Speaker 1: All right, Hello, welcome to another episode of the markro
Speaker 1: mov Show, where we're always talking about the decentralized revolution,
Speaker 1: trying to explain to you the play by play of
Speaker 1: what the heck is going on in the world. And
Speaker 1: you know, I'd like to bring you some education so
Speaker 1: you can start to understand subjects a little bit differently,
Speaker 1: changing the way you think about money. As I always say,
Speaker 1: I like to bring to you some of the latest
Speaker 1: breaking news headlines so you can see what is going
Speaker 1: on with the play by play of the signposts, and
Speaker 1: of course some interesting guests so you can listen to
Speaker 1: some different perspectives than just mine. And that's what we
Speaker 1: have for you today. I am joined in the studio
Speaker 1: with q. He is one of my friends, my research
Speaker 1: assistant and the producer, and we want to have some
Speaker 1: conversations today that I think will help give a different
Speaker 1: perspective because, believe it or not, him and I don't
Speaker 1: agree on everything, and believe it or not, that's a
Speaker 1: good thing. You see. One of the things as humans
Speaker 1: and as an investors, is that our own human emotions
Speaker 1: make us horrible investors. And part of the reason why
Speaker 1: is because we suffer from all types of biases, and
Speaker 1: you always have to be aware of what your biases are.
Speaker 1: And so we suffer from things like normalcy bias or
Speaker 1: recentcy bias. So if prices are going up, they're always
Speaker 1: going up. If prices going down, they're always going down.
Speaker 1: Things like that. But one of the things that we
Speaker 1: suffer from is something called confirmation bias. And what that
Speaker 1: means is like you see the world for whatever it
Speaker 1: is because of the lens that you have. Your experience
Speaker 1: is what shapes that. And what most people do is
Speaker 1: they look for information to confirm the bias they have.
Speaker 1: But a much better way is to always try to
Speaker 1: disprove your bias, and so I do that. I always
Speaker 1: try to disprove my bias, and so I like to
Speaker 1: talk to people I don't agree with. I call it
Speaker 1: like verbal sparring. I grew up doing martial arts karate
Speaker 1: as a kid, lots of jiu jitsu, mutai, and I
Speaker 1: love just putting on some sparring gear and just going
Speaker 1: at it with some friends. Not hard, but just fun
Speaker 1: and it's fun and you sharpen yourself. And so this
Speaker 1: is like a verbal sparring so que. Anyway, thanks for
Speaker 1: joining me today. It's always a pleasure talking to you
Speaker 1: because we don't agree on everything, and it's fun just
Speaker 1: to dissect that. And it's proof that people can have
Speaker 1: different viewpoints and still be friends and get along.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I'll start off by saying, I'm sure you've seen the headlines, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, forty six fifty four whatever the number is,
Speaker 1: people that have worked for the Hillary Clinton, for the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation have ended up dead. And I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: seen that, right and Killery as she's been called, right,
Speaker 1: And while I think that is where they smoke, there's fire,
Speaker 1: and that seems well, that seems like there's a big problem.
Speaker 1: And I certainly believe she's one of the most corrupt politicians,
Speaker 1: probably under Biden at this point, but one of the
Speaker 1: most career corrupt politicians. I saw recently Patrick Bett David
Speaker 1: had Michael Wiener or Scott Wiener on his show and
Speaker 1: he was the one that was married to Huma Abodeen
Speaker 1: and sent the pictures of the you know, the penis
Speaker 1: or whatever, and Patrick Way David went hard on him,
Speaker 1: and I don't agree with him. He's a way different
Speaker 1: then I am. Politically. His wife whom Aberdeen is caught
Speaker 1: up in all types of bad things with Hillary. But
Speaker 1: I listened to his perspective and I have to say
Speaker 1: that he had a good point. I kind of lean
Speaker 1: with Patrick bed david and there's where they smoke. There's
Speaker 1: fire real quick.
Speaker 2: Was what was the point?
Speaker 1: Just so that the point was? Patrick mc david says, Look,
Speaker 1: I got all these questions that we want to ask you,
Speaker 1: but I can't really substantiate any of these. So I
Speaker 1: want to know, why is there whatever fifty sixty people
Speaker 1: that have died on the Hillary Clinton campaign. And Scott
Speaker 1: Waders like, come on, man, really, and like patrickay david
Speaker 1: was not letting this go, like he hammered, hammered, hammered, right,
Speaker 1: But I found myself going, man, Weider's got some good points.
Speaker 1: And basically his defense was, look, Hillary Clinton's whatever, seventy
Speaker 1: years old. I don't know what exactly, seventy five years old,
Speaker 1: through the Clinton Foundation and through decades and decad decades
Speaker 1: of public service and billions and blah blah blah. She's
Speaker 1: had one hundreds, she's had thou thousands of people work
Speaker 1: for her, thousands of people. She's seventy years old. People die.
Speaker 1: I'm like, dang, that's actually a pretty good answer. And
Speaker 1: so my point is is like always always check your
Speaker 1: bias and be willing to take in new information that
Speaker 1: challenges That's kind of my setup story. That's kind of
Speaker 1: I was thinking about it. No, I like that.
Speaker 2: It's Awkham's razor. The simplest solution is often the right answer.
Speaker 2: Like it just logic would validate that claim. Like, I'm
Speaker 2: thirty years old, I don't know a lot. I've worked
Speaker 2: with a lot of people. Most of the people I've
Speaker 2: worked with, they're still alive. Yeah, talk to me in
Speaker 2: forty years, probably be singing a different tune.
Speaker 1: Right exactly. So when you're seventy a lot of people
Speaker 1: you've worked for have died, you know. But when you
Speaker 1: understand how corrupt they are and how much they lie
Speaker 1: and censor, then it leads, you know, leads to wild speculation.
Speaker 1: And that's part of the problem with you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: quote unquote conspiracy. The lack of transparency leads to that.
Speaker 1: And so when you're always being lied to, then you
Speaker 1: just think everything's a lie. And so it's tough to
Speaker 1: talk about We're gonna talk about bitcoin and the Great
Speaker 1: humanity Equalizer because there's a lot of inequality in the
Speaker 1: world today, and I think both of us agree that
Speaker 1: we think we are moving into world that could be
Speaker 1: much more equal. And so I want to talk about
Speaker 1: some things that we go through. You know, first of all,
Speaker 1: what do you think about that, like humans being what
Speaker 1: do you think about human equality?
Speaker 2: I mean, I think I have a We've talked so
Speaker 2: much about these things. I know I have a different
Speaker 2: perspective than you on this, like I and I recognize
Speaker 2: where my perspective comes. I grew up in America. I'm
Speaker 2: an American citizen. My parents are both immigrants into this country,
Speaker 2: and I was born here an American citizen, not because
Speaker 2: I took a test, not because I passed some qualification,
Speaker 2: just I want a lottery. Everyone else in my family
Speaker 2: is back in Iran. They don't have the same access
Speaker 2: to a lot of the things that I am granted.
Speaker 2: So I know, off the bat, we're actually we're not
Speaker 2: created equal, but the advantages that we are granted in life,
Speaker 2: it's up to us how we choose to use that.
Speaker 1: So well, hang on, let's back that up. So we
Speaker 1: are created equal, but whatever regime you may be under
Speaker 1: might choose to take away some of those equality options, right,
Speaker 1: And to your point, I mean, you could be a
Speaker 1: thirteen or fifteen year old kid that was born in
Speaker 1: Iran and you don't get to join the financial system.
Speaker 2: Nope, simply because of decisions that are well out of
Speaker 2: your control.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Or you could be in Africa and you just don't
Speaker 2: have access to electricity.
Speaker 1: Right so, or you don't have access to the ideas
Speaker 1: or whatever. Right. But I think and so I think
Speaker 1: that's the big problem. And I think equality the way
Speaker 1: I think about it is like equality of what, equality
Speaker 1: of what? So, equality of an outcome or equality of
Speaker 1: a chance. So there's no way to guarantee equality of
Speaker 1: an out well, the only way to guarantee equality of
Speaker 1: an outcome is to make sure that you only have
Speaker 1: one choice, right, so, Q take this or leave it. Well,
Speaker 1: I can guarantee the outcome. We're gonna take it. Of course,
Speaker 1: if I give you iPhone or an Android, some people
Speaker 1: are gonna choose one of the other. And you see that,
Speaker 1: like twins born in the same family, with the same parents,
Speaker 1: same school, same money, same gene, same everything can end
Speaker 1: up in two different way, different locations because of the
Speaker 1: choices that they made. So the only way to really
Speaker 1: get people to end up in the same place is
Speaker 1: to limit their choices. And that's a very scary world, right.
Speaker 2: Oh. Absolutely, Like that's the whole premise of this country.
Speaker 2: We have the freedom to choose. We should have the
Speaker 2: freedom to make the decision that we want to make.
Speaker 1: So do you think trying to optimize for freedom or
Speaker 1: equality of an outcome is a good thing?
Speaker 2: No. If we were optimizing for equality of outcome, especially
Speaker 2: in this country right now, with the current makeup of
Speaker 2: the interests of our generations, most people my generation would
Speaker 2: be a professional athlete and whatever support they wanted. Most
Speaker 2: people younger generations would probably just be YouTubers or TikTokers
Speaker 2: or whatever. We don't need more of those. We don't
Speaker 2: need more professional athletes, as much as I love sports.
Speaker 2: We don't need more people making tiktoks. We need more engineers,
Speaker 2: more scientists.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think about it like you look at
Speaker 1: like a Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. Elon must probably
Speaker 1: works one hundred hours a week and he's probably done
Speaker 1: that for thirty years. Do you want to work one
Speaker 1: hundred hours a week for thirty years?
Speaker 2: Coming up on ten years so far?
Speaker 1: One hundred hours a week close to it. Come on, man,
Speaker 1: come on, you don't want to work that hard.
Speaker 2: Maybe not for you.
Speaker 1: My point is is that not everybody needs to work
Speaker 1: that hard. Some people. I have friends who've just moved
Speaker 1: down to Nicaragua and live on the beach and they
Speaker 1: surf all day, and that's great for them. They should
Speaker 1: be able to do that. There's no reason why they
Speaker 1: have to work as hard as Jeff Bezos if they
Speaker 1: don't want it. And so that's like the equality of
Speaker 1: an outcome. But if we go back, like through some
Speaker 1: historical examples we were talking to before about like I
Speaker 1: think some of the real discrepancies come from economic or race,
Speaker 1: class or values, right like, and I think that's kind
Speaker 1: of where like some of this conversation started, Ben Shapiro
Speaker 1: was talking about frame up what bench Burro was saying
Speaker 1: in your words.
Speaker 2: I mean, the podcast episode was essentially this conversation that
Speaker 2: most conflict in society throughout history, it's been portrayed as
Speaker 2: a class conflict. It's the pores versus the rich, it's
Speaker 2: the haves versus the have nots, when in reality it's
Speaker 2: become this values driven I want to instill my values
Speaker 2: upon you these are the right values to have, those
Speaker 2: are the wrong values to have. It's almost like the
Speaker 2: way I was kind of we were talking about it
Speaker 2: is the way we try to sort of package and
Speaker 2: ship democracy all over the world, is exactly that in
Speaker 2: a nutshell. It's we want you to have our values
Speaker 2: because we only understand our values. We don't understand yours.
Speaker 2: But there's that.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, we're gonna stop with that. We'll come
Speaker 1: back to that a minute. If you're tuning and you're
Speaker 1: listening to the Mark mass Show, we're talking about the
Speaker 1: great humanity equalizer and it's not taking away your choice.
Speaker 1: We're gonna break that down Q and I when we
Speaker 1: come back. Don't miss as we're going take a quick break.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. All right, welcome back. If you're
Speaker 1: just tune in and you're listening to the Mark Maus Show,
Speaker 1: I'm sitting down with my show producer Q. We are
Speaker 1: talking about the technology that we have today that could
Speaker 1: be the great equalizer of humanity, but not in the
Speaker 1: way that you're thinking. So you were kind of framing
Speaker 1: this up before, and you talked about shipping ideology or values,
Speaker 1: and I think that's the big problem that I have
Speaker 1: with that. I was at this conference like a year
Speaker 1: ago and someone had brought their wife and she wasn't
Speaker 1: really into what we were talking about, and she asked me,
Speaker 1: how do you know you're on the right side of things?
Speaker 1: And I think the answer to that question, much I'll
Speaker 1: tell you is also I thought what I thought Ben
Speaker 1: Scheper was saying, and again, we just see and hear
Speaker 1: things differently. But she asked me, how do you know
Speaker 1: you're on the right side? And that was a good question.
Speaker 1: I hadn't really been asked that, and I thought about it,
Speaker 1: and I said, the reason why I know I'm on
Speaker 1: the right side is because I'm gonna take care of
Speaker 1: me and live my life the best I can, and
Speaker 1: you do you, but the other side wants to tell
Speaker 1: me how to live my life, and I'm not okay
Speaker 1: with that. I don't want I don't want you pushing
Speaker 1: your ideal vision onto me. And so what I heard
Speaker 1: as bench Burrow was talking was he was giving examples
Speaker 1: of Silicon Valley pushing values on the rest of the
Speaker 1: world or the rest of the country, even though they
Speaker 1: don't even live those values. So you know, in Silicon Valley,
Speaker 1: they're saying that you know, don't get married, be transvestite,
Speaker 1: don't have kids, blah blah blah, when they mostly live
Speaker 1: traditional values.
Speaker 2: Well, let's unpack that for a second, because it's they're
Speaker 2: working the social media companies and they're allowing that rhetoric
Speaker 2: to be perpetuated. That's that's really what he was dissecting.
Speaker 1: But for the most part, yes, right, And so then
Speaker 1: people across the country look at Silicon Valley and think that, wow,
Speaker 1: there are a bunch of liberal wackos that have these values,
Speaker 1: and that's actually not the case. So the point is
Speaker 1: is that they're trying to push their ideal values onto
Speaker 1: those people even though they're not living them themselves. And
Speaker 1: so we agree on that, and that's that's kind of
Speaker 1: what I was hearing. And so I think that's back
Speaker 1: to the question she asked me, and it's like, well,
Speaker 1: I believe in let me do me, you do you.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm on the right. If you're trying to
Speaker 1: tell me how I need to live my life, I
Speaker 1: don't like that. Now. I I am okay having influence
Speaker 1: over other people. I hope that I can live my
Speaker 1: life the best that I can and that would encourage
Speaker 1: other people. But I don't want power over people. I
Speaker 1: don't want to tell people what to do. And as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, from being a content creator and
Speaker 1: sort of if you listen to what influencers or content
Speaker 1: creators or gurus would tell you, most of the fake
Speaker 1: gurus are the ones telling you what you should do.
Speaker 1: Most of the real ones are the ones that are
Speaker 1: just demonstrating it right. And so I think that's where
Speaker 1: it comes down. And that's where you mentioned like offshoring democracy.
Speaker 1: It's like we're trying to tell you what you need
Speaker 1: to do to live. Now we were talking, he was
Speaker 1: also talking about how what Karl marxcot wrong and how
Speaker 1: really things are more about values than they are about economics.
Speaker 1: And I know you had a little bit of a
Speaker 1: disagreement there. To frame it up, Karl Marx wrot the
Speaker 1: Communist Manifesto. That book led to the largest revolution in
Speaker 1: European history, and it still has become the number one
Speaker 1: one of the best sellers in economics in political science,
Speaker 1: which is the problem. But what he did is he
Speaker 1: said that there's a struggle between two arbitrary classes, the
Speaker 1: rich and the poor. And I say it's arbitrary because
Speaker 1: what's the definition of rich and poor. The rich are oppressors,
Speaker 1: the poor are oppressed. So if I go from rich
Speaker 1: to poor, Nolbmenn oppressor. Like so it's just like this
Speaker 1: arbitrary line. And really what he argues is that it
Speaker 1: wasn't about the economic classes. It was about the ideology
Speaker 1: that they shared. And he gave examples. So for example,
Speaker 1: you know, early in the United States, you would have
Speaker 1: JP Morgan going to church with the same poor people,
Speaker 1: and so they really cared about local community. And when
Speaker 1: you have a local community, not only have a duty
Speaker 1: and a responsibility of that community, hang out, your kids
Speaker 1: go to same school as you go to same churches,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And so really it wasn't about the economics
Speaker 1: of it. It was more about the values of it.
Speaker 1: And I know you didn't necessarily agree with that, Yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Mean there's a there's just an aspect of this where
Speaker 2: you start to see I think a like it to
Speaker 2: your point, like, there's no clear line being defined here.
Speaker 2: So you have one side saying, hey, this is an
Speaker 2: argument or case to be used as to why this
Speaker 2: is good. And then because there's no clear line being drawn,
Speaker 2: there's no definition of well, this is what defines someone
Speaker 2: as the I. Honestly, I'm sounded like a freaking communist
Speaker 2: right now defending this.
Speaker 1: But don't don't defend it. You don't, don't you don't
Speaker 1: have to defend it.
Speaker 2: I want to have like a full sort of expansive
Speaker 2: discussion on this though, because the point and where I
Speaker 2: was disagreeing was like the revolution it did cause was
Speaker 2: a revolution of class because ultimately the people who align
Speaker 2: with and agree with the communists ideology where those who
Speaker 2: didn't have anything to begin with, and they saw that
Speaker 2: as their opportunity to grasp and sort of hold on
Speaker 2: to and gain something. So from that angle it did
Speaker 2: it was a class issue, but it was a class
Speaker 2: issue that was guised as these are different.
Speaker 1: But there's there's two ways in my book Uncommunist manifest
Speaker 1: that we broke this down that really there's two ways
Speaker 1: to gain wealth, work for it and build it. You
Speaker 1: can you can create it, or you can steal it.
Speaker 1: You can take others, or you can build it yourself. Right,
Speaker 1: I can grow my own crops that I can take yours. Okay, Okay,
Speaker 1: So that's an ideology which one I choose. If I
Speaker 1: choose to grow my crops or steal your crops. Would
Speaker 1: that be an ideology, like if you picked one or
Speaker 1: the other. Yeah, okay, So the Bolsheviks decided to not
Speaker 1: go create wealth but to go take wealth. Was that
Speaker 1: an ideology?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: So he says, it's not ideological, it's economic. But it
Speaker 1: was ideological.
Speaker 2: But it was motivated through economic needs.
Speaker 1: Sure. So what they do, and this is what Marxism did,
Speaker 1: It's what neo Marxism or what we call cultural Marxism
Speaker 1: does today, is they try to find any underrepresented group
Speaker 1: of people and they try to agitate them. You're a
Speaker 1: victim because you're black, or because you're a woman, or
Speaker 1: because you're gay, or because you're trans, or because you're whatever,
Speaker 1: and then they try to agitate them. So and Karl
Speaker 1: Marx's day, the best way was through the poor people,
Speaker 1: and they can get the poor people agitated and get
Speaker 1: them to rise up. Today, we try to get anybody,
Speaker 1: any underrepresented group or minority and try to antagonize them
Speaker 1: to get them to rise up.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the whole like polarization of the world
Speaker 2: we live in. It's it's again, it's kind of what
Speaker 2: you were talking about in your previous segment. You turn
Speaker 2: on CNN, it's you only hear about how awful Trump is.
Speaker 2: You turn on Fox News, you only hear about how
Speaker 2: awful Biden is. There's no intellectual honesty in either discussion.
Speaker 2: It's just they're the bad guy. No, they're the bad guy.
Speaker 2: It's like they're creating this narrative of infighting. And then
Speaker 2: you go to DC and you see the video of
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris fist bumping Lindsey Graham, and then you start
Speaker 2: to realize, like, oh, they want us to fight each other,
Speaker 2: but they're not going to fight each other. Again, creates
Speaker 2: that us versus them dynamic.
Speaker 1: But I think if you dig in deeper and you
Speaker 1: understand that the reason why they do that is because
Speaker 1: they need they need victims, because victims need saviors. Right,
Speaker 1: so you can't get ahead because you're fill on the blank.
Speaker 1: And so if you only allow me, then I can
Speaker 1: help you do that. Right now, I am choosing to
Speaker 1: have a family, and I'm choosing to work for my wealth,
Speaker 1: and I'm choosing to live my best life. But for you,
Speaker 1: you just go ahead and be that victim and let
Speaker 1: me help you do that. And so I think that's
Speaker 1: that that kind of push off there, but I would
Speaker 1: say that they use this effort, they manipulate these underrepresented
Speaker 1: groups to get their way. And yes they happen to
Speaker 1: be poor or black or trans because they're the underrepresented
Speaker 1: group that they can pit against them, but it's not
Speaker 1: them overall. Like for example, we've had you know, trans
Speaker 1: people and black people that have got along just fine.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of people actually standing up now
Speaker 1: and trying to announce this. If you're just tuning in
Speaker 1: your listening to the Mark Moss Show, we're kind of
Speaker 1: going off the rails a little bit for a minute,
Speaker 1: but don't worry. We're going to bring it back here
Speaker 1: for you. We're talking about ways we can really kind
Speaker 1: of address equality and bring the world back to a
Speaker 1: much more fair world, but not through the way they
Speaker 1: want to. The commists want to do it not through
Speaker 1: ESG and not through coercion, but through cooperation and through
Speaker 1: a new technology that gives us the opportunity to build
Speaker 1: wealth in a sound money system. And so we think
Speaker 1: it's going to change the world, but we're just setting
Speaker 1: it up. Stick with us. It's going to be fun.
Speaker 1: I got to take a very quick break though, just
Speaker 1: for a minute, but you don't want to miss it,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Hi. Welcome back. If you're just
Speaker 1: tuned in your listening to the Mark Mass Show, we're
Speaker 1: always talking about the decentralized revolution, and we're talking about
Speaker 1: right now. I'm sitting down with Q, he's my producer.
Speaker 1: We're talking about sort of this inequality that we have
Speaker 1: in the world, looking back through a historical lens, and
Speaker 1: we're going to take it to the future of where
Speaker 1: we think this is going. Before the break, we had
Speaker 1: kind of left it abruptly, so you wouldn't go away,
Speaker 1: But Q, what was the question that you wanted to ask?
Speaker 2: So like you and I the other day, we're having
Speaker 2: this conversation about the gentleman you sat next to on
Speaker 2: the plane, and we were talking to just about the
Speaker 2: idea of giving to those less fortunate, and obviously that
Speaker 2: was a specific example. You've established that, Hey, I want
Speaker 2: to protect myself, my property, my family. Those are my
Speaker 2: values that I hold dear and true. If someone else's
Speaker 2: values are not to necessarily say, hey, you need to
Speaker 2: give some of your property to help others, but rather
Speaker 2: I want to personally be going and helping others, how
Speaker 2: do we go about that? Because I feel like we're
Speaker 2: reaching a point where on one side of the argument
Speaker 2: it's everyone has to help everyone. It's like, no, that's
Speaker 2: that's an over correction. But this idea that everyone has
Speaker 2: to fend for themselves is also an unrealistic ask. So
Speaker 2: where where's the balancing act here?
Speaker 1: The problem? Q, You're probably not kind of like this answer.
Speaker 1: The problem that the the world has today is they
Speaker 1: want to remove all morality and then try to juggle
Speaker 1: these things. And the answer is you can't criticize Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro because he kept talking about Judeo Christian values. But
Speaker 1: the Judeo Christian values are the answer to that question
Speaker 1: that you asked. So whether you believe in the Bible
Speaker 1: or God or Jesus or any of that doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: In the Bible, Jesus said the greatest commandment is love
Speaker 1: God and love your neighbor more than you love yourself.
Speaker 1: Over and over and over. It says, if your neighbor
Speaker 1: asks for help, do not delay, give him help immediately.
Speaker 1: Don't even just give him what he asks. Also take
Speaker 1: the jacket off your back and give that to him
Speaker 1: as well. Okay, so when you have that, as you're
Speaker 1: guiding principle. These types of questions you're asking me are there.
Speaker 1: But when you completely get rid of that, there is
Speaker 1: no God, there is no higher purpose. I'm a god.
Speaker 1: I do whatever I want. Life is for my own enjoyment.
Speaker 1: If you're Gary Vee saying the greatest thing to optimize
Speaker 1: for is for my own personal happiness, well then how
Speaker 1: do you then? How do you fit that in? And
Speaker 1: the question is you don't right.
Speaker 2: I think my issue, going back to the ben Shaper
Speaker 2: of it all, is he spent the entirety of the
Speaker 2: episode essentially saying these people who are trying to instill
Speaker 2: their values on us, like I don't want their values,
Speaker 2: but let's ship my values to everyone else. It's like,
Speaker 2: you just spent this whole time telling us why try
Speaker 2: to force values.
Speaker 1: I didn't. I didn't listen to the whole thing, so
Speaker 1: I didn't hear that conclusion and I certainly didn't get that,
Speaker 1: but I didn't listen to the end. So we'll table
Speaker 1: that for what it is. But I just think that
Speaker 1: you know, there's a quote and I can't remember it exactly,
Speaker 1: but I'm sure you've heard it where it's like in
Speaker 1: my family, I'm a communist right in my community, I'm
Speaker 1: a socialist. But then like with my government, I'm a
Speaker 1: libertarian or whatever it is, right. And so what that
Speaker 1: means is that in my family with my daughters and
Speaker 1: my wife, we share everything, like I give everything to them, right,
Speaker 1: But that's my family. Right in my local community, I'm
Speaker 1: like a socialist, Like we kind of share and we
Speaker 1: kind of help each other. But like the further you
Speaker 1: go out, the less you do that. And so one
Speaker 1: thing that Benchuba talks about is like the neat the
Speaker 1: community was for. It's a two way street, so it
Speaker 1: comes with responsibility. And then I have a duty back
Speaker 1: to that community. I should try to keep crime down.
Speaker 1: I should try to keep the trash off the street.
Speaker 1: I should try to keep my lawn mode right. But
Speaker 1: more importantly than that, like you know, traditionally throughout thousands
Speaker 1: of verse history, people would go to church and they
Speaker 1: would support each other. One person has a problem, they
Speaker 1: come by. The Mormon church does a very good job
Speaker 1: of this. The Mormon church. They support each other. They
Speaker 1: all frequent each other's businesses. You know, one person loses
Speaker 1: their job, they all pitch in to help them. And
Speaker 1: so that's done through that sense of community. But you
Speaker 1: can't get that benefit from the community if you don't
Speaker 1: also have the responsibility im pour into that community as well.
Speaker 1: The problem is is like the modern government structures that
Speaker 1: we have today has dissolved all of that right and
Speaker 1: that's by design because they want us dependent on the
Speaker 1: government for that. But the problem is when you go
Speaker 1: to the government, you break down that community. And you
Speaker 1: mentioned Iran, and I've never been there, so I don't
Speaker 1: really understand how it works. But I spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time in like Central America, Mexico, South America, et cetera,
Speaker 1: and I know that. You know, family is everything to them,
Speaker 1: And you just look at immigrants that even come to
Speaker 1: the US. They live together, they stay in their tribes,
Speaker 1: they all help each other and support each other, and
Speaker 1: so it's really through community through family that a lot
Speaker 1: of that's done. The flip side of that is that
Speaker 1: if it's done too much, it also makes people too dependent.
Speaker 1: And so you you mentioned if we don't give, then
Speaker 1: what happens to these underrepresented people, do they fall by
Speaker 1: the wayside? Well, if there weren't safety nets for those people,
Speaker 1: we'd have much less underserved people. Now, you know, I
Speaker 1: support an orphanage in Mexico. Last month we raised four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars for them. It's an orphanage in Mexico.
Speaker 1: Mexico doesn't have a safety net, and they specifically work
Speaker 1: with kids with disabilities. So those kids they're never gonna
Speaker 1: they're never gonna get there. I mean, they don't they
Speaker 1: have disabilities, right, they're in Mexico, and so like we
Speaker 1: need to help them. But I think for the most part,
Speaker 1: most people could work right and they so I think
Speaker 1: the handouts work kind of work against them, would be
Speaker 1: my guess.
Speaker 2: I don't disagree. I mean, like, as you were describing
Speaker 2: this idea of community and working together like that is
Speaker 2: in a nutshell. Regardless of where you find yourself in
Speaker 2: the world, whatever religion or belief system you have, at
Speaker 2: its core, we all are looking for a sense of community,
Speaker 2: and way way back in human history, we are always
Speaker 2: reliant on and building upon that community, whether it's our
Speaker 2: immediate family or the extended families.
Speaker 1: The humans are tribal, exactly, and you look at like
Speaker 1: look at the projects in Philadelphia or Chicago or Detroit
Speaker 1: or whatever, right, and it's unfortunate what's happening there. But
Speaker 1: the government basically pays young girls to have as many
Speaker 1: baby as they can because then they pay for their
Speaker 1: apartment to pay for the childcare. And so it's incentives
Speaker 1: gone wrong, right, probably meant to be really good, like
Speaker 1: let's help these unwed mothers, but now they just have
Speaker 1: fifteen babies so they can get paid a bunch of money.
Speaker 1: And then all these kids grow up with welfare. With
Speaker 1: that welfare mentality, they don't have a father at home,
Speaker 1: so it's a bad deal. But even within that, then
Speaker 1: they start their gangs. So then they even create that
Speaker 1: community that all starts to help each other out, okay,
Speaker 1: And so it's just like a natural part of us, right,
Speaker 1: So I don't know, you know, I think it comes
Speaker 1: down of the worldview, Like I believe that people are
Speaker 1: mostly good, and I believe that people take care of
Speaker 1: each other. But that's because I do. And to the
Speaker 1: point that you mentioned before, and if everybody wasn't listening,
Speaker 1: but on an airplane, I was sitting next to somebody
Speaker 1: who was very well off, very very very high level
Speaker 1: business person, and he asked me the same kind of question,
Speaker 1: which is like, well, if the government doesn't take care
Speaker 1: of people, who will and I'd asked them, Hey, I
Speaker 1: don't want to get personal with you, but I just
Speaker 1: I'm curious. How much of your money do you donate?
Speaker 1: And he's like, I don't it at all. And I said, so,
Speaker 1: I think you're putting your worldview on there. I donate
Speaker 1: a lot of my money and so I just don't
Speaker 1: look at the world that way. And so there was
Speaker 1: a Denish Desuza. He's like a felt conservative filmmaker. I
Speaker 1: love on YouTube. They have these channels where I think
Speaker 1: it's like Americans for Liberty or something, and they'll be
Speaker 1: like Michael Knowles, Ben Shapiro, DENISTISHUSA, these guys, and they'll
Speaker 1: go to college campuses and then like the professors or
Speaker 1: the students get up and ask them these questions. And
Speaker 1: Denisiusuza had Finn this question, and the guy said, but
Speaker 1: what about reparations. Shouldn't we be paying these people back
Speaker 1: because they were oppressed and blah blah blah and uh
Speaker 1: and Denistusuza basically said, uh, yeah, you're at an Ivy
Speaker 1: League school. You should just not go here. You should
Speaker 1: give all your money and stuff to them. So you
Speaker 1: go first, and once you've done that, maybe we'll jump in.
Speaker 1: And the kid was like, uh, never mind, right, And
Speaker 1: so that's like you should definitely give your money because
Speaker 1: you owe those people. But I'll just keep my money,
Speaker 1: right and where it's like for me, like I said,
Speaker 1: my friends and I and not trying to shoot my
Speaker 1: own horm here. But I mean we went we were
Speaker 1: raising money for this orphange for a number of years
Speaker 1: and like, uh, we just do that and like hopefully
Speaker 1: we encourage other people to maybe go do something similar, right,
Speaker 1: And so I think that's like how the world is
Speaker 1: it should be totally.
Speaker 2: I mean it points back to kind of what you
Speaker 2: had mentioned earlier in the episode, this idea that like
Speaker 2: we offshore the morality, like we think someone else is
Speaker 2: going to do it if we don't do it.
Speaker 1: No, we want to. We want to mandate that you
Speaker 1: do it even though I don't.
Speaker 2: Right, Like the example with all the social media CEOs
Speaker 2: who will tell everyone, oh, believe all these things, but
Speaker 2: then they'll go home and have their sort of conservative
Speaker 2: values that they live by, right that they won't preach.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have all these man. I mean, you know
Speaker 1: what's happening with the kids these days, both with the
Speaker 1: transitioning and with schools and whatnot. And most of these
Speaker 1: people that are pushing this don't have kids, right, you
Speaker 1: don't even have kids. Who the hell are you to
Speaker 1: tell me what I should do with my kid? You
Speaker 1: don't even have your own, you know. Oh, but these
Speaker 1: are the states kids and these it's our response. And no,
Speaker 1: it's not your responsibility. You don't even have kids. So
Speaker 1: I think that's the problem. If you're just to listen
Speaker 1: to the Mark mass Show a little bit different than
Speaker 1: we normally do. I'm sitting down with Q, my show producer,
Speaker 1: and we're going to bring it together to talk about
Speaker 1: a much more fair and equal world, but not through coersion,
Speaker 1: through incentives and through cooperation. So we're gonna be back
Speaker 1: with more in a second. I gotta take a very
Speaker 1: quick break. Don't go away, we'll be right back, all right,
Speaker 1: Welcome back. If you're just tune in, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Maas Show a little bit, a little bit
Speaker 1: different content today, a little bit more on the political
Speaker 1: philosophical side of things, so you can get different perspectivesm
Speaker 1: sitting down with Q, my show producer. We're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, the difference of class and economic struggles and
Speaker 1: I want to kind of bring all this back because
Speaker 1: really the cause of a lot of this, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: well goes back to the money. And to frame it up,
Speaker 1: you mentioned the Bolshevik Revolution. So Vladimir Lenin from the
Speaker 1: Volshevik Revolution said that the best way to destroy capitalism
Speaker 1: is by debouching the currency. Through in fla we can
Speaker 1: arbitrarily steal, and through a process of inflation, we can
Speaker 1: break all relation so that the best way to get
Speaker 1: rich is through gambling and theft. And so the leader
Speaker 1: of the Bullshek Revolution, that's what he said. And so
Speaker 1: here we are. People say, oh, but this is capitalism
Speaker 1: gone away. Well, Karl Marx gave us ten points of
Speaker 1: communism in the United States. As seven of the ten,
Speaker 1: so I would say, we're not in a capitalist society.
Speaker 1: We're actually seventy percent communism. Now we could we could
Speaker 1: debate each one of those. I mean, is it one
Speaker 1: or ten percent? Whatever?
Speaker 2: Time for that?
Speaker 1: You don't have enough time for that. But the but,
Speaker 1: the but the key piece here is that when the
Speaker 1: when the money has been destroyed so much that the
Speaker 1: best way seeming to get ahead is by either stealing
Speaker 1: or by gambling. So I'm gonna yolo into a crypto position.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna rug pull on a on a
Speaker 1: DeFi or NFTT on.
Speaker 2: Whatever MLB games are going on. There's no coincidence. Online
Speaker 2: gambling is picking up right now in this moment in
Speaker 2: our history.
Speaker 1: Right and then it makes me really greedy, So gambling
Speaker 1: and theft. So then theft like most people think like
Speaker 1: breaking in arey, it doesn't have to be that way.
Speaker 1: I could cheat you on selling you a used card
Speaker 1: and disclose problems. I could build wrong hours, I could
Speaker 1: embezzle from my employment. There's a million ways we can
Speaker 1: cheat as well or steal, not just outright breaking and entering.
Speaker 1: And so when we're in a society where everybody's kind
Speaker 1: of looking out for themselves, and really, in a business,
Speaker 1: the leader of the company sets the culture of the company.
Speaker 1: And if you look at the founding fathers, they all
Speaker 1: came here literally sacrificing their life for future generations, planting
Speaker 1: a tree they'll never sit under the shade of. And
Speaker 1: the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, most of
Speaker 1: them ended up broken dead. It wasn't good for them.
Speaker 1: But today we have leaders that only look out for themselves.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think there's any way to debate
Speaker 1: that evidence that's come out against Biden and the tens
Speaker 1: and tens of millions of dollars that he's embezzled, And
Speaker 1: so what does that mean for the rest of the country.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've see Nancy Pelosi is the best stockpicker
Speaker 1: in the world. Like, I mean, we can go on
Speaker 1: and on and on right, And I'm sure there's people
Speaker 1: on both sides that they're all trying to rich themselves.
Speaker 1: So that's why they don't want to pass inside our
Speaker 1: trading rules and so but they're all trying to enrich themselves,
Speaker 1: and so that sets this culture here. But back to
Speaker 1: the social issues. It affects the social issues because everybody's
Speaker 1: looking out for themselves.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a broken system, and if you kind
Speaker 2: of scale it back and go back enough, you start
Speaker 2: to realize, like, oh, well, when the moment we broke
Speaker 2: the money is the moment things really started to break apart.
Speaker 2: Like one of my favorite websites for anyone listening you've
Speaker 2: never checked this out, you should, It's called wtf Happened?
Speaker 2: In nineteen seventy one. Type out all of those words,
Speaker 2: WTF happened in nineteen seventy one, and what this guy did,
Speaker 2: Ben Prentice and some of his friends just took a
Speaker 2: range of economic charts and they point to nineteen seventy one, which,
Speaker 2: for historical context, is the moment Nixon took us off
Speaker 2: the gold standard. Officially, we are no longer backed by gold.
Speaker 2: We are just pure fiat money. And you start to
Speaker 2: see a lot of things. In the last segment or
Speaker 2: in the last hour, you brought up just how much
Speaker 2: the police budgets started to bloom starting in nineteen seventy seven,
Speaker 2: right around this window of time, So you see and
Speaker 2: can point to the moment where we started to have
Speaker 2: the money get ruined. You start to see also politicians
Speaker 2: become millionaires very quickly, very conveniently for themselves.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, if you think about in the book Thank
Speaker 1: God for Bitcoin, they made a good case that I
Speaker 1: really love is stuck with me, which is that we
Speaker 1: tend to think of money as like a tool, and
Speaker 1: tools could be used for good or bad. I can
Speaker 1: with a screwdriver and fix my car, I get stabby
Speaker 1: with it, so it's just a tool, so it's neutral.
Speaker 1: But they said that that's not the case with Fiat money,
Speaker 1: because Fiat money that the government creates is not neutral.
Speaker 1: It's actually inherently evil. And it's inherently evil because it's
Speaker 1: built on a system of theft. When they infleet inflate,
Speaker 1: they steal from you. That's what vlnemer Lyin said. A
Speaker 1: system of theft, a system of lies. They're constantly telling
Speaker 1: us that they're tightening when they're really easing, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And uh, theftlies and deceit. They're constantly deceiving us about
Speaker 1: what they're doing with policy, how many dollars there are,
Speaker 1: they won't go through an audit, et cetera. So if
Speaker 1: a system is built on theft, licency is inherently evil.
Speaker 1: So then almost anything it's being used for then thereby
Speaker 1: could also be used for evil. No, it's certainly okay.
Speaker 1: I mean I use Fiat for good, but as a
Speaker 1: system it's bad. And so then you start to see
Speaker 1: what's going on in the world. And as opposed to that,
Speaker 1: like a bitcoin system is open, it's transparent, it's permissionless,
Speaker 1: and so it's built it's it's trustless. I don't want
Speaker 1: to say it's truth itself, but it's code, it's transparent,
Speaker 1: so we can we can trust it or we don't
Speaker 1: have to trust it because it's open and transparent. And
Speaker 1: so it's like almost like the exact opposite. Now, from
Speaker 1: a theological standpoint, the Bible calls the devil the father
Speaker 1: of lies. The only tool the devil has is deceit right,
Speaker 1: and God would be called truth right, and so like,
Speaker 1: you have two different systems. But if we can do that,
Speaker 1: we change the incentive structures and maybe we go to
Speaker 1: a world that didn't debouch the currency and destroy capitalism
Speaker 1: and we end up in a more of a meocratic
Speaker 1: world meritocracy right, where we're all trying to do better
Speaker 1: for each other.
Speaker 2: Totally, I mean, at its core, it really just goes
Speaker 2: down to the government's ability to continue to print themselves
Speaker 2: out of whatever situation they find themselves in prevents them
Speaker 2: from having accountability for their mistakes and actions. It's like
Speaker 2: you're a parent. If your children make a mistake, you
Speaker 2: sit them down and you explain, hey, like, you messed
Speaker 2: this up, this is how it got I messed up,
Speaker 2: and this is how we do better in the future.
Speaker 2: You learn from your mistakes. That's what my dad did
Speaker 2: to me, and that's how I grew as a person
Speaker 2: for some reason. Though our politicians are exempt from this.
Speaker 2: They're able to just, hey, I misplaced two trillion dollars
Speaker 2: on September tenth, again two thousand and one. And when
Speaker 2: I brought that story up to you, he's like, that's
Speaker 2: not the only time. Yeah, And it's like, that's not
Speaker 2: an insignificant amount of money today, let alone twenty plus
Speaker 2: years ago. But there's no accountability for that. In fact,
Speaker 2: we promote, we give them new titles, we give them
Speaker 2: new roles in government, and it's as though, just yeah,
Speaker 2: they mess they messed up. Everyone makes mistakes, right, and
Speaker 2: they learn from they are punished and learned from their mistakes. Yeah,
Speaker 2: everyone except for you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no consequence exactly, And without consequence, how do we
Speaker 1: learn because success is a horrible teacher. We learn from
Speaker 1: our mistakes, right, And so if you don't burn your
Speaker 1: hand to touch stove, then you don't know any better.
Speaker 1: And so when you're constantly able to punt your way
Speaker 1: out of it, I think about like safety. The author
Speaker 1: of the Bitcoin standard, he says that a monarchy is
Speaker 1: actually a preferred form of government because a monarchy really
Speaker 1: treats the country more like an entrepreneur, and if he
Speaker 1: mismanages it, then they're run out and somebody else gets
Speaker 1: to try again. But in this FIAT money world, we
Speaker 1: constantly print.
Speaker 2: You know how the old Roman Empire used to fund
Speaker 2: all of its endeavors and do all the things.
Speaker 1: That wanted to do by debasing its currency.
Speaker 2: Actually, no, before they started debasing their currency, it was
Speaker 2: a sense of pride, and the wealthy class would almost
Speaker 2: like submit applications. They were all assigned. Even if you
Speaker 2: didn't submit an application, you were assigned. Hey, your role
Speaker 2: within our community is you're to upkeep the roads. Hey,
Speaker 2: you are the art director of our community. And so
Speaker 2: the wealthy class was instilled to you have to fund
Speaker 2: these endeavors to keep.
Speaker 1: Our society duty and responsibility exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So
Speaker 1: maybe if we get away from the FIAM money system
Speaker 1: that's a system built on fleft flies and the seat,
Speaker 1: get back to a somone system that, as Lenin said,
Speaker 1: would be destroyed and we would just turn a gambling
Speaker 1: and theft. We can get back to a world where
Speaker 1: there's meritocracy and people are all working towards a common goal.
Speaker 1: We get rid of the bad players, We reincentivize people.
Speaker 1: At least that's what we're hoping. And you know, when
Speaker 1: it comes to equality, I like to think of equality
Speaker 1: of a chance, and really we need to make sure
Speaker 1: everybody has the best chance they can have and not
Speaker 1: optimize for the outcome. And I think having a form
Speaker 1: of money that you can hold that doesn't get stolen
Speaker 1: from you arbitrarily and you don't end up in a
Speaker 1: system like Iran where you can't even get into the
Speaker 1: global financial system, gives us that much more fair world,
Speaker 1: a permissionless, borderless, censorship resistant, immutable world. If you just
Speaker 1: tune in your listening to the Mark Wall Show, we've
Speaker 1: been talking with Q, my show producer, about this inequality
Speaker 1: and how bitcoin could fix this. That's what we got.
Speaker 1: Let me know in the show notes what you think.
Speaker 1: Until next time.