Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of The Mark Moss Show,
Speaker 1: where we talk about the decentralized revolution, talking about the
Speaker 1: way the world is changing. If you're not aware the
Speaker 1: world's changing, If you're not aware, you must be sleeping.
Speaker 1: Because obviously the world we're going into is not the
Speaker 1: same as the world that we're leaving behind. And I
Speaker 1: like to look at it through the lens of politics, finance,
Speaker 1: and technology to make sense, to make context of what's
Speaker 1: going on, but of course, more importantly, to understand what
Speaker 1: we should be doing to stay ahead of this, to
Speaker 1: survive and thrive this, and of course technology, This is
Speaker 1: the thing that changes the world, changes the way that
Speaker 1: we organize, and that technology that I like to focus
Speaker 1: on right now is the decentralizing and technology of bitcoin. Now,
Speaker 1: I like to bring to you some new education to
Speaker 1: help you think through things differently, to understand things differently,
Speaker 1: hopefully more critically, of the information that we get, some
Speaker 1: of the latest breaking news headlines so you know what's
Speaker 1: going on, and of course some interesting guests that you
Speaker 1: don't have to listen to my opinion all the time.
Speaker 1: And that's what I have for you today. I am
Speaker 1: in the studio with Nick Tartaglia. He is a host
Speaker 1: of a podcast called New gen Mindset Pod. You should
Speaker 1: check it out. But Nick, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Happy to be here. Nick. You were
Speaker 1: explaining to me that your podcast, New Generational Mindset focuses
Speaker 1: on two things, wealth and sovereignty, and I want to
Speaker 1: break those down. I like to use the word sovereignty
Speaker 1: a lot. I use financial sovereignty a lot because I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty self descriptive. But a lot of people
Speaker 1: may don't understand what it is. So let's break that
Speaker 1: down first if we can. So, what does sovereignty mean?
Speaker 1: So if I look at it from my standpoint or
Speaker 1: I go back to the traditional meaning from the classical liberalism,
Speaker 1: probably a period of time. Sovereignty from me is a
Speaker 1: natural perspective that I am responsible entirely from my own pursuits,
Speaker 1: in my own outcome in life. I wish not to
Speaker 1: delegate that task to any state or other individual. I
Speaker 1: want to be responsible for the way I end my
Speaker 1: life in this world. So I need to build wealth.
Speaker 1: I need to build relationships and networks in order to
Speaker 1: ensure that my sovereignty is protected and sustain in this world.
Speaker 1: And that's how I see. It's from an individual standpoint.
Speaker 1: It doesn't require the collective, although the collective can help
Speaker 1: maintain its individual sovereignty. But sovereignty is an individual pursuit.
Speaker 1: And how what can I do or what actions can
Speaker 1: I put forth in order to ensure that I do
Speaker 1: not need to delegate my responsibility or for my life
Speaker 1: to anybody else? Do you think that's a spectrum? I mean,
Speaker 1: to be truly sovereign? Does that mean then you have
Speaker 1: to make your own clothes? So yes, I exactly what
Speaker 1: you mean. Now. So when I take the meaning of sovereignty,
Speaker 1: I take it more from an I take more of
Speaker 1: it from a standpoint that I am willing to do
Speaker 1: what I need to do for myself, but I'm willing
Speaker 1: to delegate certain tasks that others can do more optimally
Speaker 1: than me. But where I do not believe that is
Speaker 1: the cases in terms of my finances and my wealth.
Speaker 1: That is something that I will not delegate nor wish
Speaker 1: to delegate, because to control my wealth or my finances
Speaker 1: is to control my abilities to eat, to my ability
Speaker 1: to save, to retire, to go anywhere I want, or
Speaker 1: to buy any asset class I wish. So in terms
Speaker 1: of everything else, of course I'm dependent on others in
Speaker 1: a collective because it requires me to delegate certain responsive
Speaker 1: or certain tasks in order to optimize my own pursuits.
Speaker 1: But specifically in terms of finances and wealth, that is
Speaker 1: something that is that is not somebody else's responsibility. So
Speaker 1: when you talk about delegating things like making clothes or
Speaker 1: growing food or something like that, like it's okay to
Speaker 1: designate that or delegate that out to somebody else because
Speaker 1: they're not controlling me through that. Exactly, if I want
Speaker 1: to buy clothes from this person, that person has no
Speaker 1: control over me because I was supposed to. You still
Speaker 1: have options, and you still have optionality, and worst case,
Speaker 1: you hire someone to make it, you go somewhere else,
Speaker 1: you go online, you shop elsewhere. There are options. But
Speaker 1: the more you remove those options, the more self reliant
Speaker 1: you become. So yeah, control would be a huge component.
Speaker 1: Those are things that you cannot truly control my sovereignty
Speaker 1: through those things, So then you're basically wanting to sovereignty
Speaker 1: would be I like to think of actually one of
Speaker 1: my favorite authors, Fahyak, his seminal book he wrote which
Speaker 1: is the constitution of liberty, and in that book he
Speaker 1: defined liberty as freedom from coercion. Freedom from coercion, that
Speaker 1: would be liberty. I like that definition, So freedom from
Speaker 1: any constraint that would hold me back from being able
Speaker 1: to choose the direction that I want to lose, that lie,
Speaker 1: as long as I don't peed on somebody else's life,
Speaker 1: let me live the life that I can to the
Speaker 1: best and the fullest I can. And you think controling
Speaker 1: your money is the best way to it's one of
Speaker 1: you know, my relationship. My money determines that the way
Speaker 1: I can plan for my future, the type of assets
Speaker 1: I can purchase, the people I can how I can
Speaker 1: take care of my family and friends around me. And
Speaker 1: so you know, to delegate that responsibly is simply saying that, well,
Speaker 1: others now have control over your life and your future,
Speaker 1: because if they lose it, if they mismanage it, if
Speaker 1: they misallocate it, if they waste it, well you are
Speaker 1: dependent on that, on those dynamics. So if you're going
Speaker 1: to create a sovereignty as an individual, if you want
Speaker 1: to become more financially responsible for yourself, you know it
Speaker 1: requires a level of level of growth in order to
Speaker 1: understand the world you're in in order to make sure
Speaker 1: you allocate your capital properly and that you mitigate your
Speaker 1: risks by understanding the Mac rule, the Mac world in
Speaker 1: which you operate. From an American to a Canadian here,
Speaker 1: you're a Canadian, right born reads the more so from
Speaker 1: a Canadian to an American here. Obviously, the entire world
Speaker 1: was massively impacted by the pandemic massively, and you know,
Speaker 1: many parts of the world might have been more free
Speaker 1: during that period of time than the United States, which
Speaker 1: is supposedly the land of the Free. How Ever, Canada
Speaker 1: seemed to try to be on par with North Korea
Speaker 1: pretty much. We have, you know, your prime dictator Justin
Speaker 1: Trudeau on video. I've used clips of him praising China
Speaker 1: and praising their communism because it allows them to do
Speaker 1: things he's not able to do. We obviously saw him
Speaker 1: taking actions that were basically on par with China. So
Speaker 1: how how does it work trying to remain a sovereign
Speaker 1: individual under some sort of like a regime or a
Speaker 1: political environment like that. So personally for me, as he
Speaker 1: goes like during the the pandemic and that whole period
Speaker 1: of time, you know, we were locked down. We can
Speaker 1: go out after a period of time. We can go
Speaker 1: out after eight pm, we can see people. A lot
Speaker 1: of it was just you know, being locked up and
Speaker 1: just indulging the internet and online. So for me, the
Speaker 1: biggest way to kind of maintain my sovereignty or to
Speaker 1: strengthen it was to kind of focus on my intellectual development.
Speaker 1: So podcasting was a huge interesting because on a weekly basis,
Speaker 1: I got to have incredible conversations with people around the world.
Speaker 1: I got to watch and observe market forces at a
Speaker 1: level I've never seen before because by again, we spent
Speaker 1: hours just watching the world move and clash and behave.
Speaker 1: And I got to start writing a lot more. And
Speaker 1: that that heavily helped me develop my ability to articulate
Speaker 1: and observe things at a deeper level than I did before.
Speaker 1: So it was more or it's more about currently an
Speaker 1: intellectual developmental process because of the fact that it you know,
Speaker 1: you have inflation rampaging here. There's not many ways to
Speaker 1: protect your wealth. Taxes are growing up here. So if
Speaker 1: I can still focus on building my intellect and building
Speaker 1: relationships externally of this environment, I can still find a
Speaker 1: way to maintain or protect my sovereignty down the line,
Speaker 1: and then the process, of course is still making sure
Speaker 1: I allocate to an extent certain capital, you know, on
Speaker 1: certain play asset classes that can help me get out
Speaker 1: of this situation, whether I leave or stay. Although granted
Speaker 1: I'd rather leave this country. But so these are type
Speaker 1: of things that I'm starting to focus on, you know,
Speaker 1: making sure which asked classes. I'm going to focus on
Speaker 1: my writing and my intellectual development, and those things help
Speaker 1: me feel more secure in my sovereignty. If you're just
Speaker 1: tuning in, you're listening to the Mark Moa show, We're
Speaker 1: sitting down with Nick Tartaglia. We're talking about wealth, we're
Speaker 1: talking about sovereignty, and we're going to get some ideas
Speaker 1: of what you can do to increase both of those things.
Speaker 1: You know, I want to come back to the point
Speaker 1: about wealth and money specifically, because without wealth and money,
Speaker 1: you're currentstrained by your circumstances. So you're not constrained by people,
Speaker 1: but you're constrained by your circumstances, and so that's a
Speaker 1: different type of tyranny that most people don't consider. So
Speaker 1: we'll come back to that. If you're just tune in,
Speaker 1: like I said, you're listening to the markma Show talking
Speaker 1: with Nick Tartaglia. We're talking about, of course, each and
Speaker 1: every week, the decentralized revolution, the way the world is changing,
Speaker 1: and you need to be on top of this because
Speaker 1: if it's changing, you need to be changing. To be
Speaker 1: back with a whole lot more in a minute, you
Speaker 1: don't want to miss it, So don't go away, we'll
Speaker 1: be right back. All right, welcome back. If you're just
Speaker 1: tune in, you're listening to the Mark Moss Show. We're
Speaker 1: talking about, of course, each and every week, the decentralized Revolution.
Speaker 1: But this week I am in the studio with Nick
Speaker 1: Tartaglia and we're talking about wealth, sovereignty and living under
Speaker 1: the Canadian regime. We're talking about that for a minute
Speaker 1: and the going back to that for a minute. So
Speaker 1: you lived under under that, like I said, from the US,
Speaker 1: looking up, I was like dang, Like both Canada and Australia,
Speaker 1: I'm like, man, why would you stay there? Why would
Speaker 1: you live under that when you don't have to? Why
Speaker 1: why would anybody choose to live under that when they
Speaker 1: could go somewhere else? Right now, I think you highlighted
Speaker 1: that part of that in that last question before we
Speaker 1: took the breaks, I want to dig into that a
Speaker 1: little bit. So while that happened, you were locked down,
Speaker 1: you couldn't even your house. You chose to work on
Speaker 1: your writing, your intellect and building up that some relationships, podcasting.
Speaker 1: I want to come back to that. But basically the
Speaker 1: point was is that you weren't really able to leave
Speaker 1: that environment and go to a different environment because you
Speaker 1: didn't have the resources to do that. So without wealth,
Speaker 1: without money, without the ability to spend or use your money,
Speaker 1: you don't actually have any freedom. Yeah, like I was
Speaker 1: saying before we went on the break, you know, I
Speaker 1: look at like freedom and like freedom is freedom from
Speaker 1: both in any type of circumstance that would prevent you
Speaker 1: from making a decision that you want to make. And
Speaker 1: so obviously a person, so you can have tyranny of government, right,
Speaker 1: a person could prevent you from doing something that you want.
Speaker 1: But also just your own circumstance could be tyranny of health.
Speaker 1: Right your health doesn't allow you to do that, it could,
Speaker 1: which is why we say health is wealth. Could also
Speaker 1: be tyranny of your own wealth, meaning or lack thereof right.
Speaker 1: So I don't have the money to travel. I don't
Speaker 1: have the money to move. I don't have the money
Speaker 1: to buy a passport. I don't have the money to
Speaker 1: do whatever. Right, So is that some of I mean,
Speaker 1: did I frame that up? That kind of how you
Speaker 1: look at that, because you know, like as a human
Speaker 1: being who believes to be, who wants or wants to
Speaker 1: believe in the idea of sovereignty as an individual thing
Speaker 1: is a lot of governments, or a lot of states,
Speaker 1: or a lot of people. They always talk about the
Speaker 1: sovereignty of a nation, but the sovereignty of a nation
Speaker 1: as a whole just means that those or at the center,
Speaker 1: the central authority who dictates or controls that ecosystem or
Speaker 1: that society, it has its own sovereignty to do what
Speaker 1: it wants. That's not how it perceives sovereignty. It's not
Speaker 1: at a collective level sovereignty. It's an individual level. So
Speaker 1: the way I see it is that I'm not I
Speaker 1: do not want to dictate my life based on man
Speaker 1: made laws. I want to dictate my life based on
Speaker 1: natural laws and natural circumstances that I need to mitigate
Speaker 1: and circumvent. In order to do that, I need to
Speaker 1: understand the parameters and the dynamics that allowed me to
Speaker 1: thrive in this reality. And regardless of what, regardless of
Speaker 1: which ecosystem I am born or raised in, or live in,
Speaker 1: I must understand it in order to thrive in it.
Speaker 1: And if I cannot thrive in it, then I must
Speaker 1: change my circumstances. In order to do that, I must
Speaker 1: understand how to do so. And that's where the intellectual
Speaker 1: process comes in. You have to understand your the world
Speaker 1: around you, or else there's no development should that point
Speaker 1: that you're talking about. I just put on Twitter earlier today,
Speaker 1: an hour or two ago. If you're not following me
Speaker 1: on Twitter, you should just at one Mark Moss. But
Speaker 1: I put a quote from Ronald Reagan's nineteen eighty one
Speaker 1: inaugural address. So he was this is January of eighty one,
Speaker 1: he was being brought in as President of the United States,
Speaker 1: and he said something that's that's used a lot. I
Speaker 1: I was looking up this quote, which is government's not
Speaker 1: the solution, Government's the problem. But I was trying to
Speaker 1: find what's the context that he's staying that under. So
Speaker 1: I went and looked up the whole speech and I
Speaker 1: read it and I clipped himtuff out of there, But
Speaker 1: he was talking about inflation at the time, and he
Speaker 1: was saying, the inflation is not fixed by the government,
Speaker 1: it's caused by by the government. But what he said,
Speaker 1: as he said, from time to time, we've been tempted
Speaker 1: to believe that society has become too complex to be
Speaker 1: managed by self rule, and that government by an elite
Speaker 1: group is superior to government for by and of the people.
Speaker 1: So kind of to your point, we're not sovereign individuals,
Speaker 1: the government sovereign to do what they want. We're not
Speaker 1: sovereign sovereign and so he was addressing that in this
Speaker 1: address here in nineteen eighty one. We've been tempted to
Speaker 1: believe that society has become too complex to be managed
Speaker 1: by individuals. It's too complex, he said, you should not
Speaker 1: We don't need to learn, we don't need to understand.
Speaker 1: Delegate that task as somebody else, and your sovereignty will
Speaker 1: will be protected because you have a sovereign nation of
Speaker 1: a central authority who knows best. Yeah, And then he
Speaker 1: goes on to say, but if no one among us
Speaker 1: is capable of governing himself, then who among us has
Speaker 1: the capacity to govern something else, get your own bed
Speaker 1: in order. It's just like boom, yes, exactly, like none
Speaker 1: of us are smart enough to do this on our own,
Speaker 1: so then you're smart enough exactly. You forget that the
Speaker 1: central authorities there are also human beings. There are no
Speaker 1: different than any one of us. The only thing is
Speaker 1: we seem to assume that the moment the enter that
Speaker 1: social entity, which is the government, which is no different
Speaker 1: than any other social entity, that automatically it assumes the
Speaker 1: responsibility to no best and to do what's best, and
Speaker 1: that regardless of what it does, it holds no accountability,
Speaker 1: and that it is the only thing that bestows upon
Speaker 1: us the reality of the economy, which again is a fallacy,
Speaker 1: since the economy is here regardless of whether the state
Speaker 1: exists or not. It is a natural reality given to us. Therefore,
Speaker 1: it is up to you to ensure your own outcome,
Speaker 1: and that's where the sovereignty comes in. So now let's
Speaker 1: go back to what you said. You know, you were
Speaker 1: in lockdown down, you couldn't leave unfortunately, so you decided
Speaker 1: to pour into your own self and to build up
Speaker 1: your own tool kit, right, your own skill set. Why
Speaker 1: did you choose that, like why is that? Why? Because
Speaker 1: I was someone I always enjoyed going out and talking
Speaker 1: to people and being around people and having conversations and
Speaker 1: just you know, being outside and doing stuff. I didn't
Speaker 1: like sitting down and doing nothing. And the moment I
Speaker 1: was put in that environment, I felt as if I
Speaker 1: was going to be very unproductive and it was going
Speaker 1: to waste a lot of my time. And again, if
Speaker 1: you go back to the classical princes of principles of
Speaker 1: a lot of Austrians and classical economists, a lot of
Speaker 1: things like there's nothing more permanent to temporary government programs,
Speaker 1: and you know, whenever the government takes control, it has
Speaker 1: a hard time letting go. So in my mind when
Speaker 1: all this was going down, I was like, I don't
Speaker 1: think this is gonna last two weeks, as they said.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's gonna last a couple of months.
Speaker 1: I think this is going to be something that's gonna
Speaker 1: be reoccurring for a long period of time. And so
Speaker 1: that was bothering me heavily mentally and intellectually. So I
Speaker 1: said I needed to find a way to put my
Speaker 1: energy into something else that never did before. And the
Speaker 1: only thing I could think of was starting to write.
Speaker 1: So I started writing blogs from my podcast and that
Speaker 1: turned into writing one book on system dynamics and trying
Speaker 1: to understand the world I was in and trying to
Speaker 1: understand the problems heading our way as a millennial who's
Speaker 1: looking ahead. And then after I decided to write another
Speaker 1: book after going down kind of like an Austrian rabbit hole,
Speaker 1: an economic rabbit hole on economics, to kind of continue
Speaker 1: the work of those guys of the Austrians and everything.
Speaker 1: And I thought it was the only solution because I
Speaker 1: didn't want to feel unproductive. Just watching TV for two
Speaker 1: years is doing nothing. I thought I was gonna be
Speaker 1: the biggest waste of my life. So I wanted to
Speaker 1: be something. I wanted to be proud of myself, regardless
Speaker 1: of the situation I was in. Yeah, so I mean
Speaker 1: it was I was definitely about being productive to me
Speaker 1: from the outside looking in. And that's why I was
Speaker 1: asking the question, is it's like what you also did, though,
Speaker 1: is you increased your knowledge, which also increased your skills
Speaker 1: or your skill set. And the more skills you have,
Speaker 1: the more knowledge you have, potentially the more sovereign you
Speaker 1: can be because now you have tools and skills that
Speaker 1: can allow you to make income remotely or lockdown or
Speaker 1: something like that, as opposed to you didn't have those
Speaker 1: skills before. If you're just tune in, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the markmas Show talking about the Decentralized Revolution and how
Speaker 1: to become more sovereign. With Nick Tartaglia, we're talking about
Speaker 1: how to deal with with with tyranny, how to become
Speaker 1: more sovereign. We got a whole lot more to cover,
Speaker 1: and we come back. Don't go away. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: right back, all right, welcome back. If you're just tune in,
Speaker 1: you're listening to the Mark Moas Show. We're talking about
Speaker 1: the decentralized Revolution each and every week, of course, and
Speaker 1: I'm in the studio with Nick Tartaglia. We're talking about
Speaker 1: dealing with tyranny and becoming more sovereign. So, yeah, you
Speaker 1: increase your skills, you increase your knowledge, and now you
Speaker 1: have more knowledge and you have more skills to go
Speaker 1: create money, whether that be podcasting or writing writing books,
Speaker 1: writing blogs. I mean, there's so many things that you
Speaker 1: could do with that, which I think is which I
Speaker 1: think is super important. It's one thing that I see,
Speaker 1: you know, so many people. They take this victim mentality
Speaker 1: where it's like, oh, what can I do? The States
Speaker 1: is going to do do whatever they want with me,
Speaker 1: have their way with me, and I'm just in my
Speaker 1: house and I can't do anything, so I might as
Speaker 1: well just eat Cheetos and watch Netflix or something. Valy,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you have that in again, Oh,
Speaker 1: I mean during you saw during Canada here we were
Speaker 1: locking down gems, but we had here, ironically, because I
Speaker 1: live in Quebec. So let's say, let's I'm gonna contextualize
Speaker 1: specifically in my province. So the place that I live
Speaker 1: in the state controls the liquor stores, controls the marijuana stores,
Speaker 1: controls the gambling. But they locked down the gems and
Speaker 1: they left everything else open. So you had to rise
Speaker 1: in alcohol consumption, rise in drug consumption rise, and gambling.
Speaker 1: You had all those all while people are isolated, and
Speaker 1: by default humans are social animals. They're not isolated animals
Speaker 1: that live alone. They thrive in social environments. So we
Speaker 1: restricted our natural mechanics as human beings, and we fed
Speaker 1: the ourselves all kinds of stimulants and distractions, all while
Speaker 1: believing it was the natural given right of the state
Speaker 1: to do this. So I think we've we've been on
Speaker 1: this trend for a long time, and I think we're
Speaker 1: starting to see most people, or a lot of people anyway,
Speaker 1: are starting to see how dangerous these ideas are and
Speaker 1: we give the state this much power. I guess two
Speaker 1: part question kind of one do you see do you
Speaker 1: see like maybe in Canada, maybe in some of the
Speaker 1: harsher areas of Canada, was this like a maybe a
Speaker 1: waking up moment for a lot of people. So if
Speaker 1: if the way I see it is, I think, well
Speaker 1: one Alberta is one example where I think they've kind
Speaker 1: of woken up because you have the new premier there.
Speaker 1: Her name is Danielle and she's been a real go
Speaker 1: getter who's been getting a lot of tension and fighting
Speaker 1: back against what the liberal government's been doing at a
Speaker 1: federal level. And then even from myself here, I've noticed
Speaker 1: a lot of people will have started to regret their
Speaker 1: submission to these forces and starting to question why it
Speaker 1: is that, why it is that their life is so
Speaker 1: void of dignity whenever the government tells them what to do.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of more curiosity, people willing to
Speaker 1: have a conversation. Before people were afraid to have those conversations.
Speaker 1: But it's become more open. Well, I mean to a
Speaker 1: certain extent again, because you have a lot of like
Speaker 1: March Show for example, where I'm from, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of liberals, or you can go through the schooling system.
Speaker 1: They've been shut down left and right because of protests
Speaker 1: and for liberal progressive purposes. But there is a force
Speaker 1: that's starting to understand and wake up that there's there's
Speaker 1: this is not normal, and that if this cycle continues,
Speaker 1: that their future in this country is very hard to imagine,
Speaker 1: like it is for myself. It's very hard to imagine
Speaker 1: it here. So I'm trying to find a way to
Speaker 1: get out. So I mean you think get out, get
Speaker 1: out and save yourself rather than stay in fight. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you see, I would love that idea. But then the
Speaker 1: way I see it is there's a point of no
Speaker 1: return at a certain point. That's how one two. I
Speaker 1: have to I also believe that Canada is very susceptible
Speaker 1: in terms of the way it behaves based on America.
Speaker 1: So if America doesn't shift, I think Canada is permanently finished.
Speaker 1: Because Canadas is heavily depending on what America does. So
Speaker 1: if the left or the progressive narrative dominates and continues
Speaker 1: to hold force, Canada and its governments have plenty of
Speaker 1: power to do so because there's no counterforce to it.
Speaker 1: We're not We're like the little brother, the little sister
Speaker 1: to America. That's how I see it. So on left,
Speaker 1: we have someone to show us the way out. I
Speaker 1: think Canada is too dossed out to find its own
Speaker 1: way out. I want to be somebody to help and fight,
Speaker 1: but I also have to take care of myself and
Speaker 1: those around me. So there is a point where I
Speaker 1: say it's to be it, where we reached a point
Speaker 1: of no return, and that I will try to do
Speaker 1: what I can elsewhere while trying to help because I
Speaker 1: don't want to be But how much how much further
Speaker 1: can Canada take it? I mean, Canada's got no money,
Speaker 1: they got gold. I mean they're broke, they are, I mean,
Speaker 1: their institutions are caving in, Like I mean, how much
Speaker 1: further again? People? I mean people still believe in the delusion.
Speaker 1: They just took away gun rights, well, the ability to
Speaker 1: purchase guns, and people thought like everything they're doing, people
Speaker 1: find a reason to agree or to just say this
Speaker 1: is what it's part being of a society like that.
Speaker 1: What does what does that mean? Did they take away
Speaker 1: the ability to buy and buy, sell transfer guns but
Speaker 1: not own them. So so if you already own them,
Speaker 1: but you just can't sell them exactly, you can still own.
Speaker 1: You can still own if you've purchased. Is it is
Speaker 1: it all guns or just handguns or just right now
Speaker 1: it's only handguns that they were going down for, but
Speaker 1: now they're trying to get into hunting guns. But that
Speaker 1: was just they backed out on that one because the
Speaker 1: Conservatives were being a little aggressive on them. They just
Speaker 1: backed down, I think about a week or two ago.
Speaker 1: But they have the momentum because they keep doing what
Speaker 1: they want and even the conservative side, like from I
Speaker 1: just don't like politicians in general or the politics because
Speaker 1: I find it's just it's a lot of the time
Speaker 1: and inefficient game. They're not actually solving any economic problems.
Speaker 1: They're just trying to be the hero to any special
Speaker 1: interest group. So um, you know, it's hard to see
Speaker 1: Canada coming out of this positively since you know, like
Speaker 1: you said, we have no gold, we have all we
Speaker 1: running on debt, Trudeau in this last four in this
Speaker 1: entire terms, has incurred more debt on behalf of Canada
Speaker 1: for bea Canada, more than all the combined premiers in
Speaker 1: Canadian history. So you know, it's just a downward effect
Speaker 1: of that's expanding exponentially. Now you're you know, one of
Speaker 1: the things that you like to study and talk about
Speaker 1: is free markets and comparing free markets to socialism and
Speaker 1: commonism exacts like that. Why why do you think a
Speaker 1: free market is favorable or better than a socialism one?
Speaker 1: I think that it is, by the natural law, the
Speaker 1: only environment by which sovereignty could be honored, whereby individual
Speaker 1: consciousness can evolve and grow, where by individuals can feel
Speaker 1: dignity and purpose, whereby we can make meaning to our
Speaker 1: own lives without having to feel confined or caged or
Speaker 1: feel safe and become a meaningless variable in the time
Speaker 1: of history. So free markets, to me is merely a
Speaker 1: reflection of human behat or if I look at any
Speaker 1: kind of economic system, it's merely a reflection of individual behaviors.
Speaker 1: Socialism is like a paternal relationship. It's all about your safety,
Speaker 1: doing what's well for you. But there is no room
Speaker 1: to grow as an individual in that space, free market
Speaker 1: is the only place where by trial and error makes sense,
Speaker 1: where boom boom and bus cycles can lead to growth
Speaker 1: and innovation, where you can mitigate past errors because you
Speaker 1: understand them and you can learn from them. If you
Speaker 1: are an environment where there's constant a delegation of responsibility,
Speaker 1: delegation of learning, delegation of actions that need to be
Speaker 1: taken to a central authority, the market itself of individuals,
Speaker 1: which is where you create prosperity as a collective, cannot grow,
Speaker 1: cannot evolve, cannot innovate, it cannot build its way out
Speaker 1: of it, and cannot do it in a way that's
Speaker 1: sustainable for each generation after itself. So if the free market,
Speaker 1: which I would agree is is so much of a
Speaker 1: better system than socialism, communism can outcompete it, I believe
Speaker 1: it can if it is given the space to compete,
Speaker 1: I just but the thing is, there's so many forces,
Speaker 1: primal forces that are against it. You have the educational
Speaker 1: system that's against it. You have the tech industry that's
Speaker 1: against it. You have the government that's against it. You
Speaker 1: have military organization, military and police organizations that are against it.
Speaker 1: So it starts I mean given in free market system,
Speaker 1: it all takes. It's about empowering the individual so it
Speaker 1: can compete with it if the individual, or enough individuals
Speaker 1: are empowered to understand that, if they themselves do not
Speaker 1: stand up and fight back, there won't be no free
Speaker 1: market for them to thrive in or to produce their
Speaker 1: own outcome. If you're just tune in, you're listening to
Speaker 1: the markmas Show. We talked about the Decentralized Revolution EA
Speaker 1: share every week. I'm in the studio with Nick Tartaglia.
Speaker 1: We're talking about sovereignty, we're talking about wealth. Now we're
Speaker 1: getting into free markets versus socialism and communism, and we'll
Speaker 1: come back out on the other side. We got a
Speaker 1: lot more to cover in this last segment. You don't
Speaker 1: want to miss it. If we're gonna take a short
Speaker 1: break and we're right back talking about communism, socialism, free
Speaker 1: markets and if they can win. I tend to think again,
Speaker 1: So we'll find out. We're back with all that and
Speaker 1: more in a minute. Don't go away, I'll be right back,
Speaker 1: all right, Welcome back. If you're just tune in, you're
Speaker 1: listening to the Mark Moss Show. I'm in the studio
Speaker 1: with Nick Tartaglia. We're talking about sovereignty and wealth and
Speaker 1: Canada and tyranny and free markets and so much more.
Speaker 1: And I was asking the question about if if you
Speaker 1: think free markets could out compete a command economy, socialism,
Speaker 1: communist etc. And you said that you, you know, only
Speaker 1: if it's given a chance to compete, because wise with politics,
Speaker 1: they can just crowd it out. And that seems to
Speaker 1: be what big government, big businesses are doing. But the
Speaker 1: problem is that those models they're built off of don't work.
Speaker 1: So don't we just naturally outcompete them because they just
Speaker 1: crash on their own? Yes, I agree, but then I
Speaker 1: also have to So then what I would do is
Speaker 1: I also overlap the whole. So there's a saying that says,
Speaker 1: you know, strong men create good times, good times create
Speaker 1: weak men, soft man soft men create hard times. And
Speaker 1: then the question becomes which peer to that economic cycle
Speaker 1: are react in relation to which weighted behaviors are dominant
Speaker 1: in the ecosystem. So the state can thrive because of
Speaker 1: the fact that a lot of people are ignorant. So
Speaker 1: like when I heard you talking back in the Rick conference,
Speaker 1: you were talking about the parallel economy where people can
Speaker 1: find ways to compete by the same kind of products
Speaker 1: by providing a different set of values and conditions to
Speaker 1: the market, adding value in a different way. Well, that
Speaker 1: is elevating their their consciousness understanding that they can compete,
Speaker 1: but they take they have to take it in their
Speaker 1: own hands. So when I say it has to be given,
Speaker 1: we need the opportunity to compete. By that, I mean
Speaker 1: simply solving the issue of ignorance. People need to be
Speaker 1: aware that it's up to them to make this happen.
Speaker 1: And if they want to delicate, like if they say, well,
Speaker 1: I want to be free, I want sovereignty, I want wealth,
Speaker 1: but I'm not going to do it myself or I
Speaker 1: need someone else to do it first, Well, then I
Speaker 1: want to I want to do it myself. But you know,
Speaker 1: so that's the point is we all want it, but
Speaker 1: nobody seems to want to do it. So for me,
Speaker 1: it's a matter of aligning the actions with the intent,
Speaker 1: and there's a gap there. And that ignorance is where
Speaker 1: the state dominates, because if we're ignorant and we don't
Speaker 1: do it ourselves, then the state can keep pushing down
Speaker 1: on us. Yeah, well, and the state controls all the exhaustion,
Speaker 1: so they are separhand. Yeah, you know, it's interesting where
Speaker 1: to your point, I think most people just don't want
Speaker 1: the responsibility that comes with it. And if you look
Speaker 1: at there was a doctor Desmond mate As he did
Speaker 1: the work on the mass formation psychosis, and he talks
Speaker 1: about how in this mass formation psychosis where the masses
Speaker 1: basically go along with this whole thing, he talks about
Speaker 1: how there's thirty percent of the people at the top
Speaker 1: that are just going to go along with that, and
Speaker 1: there's thirty percent of people at the bottom that are
Speaker 1: always going to resist that, and there's the forty percent
Speaker 1: in the middle. And like that's what's up for grabs
Speaker 1: kind of a thing, right, like which side do they
Speaker 1: get influenced by? And I think maybe not the exact
Speaker 1: same numbers, but but similar in life, we can see
Speaker 1: that the masses don't know what they want, the masses
Speaker 1: don't even care, and the masses are not willing to
Speaker 1: put out any effort to learn or to improve, and
Speaker 1: so really the world is being driven by the edges
Speaker 1: and we can see that, right, I mean, I see
Speaker 1: in Canada, you guys are doing like a legal legal suicide.
Speaker 1: So they're putting that for veterans because I guess the
Speaker 1: way they argue is it's easier to just give them
Speaker 1: an easy way out than I actually care and provide
Speaker 1: the real value. But the thing is, when has government
Speaker 1: ever been an efficient entity to solve any kind of
Speaker 1: socioeconomic problem. It never really has. But yet as a culture,
Speaker 1: we delegate those tasks to it. So at the end
Speaker 1: of finding easier ways to just solve those problems, you
Speaker 1: know what, we can't seem to do anything. People are
Speaker 1: begging for it, So let's just give it to them. Now.
Speaker 1: They're talking about lowering it down to kids as young
Speaker 1: as twelve, I think, and then doing it like with
Speaker 1: no like parental approval. And I think about that, and
Speaker 1: we have plenty of other stupid and sick policies here
Speaker 1: in the United States as well, transitioning kids without parent approval,
Speaker 1: et cetera. And I just think, like, what percentage of
Speaker 1: the people want that? Like, come on, really, like what
Speaker 1: percentage of the population really wants to see men go
Speaker 1: compete in women's sports? Like, like, nobody really wants that, right,
Speaker 1: It's being driven by the agents, but people are free
Speaker 1: and so whiles while that's on one side is discouraging,
Speaker 1: it's also encouraging. We don't need them asses, no exactly here,
Speaker 1: so we only need we only need. As one of
Speaker 1: the United States founding father said, Samuel Adams, it doesn't
Speaker 1: take a majority to prevail, rather a small, irate minority.
Speaker 1: And so we see, you know, things in the grocery store,
Speaker 1: the kosher and the gluten free and the organic. It
Speaker 1: wasn't everybody that wanted those things. It was a small group.
Speaker 1: So we don't have to convince the world, right, we
Speaker 1: just have to get a small group of people. As
Speaker 1: that kind of the thing is if you give the
Speaker 1: right if you give the right circumstances and conditions to
Speaker 1: certain people, or you give them the space to do
Speaker 1: what they need, or you evolve their ability to understand
Speaker 1: the realm they're in, you can empower them in a
Speaker 1: way that will make them understand why they need to
Speaker 1: set fourth actions that ripple throughout the ecosystem, positive energy
Speaker 1: from an economic standpoint, that changes the path on which
Speaker 1: we're on. Because if you don't, because at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, if you empower the individual by default,
Speaker 1: you end up empowering everybody else because you know it's
Speaker 1: like a team. You are as weak as your weakest link.
Speaker 1: If you empower the weakest person in your society to
Speaker 1: be independent, to thrive on it, to or figure out
Speaker 1: a way to thrive on their own, then they will
Speaker 1: be a force to reckon with. And then you feel
Speaker 1: that energy. You can feel that that desire to thrive
Speaker 1: and to be purposeful. They become more like a lion
Speaker 1: rather than as sheep, and then you, everybody else around
Speaker 1: you gets that same energy in that vibe. Okay, I
Speaker 1: need to be like that too. Yeah. Do you think
Speaker 1: it's something though? Where Like most people are just going
Speaker 1: to continue in the path that they're on until the
Speaker 1: pain gets high enough that they're forced to change. Like
Speaker 1: I use the example all the time. Like I grew
Speaker 1: up going to chiropractors. I believe in in chiropractic. I
Speaker 1: believe that our spines should be in alignment. I believe
Speaker 1: all those things. But like I don't really go unless
Speaker 1: I'm in a lot of pain and the pain has
Speaker 1: to be high enough to be to clear out some
Speaker 1: of my schedule. Otherwise I'm too busy. Change or drug
Speaker 1: addicts right, like they don't they don't want to go
Speaker 1: to rehab until they hit rock bottom, which is usually
Speaker 1: more of a rock bottom than most of us would
Speaker 1: would put up with. So like you think that's the
Speaker 1: case for most I do. I do a lot of people.
Speaker 1: A lot of people are too safe or secure, or
Speaker 1: they're too stuck in a routine, or they're too afraid
Speaker 1: of respond. I know there's a saying I feel who
Speaker 1: it's by. One of the greatest fear of mankind is
Speaker 1: responsibility or self responsibility. To be responsible as a scary
Speaker 1: thing because it says that if something goes wrong where
Speaker 1: you fail or whatever, it is on you. It is
Speaker 1: not on anybody else. It is because of you. But
Speaker 1: the thing is, through failure, you learn, through the learning process,
Speaker 1: you build your consciousness. The thing is, we thrive in
Speaker 1: an environment where people are are fueled or empowered because
Speaker 1: people are weak. So your weakness empowers me to tell
Speaker 1: you what to do. So I you know, I think
Speaker 1: that is a part of it. It's it's sad what
Speaker 1: it now now, But what kind of like we're saying
Speaker 1: we don't need the masses, we don't need the majority,
Speaker 1: we just need the small, irate minority. So you're in
Speaker 1: a younger generation, how do you see the younger generation
Speaker 1: responding to this. Do you think we'll get enough of
Speaker 1: the minority to get irate about this and push back
Speaker 1: on the edges. Do you feel positive about that. I'm
Speaker 1: in the middle of this because I haven't been able
Speaker 1: to contextualize the force of it yet in the sense
Speaker 1: that it depends on whether you're looking at a province,
Speaker 1: whether you're in Canada or the state United States, how
Speaker 1: much force they push back. Because the way I see
Speaker 1: is like in game theory, you have different pieces on
Speaker 1: the board, and now the question becomes which entity, or
Speaker 1: which collective entity of individuals is able to force or
Speaker 1: push back or mitigate its primal threats. Now, the collective
Speaker 1: hysteria of you know, of the left or progressive, or
Speaker 1: of those that like to abated the state or the politicians,
Speaker 1: and they are the dominant force. But the thing is
Speaker 1: the opposing force is too afraid to speak up, are
Speaker 1: too afraid of the backlash, or too afraid to speak
Speaker 1: their mind, so they do not create a counterforce to
Speaker 1: the other side. And the other side is very emotionally
Speaker 1: intellectually weak. They just have the crowd. But the thing is,
Speaker 1: the moment you have a select few of individuals are
Speaker 1: strong enough to oppose them, or push back or make
Speaker 1: them understand that they are a primal force. There's something
Speaker 1: to come of it. But the younger generations, they're we're
Speaker 1: not leaders at least I don't see them as leaders
Speaker 1: yet because of the fact that we're born in this
Speaker 1: environment that's very privileged, especially from a Western perspective. We're
Speaker 1: very privileged with what we have, but we also like
Speaker 1: to complain about everything. Even though we're extremely privileged. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's in us to do it because we
Speaker 1: don't have role models anymore, or at least there are some,
Speaker 1: but we just don't know where to find them. So
Speaker 1: I think there's that kind of gap in the marketplace
Speaker 1: to see that shift occur. We'll take that as a
Speaker 1: challenge everybody. We got to wrap this up. If you're
Speaker 1: just tuning in, you're listening to the Mark Moss show
Speaker 1: Up and in the Studio with Nick Tartaglia talking about
Speaker 1: the decentralized revolution and how we can push back on this.
Speaker 1: You can find them on Instagram at Nick Tartaglia will
Speaker 1: link it in the show's below. That's what we got today.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening. Until next time