Speaker 1: Hey, everyone, welcome to another episode of the Mark Moss Show,
Speaker 1: where we talk about bitcoin and we talk about the
Speaker 1: decentralized revolution that is happening right now that we're witnessing.
Speaker 1: Each and every week, I'm trying to bring to you
Speaker 1: the most up to date education so you can understand
Speaker 1: what's going on, the latest breaking news, so of course
Speaker 1: you can be the most educated person at that cocktail
Speaker 1: party this weekend, and some very interesting people to give
Speaker 1: you some different perspectives, um, and some insights that maybe
Speaker 1: I can't provide. And so, uh, if you are not already,
Speaker 1: if you haven't already, bookmark this, grab your phone, if
Speaker 1: you're not driving, pull your phone, make up calendar appointment
Speaker 1: to be with me each and every week at this time,
Speaker 1: at this channel, same time, same place. You know the drill,
Speaker 1: um if you are driving, do it later. UM. I'm
Speaker 1: in the studio today with Spike Cohen. And Spike was
Speaker 1: a vice presidential candidate UM for the Libertarian Party and
Speaker 1: you can find them on Twitter at real Spike Cohen.
Speaker 1: Very interest. I've been following him for quite a long time.
Speaker 1: I love his takes. Anyway, Spike, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: joining me today. Absolutely, Mark thanks for having me on man. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so it was kind of cool. Like I've been following
Speaker 1: you on Twitter for a while. I love I love
Speaker 1: the takes that you have. And then, uh, just recently,
Speaker 1: somebody I think that saw me speaking at Ron Paul's
Speaker 1: conference is like, oh, I gotta get you connect with
Speaker 1: Spike and um and then it turns out you've seen
Speaker 1: some of my stuff and retweeted some of my stuff
Speaker 1: and I love how it works out like that. It's
Speaker 1: pretty cool. Yes, yeah, it worked out perfectly. Shout out
Speaker 1: to Guerrimo for facilitating all of this. So Spike, I uh,
Speaker 1: I kind of threw out a little bit. I mean,
Speaker 1: you were the vice presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party.
Speaker 1: Give us a little bit of background on on on
Speaker 1: you and how you got into that position and what
Speaker 1: you're doing. Sure, so my background is actually more in
Speaker 1: business than in politics. I kind of came out of
Speaker 1: nowhere seemingly because of that. Um. I started a web
Speaker 1: design company when I was in my teens. Uh, and
Speaker 1: I successfully grew that into I mean it wasn't fortune
Speaker 1: or anything like that, but it was a successful company.
Speaker 1: And uh. And then six years ago I was diagnosed
Speaker 1: with ms UM, and that coupled with the talks we
Speaker 1: were having about the course of treatment and things like that,
Speaker 1: made me realize our life is finite. I had reached
Speaker 1: a point in my life where I really didn't need
Speaker 1: to work anymore for money, and I really started kind
Speaker 1: of rethinking what I wanted to do and what purpose
Speaker 1: I wanted to have in my life. And I realized
Speaker 1: I wanted my life too. I wanted for the world
Speaker 1: to be a better place because I was here, and
Speaker 1: for to have even mattered that I was here. And
Speaker 1: the best way that I could see to do that
Speaker 1: was to talk to people about the fact that they
Speaker 1: do best when they're most free UM and that got
Speaker 1: me into UM libertarian activism, which sort of parlayed its
Speaker 1: way almost accidentally into it to my getting the UH
Speaker 1: the Libertarian vice presidential nomination. I didn't actually think they
Speaker 1: were going to nominate me. I just was giving them
Speaker 1: ideas about how they could better message and better reach
Speaker 1: out to people, and then they ended up picking UM.
Speaker 1: So that's that's what caught me where I am, and
Speaker 1: since then I've been continuing to hit the road and
Speaker 1: spread the message of liberty and work with activists across
Speaker 1: the country to help you that m that's great. Now
Speaker 1: for everybody listening the Mark Ma Show. We talk about bitcoin,
Speaker 1: but really I like to focus on the intersection of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology, which of course is bitcoin. To me. UM,
Speaker 1: I don't uh, I think bitcoin is a political Um.
Speaker 1: It's not prescribed, it's it's technology. It's an open source protocol. UM.
Speaker 1: I think people bring their own biases to it. And
Speaker 1: so we'll talk about some of those things. And I
Speaker 1: would say, just to the listener, just keep an open mind. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's not about politics. Were assigning one necessary way to another,
Speaker 1: but have an open mind about that. But I'm just curious, Spike. UM.
Speaker 1: So you're a business person and then you found yourself
Speaker 1: wanting to kind of submit to a higher, higher calling
Speaker 1: or do something positive, I guess, and that led you
Speaker 1: to the Libertarian party. UM. Had you been a libertarian
Speaker 1: cander or not candidate but a libertarian before that? UM?
Speaker 1: Or were involved in politics before that or was that
Speaker 1: like something new that that dragged you in there? So
Speaker 1: I'd never really been involved in politics other than giving
Speaker 1: my opinion and stuff like that, but I had never
Speaker 1: really actively been involved in politics. And when I started
Speaker 1: off in my activism. Politics wasn't or political party. Politics
Speaker 1: wasn't actually my my initial intention. Like I said, when
Speaker 1: I first ran for the vice presidential nomination, I did
Speaker 1: it in somewhat of a tongue in cheek way and
Speaker 1: really was more just trying to present here is how
Speaker 1: we can present ideas of liberty better. And apparently I
Speaker 1: did a pretty good job of selling my ideas because
Speaker 1: they ended up nominating me to be the the the
Speaker 1: actual candidate. Um. But but no, so I actually and
Speaker 1: I tend to agree with you when it comes to
Speaker 1: bitcoin and and defying all of that, I actually I'm
Speaker 1: not sure. I think it's a political as much as
Speaker 1: anti political. If politics is groups. If politics as groups
Speaker 1: of people who are trying to basically force people into
Speaker 1: their quote unquote solution by first denying at least partially
Speaker 1: denying their cell ownership, their autonomy, and their property and
Speaker 1: their and their money that that comes forth from that.
Speaker 1: Then anything that robs them of that ability to rob you,
Speaker 1: to steal from you inherently robs them of that ability
Speaker 1: to engage in politics. Um. And so I actually see
Speaker 1: the blockchain in general and especially bitcoin, as being an
Speaker 1: actual act against that against the ability for politicians and
Speaker 1: policymakers to be able to exert themselves in any real way.
Speaker 1: If we are are our absence of or outside of
Speaker 1: their system they've built, then they really can't control us.
Speaker 1: So then you're saying that a political means that it's
Speaker 1: not assigned to one political party or another, versus what
Speaker 1: you're saying, anti political means it's the end of politics
Speaker 1: where it's not about one party or another but actually, um,
Speaker 1: no party that could co opt you or try to
Speaker 1: put you in that group. Not just no party, but
Speaker 1: the end of these coercive systems, or at the very
Speaker 1: least a great reduction and a and a empowering of
Speaker 1: those coersive systems. Um. Yeah, absolutely, I mean yes, it
Speaker 1: is also a political in that it is not left
Speaker 1: or right or you know, I will say, I do
Speaker 1: believe it's libertarian as opposed to authoritarian, but not libertarian
Speaker 1: in terms of a political party or something like that.
Speaker 1: But no, I think it goes further. I think it
Speaker 1: actually diminishes their capability and their capacity to inflict their
Speaker 1: harm on us through the ability to manipulate the currency
Speaker 1: and the and the money that they forced us to use.
Speaker 1: I'm working on a bigger book. We're talking about a
Speaker 1: smaller book. I just wrote put a bigger book, and
Speaker 1: um in it, I have a section of the death
Speaker 1: of politics and basically talking the kind of the same
Speaker 1: way how um you don't politics is is has has
Speaker 1: kind of emerged really as a function of kind of
Speaker 1: coming out of this industrial age, um, and all this
Speaker 1: centralization that's happened because of that. And as we start
Speaker 1: to decentralize and to your point, start taking away the
Speaker 1: money supply, um, it starts to take away their power
Speaker 1: and starts to change and any with technology, we organizers differently,
Speaker 1: and it just kind of takes away the need for
Speaker 1: a lot of that stuff. I guess. Oh, I definitely
Speaker 1: agree that the first example that that was or or
Speaker 1: widespread example that was ever given of a government happened
Speaker 1: in the in Mesopotamia, and the first governors were actually
Speaker 1: called ditch bosses, and it was someone who just hided
Speaker 1: how much water in their agricultural system each person could use.
Speaker 1: Maybe that was the best system they could come up
Speaker 1: without the time. But the fact that we're still using
Speaker 1: that same coercive model, uh, you know, thousands of years later,
Speaker 1: I think at the very if it ever was the
Speaker 1: best model that humans had available, we've certainly progressed past that. Yeah. Now,
Speaker 1: one thing that I love about your story is that, UM,
Speaker 1: a problem that it seems I have anyway with people
Speaker 1: in politics is that we have these career politicians that
Speaker 1: have basically never done anything, and so because of that,
Speaker 1: they're detached from reality. They've never had to bounce a
Speaker 1: budget or hire someone or actually try to produce a profit,
Speaker 1: versus you coming from the um actual business world, and uh,
Speaker 1: you have a different perspective on that. Is that something
Speaker 1: that you probably see with the you know, a typical
Speaker 1: problem with the politics or politicians. I should say, I
Speaker 1: think the three biggest differences that I know, and yes,
Speaker 1: that's a huge problem. The three biggest differences between me
Speaker 1: and what you would typically see in a politician or
Speaker 1: elected official is Number one, I actually come from knowing
Speaker 1: things from living in the real world and not just
Speaker 1: being in career politics. Number Two, I'm not particularly concerned
Speaker 1: about getting elected to anything. If I do get elected
Speaker 1: to something, that's fine, But first and foremost I'm trying
Speaker 1: to reach people and share a message with them. And
Speaker 1: then the third thing is, and this has been in
Speaker 1: talking with quite a few elected officials, uh everything from
Speaker 1: the federal level on down. They are often very breaft
Speaker 1: of any knowledge. They have their narratives, they're talking points,
Speaker 1: they're good at their at their optics, but in terms
Speaker 1: of of a deep knowledge of anything, that's often very lacking.
Speaker 1: Um And so I'm in that way, I'm I'm I'm different,
Speaker 1: I think than most politicians. Uh. With that said, I
Speaker 1: always when I tell people don't trust politicians, don't don't
Speaker 1: take their word for it, I include me and that
Speaker 1: you know, don't just take my word for anything. But
Speaker 1: but yeah, that's there's that's definitely a huge problem in politics,
Speaker 1: is politicians that are basically going off of narratives and
Speaker 1: and and uh catchphrases and talking points that are being
Speaker 1: handed to them. Yeah, all right, um man, there's so
Speaker 1: much that I want to dig into here. I have
Speaker 1: so many questions. And of course you're listening to the
Speaker 1: Mark mo Show. We're talking about bitcoin and the decentralized
Speaker 1: revolution and how it could change or maybe even eliminate
Speaker 1: politics as we know. It's a big subject and a
Speaker 1: dive in more. I'm with Spike Cohen at Real Spike
Speaker 1: Cohen let me be back with more in a second.
Speaker 1: Don't go away, all right, Welcome back. You are listening
Speaker 1: to the Mark Mo Show. We're talking about bitcoin. We're
Speaker 1: talking about the decentralized revolution that is happening right now
Speaker 1: that we're witnessing. And something that I've been talking a
Speaker 1: lot about is how bitcoin is going to change the
Speaker 1: world for any number of ways, one of which is
Speaker 1: that it changes the way that we interact, It changes
Speaker 1: the way that we organize ourselves, and because of that,
Speaker 1: it's going to change the course of humanity. Right. It's
Speaker 1: a technological revolution, not in technology, a revolution that changes
Speaker 1: the course of humanity. We're talking about how it could
Speaker 1: change politics, and I've even said it could be the
Speaker 1: death of politics. I'm in the studio joined by Spike Cohen.
Speaker 1: You can find him on Twitter at real Spike Cohen.
Speaker 1: He was the vice president Libertarian candidate for and Uh.
Speaker 1: He's a previous business owner who found himself in politics. Now, Spike, UM,
Speaker 1: A question I was thinking too, is that, Um, you
Speaker 1: said that you know, you had the business. Um, you
Speaker 1: were sort of drawn to politics only because you thought
Speaker 1: that you need to do something better, to kind of
Speaker 1: do some good in the world, you didn't need politics.
Speaker 1: I'm curious what it was like trying to work inside
Speaker 1: that system. Uh what did you learn about politics from
Speaker 1: being inside the belly of the beast? So the thing is,
Speaker 1: because I've never been an elected official, and I've never
Speaker 1: been in any of the major parties, I may not
Speaker 1: have been as deeply into the belly of the beast.
Speaker 1: But in terms of just being involved in the political system,
Speaker 1: it's a terrible system. Uh. Anyone who follows the Libertarian Party,
Speaker 1: even if you agree with our ideals, one of the
Speaker 1: things you'll notice is the constant in fighting. And the
Speaker 1: reason there's constant in fighting is the same reason we
Speaker 1: have constant in fighting in government is because we are
Speaker 1: because we are trying to have a political party that
Speaker 1: has to comply with state and federal election law, we
Speaker 1: are forcing ourselves into this de facto democracy. And when
Speaker 1: you force people into a democracy, and I meanwhile, I
Speaker 1: shouldn't say force, we're all choosing to be a part
Speaker 1: of it. But as a quote unquote necessary evil to
Speaker 1: be involved in party politics, we're subjecting ourselves to a democracy,
Speaker 1: which means that instead of the best ideas rising to
Speaker 1: the top as a result of supply demand and price signals.
Speaker 1: The best ideas are in theory rising to the top
Speaker 1: from everyone arguing with each other and forming political factions
Speaker 1: and fighting other factions and constantly fighting over who is
Speaker 1: in charge of the narrative. And that's why there's the
Speaker 1: constant in fighting. You know that a democratic system or
Speaker 1: or really a political system in general, turns your neighbor
Speaker 1: who might have a different opinion from you into your enemy,
Speaker 1: potentially depending on how far their opinion is from yours.
Speaker 1: And that's extrapolated out to the division we see in society,
Speaker 1: that we see in our country, that you even see
Speaker 1: in your neighborhood. And uh, you know, that's before you
Speaker 1: even get into the corruption that happens when you actually
Speaker 1: get into office. Do you think that the Libertarian Party
Speaker 1: actually has a chance or are we stuck in a
Speaker 1: two party system? So I think, first of all, we've
Speaker 1: been doing it the wrong way. I think the Libertarian
Speaker 1: Party has focused so long on finding someone who's going
Speaker 1: to win the White House by tricking everyone into voting libertarian,
Speaker 1: and then after that happens, they're going to trickle down
Speaker 1: liberty on the rest of the world. And yet that's
Speaker 1: not what we believe as libertarians, we believe that good
Speaker 1: ideas happened from a decentralized manner, from people that voluntarily
Speaker 1: recognize that you know that this is a good idea
Speaker 1: you and that the the demand is fed by that supply,
Speaker 1: and that it works up organically from there. But then
Speaker 1: our politics is the exact opposite. We're gonna shoot all
Speaker 1: the way for the top and then trickle it down
Speaker 1: from there. And uh so what what where we've been
Speaker 1: successful is in trying to win more local races, everything
Speaker 1: from city council races, school board races, auditors races. I
Speaker 1: think from a political standpoint, long before anyone's gonna trust
Speaker 1: us in the White House or even in Congress or
Speaker 1: in the governor's mansion, they need to see what we're
Speaker 1: gonna do in their cities and their towns. We can
Speaker 1: do immediate changes their harm reduction from what's being done
Speaker 1: there from now, and then work up from there. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna be a slow process, or it's not gonna
Speaker 1: be an easier quick process, but we're already seeing it
Speaker 1: happen there. They're the number of elected Libertarians almost doubled
Speaker 1: in the last election, So it's certainly happening, but I
Speaker 1: don't think it's gonna happen tomorrow, 're next year. I
Speaker 1: like that approach, and actually that's very tactical. I mean
Speaker 1: it's something that we're seeing a lot of the activists, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the George soros Is of the world, um,
Speaker 1: really starting to target those local elections, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: starting with the two attorneys and things like that. Um,
Speaker 1: And it seems to have a lot more effect. And
Speaker 1: I would say, um, kind of back to this theme
Speaker 1: of this kind of decentralization, and we're starting to see
Speaker 1: like this balconization almost of the United States. And maybe
Speaker 1: in feel free to tell me what you think, but
Speaker 1: maybe it goes back to like the last election, um,
Speaker 1: when there was you know, allegations of of miscounting and whatnot,
Speaker 1: and then when all over to the Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court kicked it back down, said nope, that's
Speaker 1: up to the states. And then fast forwarding through the
Speaker 1: last two years of the pandemic, we're starting to really
Speaker 1: see the states starting to kind of uh, you know,
Speaker 1: take matters into their own hands. Uh. Texas with their
Speaker 1: abortion laws. Now we're starting to see them Arizona putting
Speaker 1: this bill together to have a bitcoin is a cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: or a legal tender, etcetera. And so maybe do you think, one,
Speaker 1: I guess, is there this balconization almost in effect um
Speaker 1: happening in the States. And if so, then does that
Speaker 1: make this grassroots kind of a style of politics more effective? Yes?
Speaker 1: And yes, balcon is anation is going to be natural
Speaker 1: in a politically created subdivision of three thirty million people
Speaker 1: who largely share nothing in common. We live in different areas,
Speaker 1: were culturally different, We're never gonna meet each other or
Speaker 1: anyone like each other. We have widespread opinions. And the
Speaker 1: entire political system is built around this, this good cop
Speaker 1: bad cop routine between the two major parties, who are
Speaker 1: to distract from the fact that they're working together to
Speaker 1: rob us all blind, are constantly creating this theater of
Speaker 1: culture wars and and partisan in fighting and so forth
Speaker 1: that feeds that divide even further. But even absent that
Speaker 1: this country as we as it were would not exist
Speaker 1: absent the threat of murder, if if we didn't opt
Speaker 1: out of it. Right, So that so that but and
Speaker 1: then that's why naturally we're seeing just at the the
Speaker 1: real politic is becoming one of nullification cities, nullifying things
Speaker 1: they don't agree with at the state and federal level.
Speaker 1: States agree nullifying things they don't agree with at the
Speaker 1: federal level, the federal government argue, wing and fighting with
Speaker 1: the states and threatening to withhold money if they don't
Speaker 1: cooperate with them. I actually like that if we're going
Speaker 1: to have a government, if we're going to have a state,
Speaker 1: I want them constantly fighting with each other, and I
Speaker 1: want the the push to be as local as possible
Speaker 1: for people to recognize that there's a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: political power in simply refusing to cooperate with higher authorities
Speaker 1: and nullifying their orders from on high and saying no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to cooperate with it, because without that
Speaker 1: local cooperation, it's usually almost impossible for them to effectively
Speaker 1: enforce whatever they're trying to impose on us. Yeah. Good point. Now, Um,
Speaker 1: this is a bigger topic. But I'm curious. You know,
Speaker 1: I kind of grew up in this kind of grassroots
Speaker 1: political home, and uh, politics is still something discussed around
Speaker 1: my family and my extended family's kitchen table. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: I guess I would consider myself a Republican growing up,
Speaker 1: I don't like to assign myself to any party anymore. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm for the party that gives me more freedom less government.
Speaker 1: I don't know which. I don't know which party that
Speaker 1: is anymore. Uh, maybe it's a libertarian party. I don't
Speaker 1: know right as a freedom already, I don't really know anymore. Um.
Speaker 1: And it's like not one single party can really give
Speaker 1: me everything that I want, I guess, um. But one
Speaker 1: thing that I've had kind of looking at libertarians and
Speaker 1: anarchists if you will or whatever, is like, hey, that's great,
Speaker 1: Like you have a really good idea, Um, but how
Speaker 1: do we get that to happen? Right? The machine, the
Speaker 1: political machine, the left and right, it's so powerful. How
Speaker 1: do we wrestle that power out of their hands? And
Speaker 1: I guess you've kind of made a good point, um,
Speaker 1: starting at a local level and not trying to go
Speaker 1: straight for the top. But that's one reason why I
Speaker 1: have been so excited about bitcoin over the last you know, decade,
Speaker 1: because I feel like we we actually no actually have
Speaker 1: a tool now and whereas like libertarians were kind of hopeless.
Speaker 1: I'm curious to your thoughts on that we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about that in a second. Um, you're listening to the
Speaker 1: Mark Moa Show and we are talking about bitcoin, and
Speaker 1: we're talking about this decentralized revolution and a revolution, a
Speaker 1: technological revolution that will change the course of humanity because
Speaker 1: it will change the way that we work organized. Um,
Speaker 1: organize ourselves and work with each other. Um. I'm in
Speaker 1: the studio with Spike Cohne. You can find him on
Speaker 1: Twitter at real Spike co and he was the vice
Speaker 1: presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party in a former business owner,
Speaker 1: somebody who gets it, um and has a plan. And
Speaker 1: we'll dig more into that in a second. So don't
Speaker 1: go away, all right, welcome back. You are listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Moa Show, and we're talking about bitcoin, always
Speaker 1: talking about bitcoin, always talking about the decentralized revolution, always
Speaker 1: talking about the way politics, finance and technology are intersecting
Speaker 1: with each other and about to change the world. If
Speaker 1: you're just joining us. I'm in the studio with Spike
Speaker 1: Cohen at Real Spike Cohen. You can find him on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Libertarian candidate, vice presidential Libertarian Party candidate. Now Spike. Before
Speaker 1: the break, I was saying, how, um, you know, while
Speaker 1: I like what the libertarians do shout out to Ron
Speaker 1: Paul kind of running that. Um. I got to speak
Speaker 1: on a stage with him a few weeks ago. As
Speaker 1: I was saying, was was pretty amazing highlight of my
Speaker 1: my life. I don't know about my life, but one
Speaker 1: of the one of the key points. But anyway, one
Speaker 1: thing I've always kind of looked at these libertarians and
Speaker 1: these anarchists is like, hey, you know, your ideas are great, um,
Speaker 1: and that's cool, and like maybe we should try that,
Speaker 1: but like, how does that ever really gonna work? And
Speaker 1: as I was saying before the break, like I finally
Speaker 1: feel like maybe there's actually something that we can do.
Speaker 1: And it just seems like most libertarians and most anarchists
Speaker 1: have overlooked that. Um, would you agree with that? Is
Speaker 1: that something that you've seen. I think that a lot
Speaker 1: of libertarians and anarchists and liberty lovers in general, maybe
Speaker 1: even those that that consider themselves constitutionalists or whatever, but
Speaker 1: people who want far less control and less government than
Speaker 1: we have now. I think a lot of them have
Speaker 1: just shrugged their shoulders and resigned themselves that it's going
Speaker 1: to be this way. You hear this a lot from
Speaker 1: people that, well, you know, most people are stupid and
Speaker 1: their sheep and they want to be controlled. And so
Speaker 1: the idea that we can actually effectively uh forget you know,
Speaker 1: you know, uh, eliminating the state or even greatly reducing it,
Speaker 1: but have any kind of real uh progress towards more freedom.
Speaker 1: I think they've given up on it. But I think
Speaker 1: and you know you alluded to this before the last break. Um,
Speaker 1: I believe that bitcoin and defy and the blockchain are
Speaker 1: possibly the first, and certainly one of the first in
Speaker 1: our lifetimes, effective tools to greatly reduce the amount of
Speaker 1: control that people in power have. I mean, think about it,
Speaker 1: with bitcoin and uh and I believe you're a bitcoin maximilist,
Speaker 1: so I won't say crypto, but with bitcoin, would defy
Speaker 1: with whatever. These are basically anti theft systems right like that.
Speaker 1: The current system we have right now is your dollar
Speaker 1: bill is worth your your money, that your U S
Speaker 1: dollars that you're sitting on for that matter, you're your euros,
Speaker 1: whatever Fiat currency you have is based entirely on the
Speaker 1: whim of policymakers, and they literally print out trillions of
Speaker 1: new notes every single They don't even bother printing them
Speaker 1: out now, they just add it to a digital ledger,
Speaker 1: and they hand it off to uh, you know, to
Speaker 1: their political cronies and the people that help get them
Speaker 1: in office, the government agencies that they want to see
Speaker 1: bigger and everything else. And the thing is when they
Speaker 1: do this, they're adding more money without adding more value,
Speaker 1: which means that money is chasing the value, which means
Speaker 1: that as more money chases the value, the value of
Speaker 1: each of those individual currencies goes down and the cost
Speaker 1: of living goes up. The closer you are to the
Speaker 1: distribution distribution of that new money, the more money you get,
Speaker 1: and the further away you are from it, the less
Speaker 1: money you get. But the price goes up about the
Speaker 1: same for everyone. And that's why we see this growing
Speaker 1: gap between those who have and those who have and
Speaker 1: it's theft. We're being robbed, and something like bitcoin completely
Speaker 1: eliminates their ability to do that. Yeah, how does it?
Speaker 1: How does it start to build those cracks, widen those cracks?
Speaker 1: How does it start to penetrate? I mean, we've seen
Speaker 1: a lot of entrenchment in the in the in the
Speaker 1: political sphere already, a lot of senators, congressman, etcetera. That
Speaker 1: are starting to adopt bitcoin, but how does it start
Speaker 1: to wrangle that power away. How do you see that
Speaker 1: playing out? I guess I see it playing out over
Speaker 1: a long and and and uh sometimes frustrating slog you know.
Speaker 1: I think it was Hiak who said, you know that
Speaker 1: one of the best most effective ways we could uh
Speaker 1: control or have more power is to take away the
Speaker 1: currency control of currency from from the state, but that
Speaker 1: he can't do it. He said that there shall never
Speaker 1: be another sound money again until we take the thing
Speaker 1: from the hands of the government. But it can't be
Speaker 1: done by force exactly. And so he was basically you know,
Speaker 1: coming up with the reason for the eventual Bitcoin white paper,
Speaker 1: right like he was saying, it's not gonna be done
Speaker 1: by force. It has to come from it just being
Speaker 1: such a no brainer, better alternative to fiat currency. And
Speaker 1: so I think it's just gonna be this constant thing.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be more and more regulations to try to
Speaker 1: restrict it. There's going to be this uh vacillating between
Speaker 1: coping with just you know, adapting it as official tender,
Speaker 1: legal tender, or trying to restrict it. But I think
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: It's just going. All they can do is delay the inevitable.
Speaker 1: Because Bitcoin because defy and for that matter, all of
Speaker 1: the solutions that are coming out of the blockchain, not
Speaker 1: just C based, but every solution that's coming out of it,
Speaker 1: is better than one that's centralized and based on coercions
Speaker 1: and implicit threats of violence and the use of violence.
Speaker 1: Anything that's based on supply and demand is always gonna
Speaker 1: be better, based on better than something that's based on
Speaker 1: I will kill you if you don't do it. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: always right without without the coercion. Uh, free imagine imagine
Speaker 1: a free and voluntary exchange. So revolutionary, right, Um. Right.
Speaker 1: It seems though, like I mean, if you look at
Speaker 1: like the political sphere today, I mean, it seems like
Speaker 1: we're almost approaching a climax. And maybe it seems like
Speaker 1: we've been approaching a climax for a long time. But um,
Speaker 1: you know, I've done a lot of work on this,
Speaker 1: these cycles that are happening, and we're kind of in
Speaker 1: the middle of this like two and fifty year revolution cycle,
Speaker 1: and then you have like this eighty year kind of
Speaker 1: fourth turning cycle, and all these things are kind of
Speaker 1: coming together right now, and uh, you know, we're at
Speaker 1: a point where like, um, we're at like peak centralization.
Speaker 1: You have like these you know, World Ecomic Forum and
Speaker 1: World Health Organization and the u N and i m
Speaker 1: F kind of like peak centralization. And at the same
Speaker 1: time we're seeing, um, the narrative is really starting to
Speaker 1: fall apart, and trust is like plummeting really really fast.
Speaker 1: And like that trust or that confidence in the in
Speaker 1: the leaders in the state. Man, once that goes, it
Speaker 1: goes really quick. I mean, I kind of think that
Speaker 1: we might see something acts. So maybe real big change
Speaker 1: happened in the next like five years. Do you think
Speaker 1: that's too soon? I don't. In fact, I personally think
Speaker 1: and you know, everyone put your tinfoil hats on before
Speaker 1: I say this. I okay. So I think that it
Speaker 1: is increasingly likely, based on the reports that are coming out,
Speaker 1: that the COVID nineteen virus itself may have come from
Speaker 1: as a result of gain of function research. We already
Speaker 1: know that the US government was funding gain of function
Speaker 1: research which created at least one virus that was similar
Speaker 1: to COVID nineteen. That's established fact that the government themselves
Speaker 1: admitted that. I think that it is very likely, Uh,
Speaker 1: and possible that over the next year or so, it
Speaker 1: is eventually going to come out that yes, this specific
Speaker 1: virus was as a result of GAINA function research, either
Speaker 1: from the US, maybe the Chinese government, maybe some other government,
Speaker 1: and that it ended up accidentally leaking, and that multiple governments,
Speaker 1: including the Chinese government and probably the US government as well,
Speaker 1: we're involved in trying to cover it up and pretend
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. In the midst of everything that has
Speaker 1: happened with COVID nineteen, the millions of deaths, the lockdowns,
Speaker 1: and all the devastation that have caused, and just the
Speaker 1: sheer amount of anxiety that the average person on this planet,
Speaker 1: not just in this country but on the planet has
Speaker 1: experienced as a result of this virus and the ancillary things.
Speaker 1: If they end up finding out that this all happened
Speaker 1: because of government and that they tried to cover it up,
Speaker 1: we can't even imagine the amount of distrust that is
Speaker 1: going to create, not just in those specific governments, but
Speaker 1: in the entire concept of, oh, well, they're doing these
Speaker 1: things to protect us. I think the level of trust
Speaker 1: in these systems is going to completely plummet as a
Speaker 1: result of that. Again, We don't know that's going to happen,
Speaker 1: and I'm not saying it's going to happen. If it
Speaker 1: does happen, then your five year predictions that it won't
Speaker 1: take the Thing with that, though, is that it's it's
Speaker 1: back to the trust, right And so the fact that
Speaker 1: they openly are and and in your face are trying
Speaker 1: to censor and shut down any talk, any communication, any report,
Speaker 1: it just leads us to think they have something to hide.
Speaker 1: If you had a business partner that you suspected wasn't Bezline,
Speaker 1: for example, and uh, you asked him about some expenses
Speaker 1: and he got all nervous and wouldn't wouldn't you know,
Speaker 1: took the books away from you and wouldn't let you
Speaker 1: look at him, and it's like, well, hang on, like, uh,
Speaker 1: I think you're probably now stealing from me, right, Versus
Speaker 1: if he's like no, like, let's take a look, here's
Speaker 1: the banks and here's right, that would be open and transparent.
Speaker 1: And so when you have the government basically doing the
Speaker 1: same thing right now, I mean, uh, Sakie was saying
Speaker 1: yesterday or day before that they should do more to
Speaker 1: sensor Joe Rogan's podcast, and uh, I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: so in your face, trying to censor everything, and that
Speaker 1: doesn't it doesn't leave trust, No, it doesn't. And honestly,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that they're being more open about what their
Speaker 1: intentions are, both because it is called distrust and because finally,
Speaker 1: this whole well, Facebook is a private company. Nonsense is over.
Speaker 1: Facebook wasn't doing this as a private company. Facebook and
Speaker 1: Twitter and the rest of these social media we're doing
Speaker 1: it at the BHS and sometimes the order of government
Speaker 1: here and around the world. And I'm glad that that's
Speaker 1: out of the bag and we don't have to pretend
Speaker 1: that anymore. Yeah, there's a saying, and I don't know
Speaker 1: who said it, but it's like, you don't. You don't
Speaker 1: prove a man wrong by ripping out his tongue, right,
Speaker 1: You only prove that they have something to hide kind
Speaker 1: of a thing. Right. And so I've always believed that
Speaker 1: the truth wins, right, the truth wins, and open debate. Um.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, I know there's a problem with
Speaker 1: information today, but I think if you let information be free,
Speaker 1: then we'll find the truth. Um, not not trying to
Speaker 1: censor it. And that looks shady. Um, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the Mark Moa Show. We're we're talking about bitcoin. Uh
Speaker 1: in a long, roundabout way. I'm in the studio with
Speaker 1: Spike Cohen um at Real Spike Cohen on Twitter. Um,
Speaker 1: we're talking about politics and bitcoin and how it's going
Speaker 1: to change. We'll be back with more. Don't go away,
Speaker 1: all right, welcome back. You are listening to the markma Show.
Speaker 1: We're talking about bitcoin. We are talking about the decentralized revolution,
Speaker 1: and today we're talking about how it is changing politics.
Speaker 1: It's uh, I'm saying the death of politics A certainly
Speaker 1: um as a Spike here said anti politics. I'm in
Speaker 1: the studio with real Spike Cohen um at Real Spike
Speaker 1: Cohen on Twitter. Um he was the Libertarian Party, the
Speaker 1: vice presidential candidate. Um and uh man Spike. So we
Speaker 1: started talking about this trust breaking down before the break
Speaker 1: and um, you know how this could lead to massive change, right,
Speaker 1: just trust in the system, um von Mesis said in
Speaker 1: the Crack Up Boom. But suddenly the people wake up.
Speaker 1: They realized that inflation is both persistent and intentional. And uh,
Speaker 1: it's like suddenly and like we see inflation all over
Speaker 1: the news today. We oh, well it's persistent and oh
Speaker 1: you mean the FEDS always targeted inflation. It's intentional, right,
Speaker 1: and so like they're starting to wake up. The trust
Speaker 1: is breaking to your point, maybe some stuff comes out
Speaker 1: on this game of functions, something maybe happens that caused
Speaker 1: that right away. Um, this morning I saw article I
Speaker 1: forget Uh some MSN mainstream media on publication said Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi was speaking out against China and their human rights
Speaker 1: issues with the weak ares and um, they're actually calling
Speaker 1: for like a ban on the Olympics over that, And UM,
Speaker 1: I thought, man, what a narrative shift, Like what are
Speaker 1: they getting ready for here? Like why all of a
Speaker 1: sudden are they turning on China. There must be something
Speaker 1: that's like caused them to go from like covering it
Speaker 1: up to now all of a sudden like openly doing that.
Speaker 1: And so um, trust has fallen, Uh in my opinion,
Speaker 1: like the cats out of the bag. And in a
Speaker 1: sense almost like when the printing press came out, the
Speaker 1: Protestant Reformation happened and there was nothing the church could
Speaker 1: do to stop it, and that's kind of what we're
Speaker 1: seeing today. Where do we go from here? Like uh,
Speaker 1: for the average person, I mean you've obviously decided you
Speaker 1: have made enough money you want to go effect change.
Speaker 1: You got into politics. Do you think politics is a
Speaker 1: good use of time for the average person to like
Speaker 1: really be engaged or is it kind of a waste
Speaker 1: of time and it's a you know, it's a a
Speaker 1: dopamine fix or something. I think it depends on the
Speaker 1: person and what their goals are. I don't. First of all,
Speaker 1: I want to say, I don't think politics is or
Speaker 1: should be the primary route by which we try to
Speaker 1: affect change. Um. Which is why most of my activism
Speaker 1: was actually based more and similar to what you're doing,
Speaker 1: you know, starting my podcast that I do and uh
Speaker 1: and doing interviews with other people and talking about my
Speaker 1: experiences as a small business owner. Getting into political into
Speaker 1: the political party happened again, almost accidentally. I went in
Speaker 1: and said, hey, you guys could be doing it this
Speaker 1: way and saying that this way and maybe doing this,
Speaker 1: and they're like, okay, great, you're you're our candidate. Okay. UM.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that party politics is going to
Speaker 1: be the way that we save mankind or that we
Speaker 1: that we are are able to truly free ourselves. I
Speaker 1: see politics especially electoral politics as a means of harm deduction,
Speaker 1: as we use things like counter economics, as we use
Speaker 1: use things like mutual aid and activism, as we use
Speaker 1: things like education and outreach to bring people into the movement.
Speaker 1: As as we do that, if we can also use
Speaker 1: electoral politics to convince elected officials and politicians that it's
Speaker 1: in their best interests to fight other politicians and try
Speaker 1: to nullify what they're doing, then that's great. But no,
Speaker 1: I don't think we're going to vote our way out
Speaker 1: of this, no matter how hard we vote. I don't
Speaker 1: think we're going to protest our way out of this,
Speaker 1: although protests can certainly have an effect. Um, I think
Speaker 1: that the main way this is going to happen is
Speaker 1: going to be from the market coming up with better
Speaker 1: ways of doing things. And it's going to be fought
Speaker 1: at every step by those in the political realm and
Speaker 1: arena because they want their political solutions over actual economic solutions.
Speaker 1: But the economic solutions are eventually gonna win out. I
Speaker 1: believe that liberty is going to win, and I believe
Speaker 1: when it wins, it's going to be because it makes
Speaker 1: more sense and it works better. So, UM, I think
Speaker 1: what you're saying is something that I have been trying
Speaker 1: to live, which is the most effective form of voting
Speaker 1: is voting with your pocketbook, voting with your money, and
Speaker 1: voting with your feet. And um, that's one reason why
Speaker 1: I was living in Puerto Rico, UM last year, and
Speaker 1: I left at the end of the year because they
Speaker 1: got crazy with their mandates and I'm like, well, you're
Speaker 1: not gonna get my money anymore. I'm gonna have to
Speaker 1: leave now. UM. And I just I can't stay there
Speaker 1: and give them my money that way. And we've seen,
Speaker 1: you know, Texas and Florida have how competed California, New York.
Speaker 1: Both governors found themselves on the chopping block. One kept
Speaker 1: his job, one didn't. Um. But you know, voting with
Speaker 1: your feet. But we almost kind of have to get
Speaker 1: a little bit more of the state's rights or balconization,
Speaker 1: if you will, in order for that to be really effective. Right, Otherwise,
Speaker 1: if everything is federal, it maybe doesn't it's not as effective. Oh. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: We're not gonna have a federal solution, and for that matter,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna have a fifty state solution. I think,
Speaker 1: like I said, I my when I talk to people
Speaker 1: about the grassroots move intellectoral politics for Britarians. And incidentally,
Speaker 1: I'm working largely within the Libertarian Party, but this is
Speaker 1: also going to include liberty Republicans, It's going to include
Speaker 1: people that are not involved in politics political parties at
Speaker 1: all and run as a write in for their school board.
Speaker 1: So this is not you know, you have to be
Speaker 1: a part of the Libertarian Party. But those who choose
Speaker 1: to get involved in electoral part politics, those who are
Speaker 1: the most effective at reducing the harm being done at
Speaker 1: the hands of the state, are largely going to be
Speaker 1: finding themselves fighting other politicians and bureaucrats and policymakers and
Speaker 1: working to nullify or combat what's happening. And that that's
Speaker 1: largely what we have seen. You know, the biggest moves
Speaker 1: we've seen in the political realm towards liberty have been
Speaker 1: politicians saying, even if it's only to get reelected, no,
Speaker 1: I'm going to fight against this. I'm not gonna let
Speaker 1: this intrusion stand. Yeah, now you said you didn't think
Speaker 1: that the protests were that effective. I'm sure I don't
Speaker 1: even have to ask. I mean this, this, this trucker
Speaker 1: convoy going on in Canada has been something to see
Speaker 1: and I was I was load. I was noticing today,
Speaker 1: actually tweet about it this morning. Um. They raised over
Speaker 1: ten million dollars on go fund me, which is more
Speaker 1: than every political party combined in the last quarter, more
Speaker 1: than Trudeau, more than anybody. Um. And you know Trudeau
Speaker 1: keeps saying this is some fringe element, this doesn't represent Canada, right. Um, Well,
Speaker 1: people voted with their money and the money tally's shows
Speaker 1: that it's not friends. As a matter of fact, it's
Speaker 1: more more important, or more powerful than all the political
Speaker 1: parties together. It is the largest political movement in Canadian history.
Speaker 1: Someone joked, you know it's bad when Canadians start protesting
Speaker 1: on mass um. By the way, I want to be clear,
Speaker 1: I said, we can't protest our way out of this.
Speaker 1: I do think protests can be one of the many
Speaker 1: effective tools, and the Trucker Convoy is a perfect example
Speaker 1: of that. The Freedom Convoy is a perfect example of that.
Speaker 1: More so than even yes, they are bringing people to
Speaker 1: a message of way, more people agree with you than
Speaker 1: than the media has been telling you that these lockdowns
Speaker 1: are bad, that these mandates are bad. But there's also
Speaker 1: been the real effect of when these tens and hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of truckers come into these cities that have
Speaker 1: been under various forms of lockdown and capacity restriction and
Speaker 1: mask mandates and vaccine mandates for months and years. Now,
Speaker 1: all that stuff goes away. In Ottawa, people were walking
Speaker 1: into stores with no respect to any kind of capacity
Speaker 1: limitations or max mandates or vaccine mandates, going and buying food,
Speaker 1: going and eating and everything else. And what was happening
Speaker 1: was the police were unable to do anything about it.
Speaker 1: They had neither the physical means or the capacity to
Speaker 1: try to stop these people from doing it. And so
Speaker 1: not only did these these truckers and their supporters demonstrate
Speaker 1: that there's way more people in Canada and frankly around
Speaker 1: the world that are against the COVID regime restrictions, but
Speaker 1: they've also just come in and said, now I not
Speaker 1: obeying any of this, and they've demonstrated in doing so,
Speaker 1: that there is no such thing as government power. There's
Speaker 1: only what the people are willing to tolerate. And the
Speaker 1: moment they're not willing to tolerate, that ability to effectively
Speaker 1: enforce goes away. Yeah, when they stopped, when they stopped
Speaker 1: giving them their consent, right, And so that's kind of
Speaker 1: going back to why I left Puerto Rico. Like I said,
Speaker 1: it's like if I continue to stay here and give
Speaker 1: you my money because a lot of my friends they
Speaker 1: were like, ah, you know, just use this fake thing
Speaker 1: and you can kind of get away with that. And
Speaker 1: I'm like no, because if I'm here and I'm giving
Speaker 1: them my money, then I'm basically telling them that what
Speaker 1: they're doing is okay. And if you look at like
Speaker 1: the story of like how the Berlin Wall wall fell,
Speaker 1: or any or really the whole uss are but you
Speaker 1: know Berlin Wall, the people stopped consenting, right. The people
Speaker 1: went and sat on the wall and they said, we're
Speaker 1: not leaving, and uh. The guards are like, well, we'll
Speaker 1: shoot you, and they're like, well then shoot everybody. And
Speaker 1: the guards are like, well, I guess, I guess we
Speaker 1: can't do that, and uh, they just stopped consenting, and so, uh,
Speaker 1: I love. I've been reading um lately a lot of
Speaker 1: the work the Hovel have done and Solcianizchev and talking
Speaker 1: about how the USSR fell, and they talked about how, um,
Speaker 1: whenever you're living in a lie, it just takes one
Speaker 1: person to kind of break through that crust and live
Speaker 1: in the truth. And then when other other people see
Speaker 1: that and they want to do the same, and then
Speaker 1: you know, more and more people join in, and then
Speaker 1: to your point, they just can't stop it. If you're
Speaker 1: listening to the Mark Mos Show, we're talking about bitcoin,
Speaker 1: We're talking about the decentralized Revolution. I'm in the studio
Speaker 1: with Spike Cohen at Real Spike cohen Um. The conversation
Speaker 1: we've had today and how we'll end it is the
Speaker 1: quote from Samuel Adams that says it doesn't take a
Speaker 1: majority to prevail, but rather a small, irate minority to
Speaker 1: continually light brush fires in the minds of men.