free to make the choice you think is best in the situation you find yourself in
MM: Didn't answer the question
Yes
Or no
Yes
Or
Bo
No
Simple answer
NB: I did answer the question. There's a sphere of influence I have in this world and there's an amount that falls outside that sphere. That will never change, although the size of the sphere might. All you can ever do is make the choices that are available to you.
Note: Well, perhaps I got around to explaining the sphere after all.
MM: YES
OR
NO
NB: It’s a false dichotomy
Note: I don’t think I identified false dichotomy correctly here but explain what I mean in a moment.
MM: How?
Replace coconut with food (money)
Replace fellatio with work
It's LITERALLY as simple as it gets
So simple YOU were able to understand it
NB: Ok, it's an incomplete question. You ask if I'm free. Free to do what? Free to commit suicide? Free to attempt to steal the coconuts? Free to get coconuts in exchange for performing sexual favors? Free to travel to the moon? If it falls within my sphere of influence, then I'm free to do it.
MM: You only call it a false economy because it forces you to admit that the system in which you occupy is immoral and not sustainable. Which also forces you to admit that the system that you would be in favor of is also both of those things
FREE TO SUCK THE DICK FOR FOOD NICK
Is that freedom to you?
Is death from starvation a free choice ?
NB: It's more freedom than if that choice wasn't available.
I don't know about that. It's difficult for people to overcome the survival instinct.
MM: Okay so let's bring up slavery
Is the slave free to just work or kill himself?
NB: Sure
MM: So you f****** admit that it's immoral to hold something over somebody's head that they need to survive and force them to do a task that they really didn't want to do in the first f****** place
Hey Nick I got a coconut
Assume the position
Would you subject your child to that situation?
If you were half the man I think you are you would explain to your child that he needs that coconut so he needs to throat it
NB: Lol I'm not here to debate morality, I live in a world of reality. Different people find different things to be moral and I've never had any luck persuading people to believe in the same morality as me.
Note: He’s making a moral claim and, in this situation, I don’t find it constructive to debate that morality with him. It’s something I am confident we will not find consensus on but even if we did and I became a leftist, it would do nothing to change the fact that millions of other people do not share that morality. It is not a discussion of morality that will move the conversation productively but a discussion of reality.
MM: Bro you literally cry on your YouTube about the spiritual bankruptcy of your fellow people
Note: Ah, so that’s where that came from.
MM: And yes it is crying it literally is crying
Maybe your morality sucks
More and more people are subscribing to my form of morality everyday
NB: Yes, and look how effective that's been in convincing people to change their behavior
Note: I’m referring to my YouTube videos, not his evangelical effort
MM: It literally is I don't know exactly what you're trying to allude to?
Did you not see that massive civil rights protest that just happened on your f****** doorstep?
The massive campaign to fight for higher wages from labors on your f****** doorstep?
Note: He apparently thought I was discussing his moral campaign. Yes, I understand that promising people free stuff and a utopia where everyone shares everything might appeal to some people. I expect their faith will continue right up until the government becomes unable to fund itself.
NB: People can subscribe to whatever morality they want, eventually reality will cause them to starve if we don't get freedom
They can literally bitch all day, it won't do a damn thing to affect the end game
MM: So you're telling me that legislation hasn't been passed or at least written in favor of those protests? are you telling me that companies haven't raised their wages?
Are you telling me Derek chauvin didn't go to prison?
And I love how you describe protest as bitching
Sorry buddy we can't all whine on our YouTube channels like you
NB: Oh, sure, they can make other people suffer, they're great say that and I experience it every day. What they can't do is change the laws of economics.
MM: Hang on are you saying Derek chauvin is suffering?
Oh s*** are you giving the game away?
NB: Obviously he is
MM: So you don't think it's justified?
Where's the advocacy for sovereign citizens when you need them huh?
NB: I already told you I'm not here to debate morality. Personally, I'm more interested in creating a better future then seeking vengeance for past wrongs but that's just me. I accept that others in this world prefer to live in hatred.
No matter what you do to Chauvin, Floyd remains dead
MM: Dude you don't get to posture about wanting to create a better future when you're literally just laying there licking the boot and getting shat on and going "oh well"
Note: He posted a GIF of a police officer driving and the words "Cuck-a-doodle-do".
NB: Lmao. You can judge me however you want. I am happy with the reasons for my behavior and that's what ultimately matters.
Alright I'm cutting this off for real as I have to work early. Goodnight.
Note: At this point, the conversation did come to an end. A couple hours later, I found myself unable to sleep and resumed it but it shifted to a discussion of abstaining from marijuana that I have omitted as it is of a personal nature and I feel it would be of limited use to share here. He then recommended a YouTube video.
After watching just the first six minutes of this video, I sent the following to MM:
NB: The whole ideal of equality is a futile one. For as long as different penis sizes exist, equality will not. And a system where outcomes are identical regardless of effort is a system where effort is not rewarded. There needs to be a purpose to life, just like a video game. If all the levels were completed and all the star coins were already collected, there would be no reason to play super Mario bros u. If you want to seize the means of production, it will necessitate invading china, Vietnam, etc. because we live off their production which they exchange for our debt. But if your game plan relies on seizing the assets others hold, you will eventually discover they either have no more assets to seize or have hidden or protected them well enough that you can't get them. And even if you are able to control enough assets to produce enough for the population to survive, your will discover you have an unmotivated workforce and a base of industry that may serve the demands of today but will fail to serve the demands of tomorrow as societal demands shift over time due to cultural changes, technological changes, etc. Didn't watch the whole thing yet but those were my thoughts based upon the first 6 minutes. I really do need to sleep now though.
Note: He then posted a video of judge Judy looking exasperated that said "Lord help me with this one".
NB: I will try to watch the video later. I do appreciate that the person is attempting to discuss an actual transition plan from where we are to where he wants us to get to, and I feel like I am somewhat unique amongst the right libertarian community in that regard. Perhaps this discourse will result in some kind of progress despite how futile it may currently seem to both of us. I am working all day but will try to watch the rest of the video later.
MM: I sincerely recommend giving him a deep dive
Note: I later watched the entire video and it seemed like the narrator’s proposed strategy was to instill socialism through gaining the support of the voting population. This was not surprising to me but I believe the efforts of the left in this manner will be futile. The government’s power is based upon its ability to pay for its expenditures and it has been surviving off credit that is going to run out. When the credit bubble collapses, so will the value of the U.S. dollar and the government’s ability to pay for its expenditures by issuing bonds to the Federal reserve in exchange for newly created currency. Purchasing power in this world is real power and when our economic collapse occurs, that power will shift away from the government and towards those who have intelligently positioned themselves financially for the times to come.
A couple days later, I received another direct message from MM:
MM: Hey. Where's your post about the NUMEROUS lobbyists from different corporations in the Trump admin? Curious
NB: Why would I waste my time on that?
MM: Well you seem to have an issue with lobbyists (I do too) so I figured the dude with the most lobbyists in his administration would he on your list
NB: Both parties are corrupt as far as I'm concerned although my understanding is the democrats have accepted more lobbying money in recent years. But I'm not really into tallying which side has more strikes, I oppose the very existence of the structure that exists.
MM: So a milquetoast critique is your prerogative..got it
Note: This was the end of our direct messages. In response to his final comment, yes, I see little use in pointing out the specifically corrupt actions of specific individuals when it seems evident to me that corruption is widespread, and predictably so, based on the incentives baked into the system.
On a couple later occasions, he responded to posts I made with what seemed like insulting and bullying remarks, and I decided to block him. It seemed as though our discourse had hit a constructive end and little would be accomplished by engaging in a further war of words.
This was only the 2nd individual I blocked on Twitter and I had previously been quite critical of people who blocked others. My rationale was that I had heard out his intellectual points and was now setting a personal boundary. I have since done so with a number of people, primarily other libertarians, and have not regretted the decision.
With the posting of this discourse on my website, I have decided to unblock him as I don’t think it is fair to comment on someone’s words without giving them an opportunity to respond. I have also let him know that it is posted here.