Video summary
The speaker argues that true freedom is defined by the complete absence of force and coercion, asserting that hate speech laws in Europe represent a dangerous overreach where the government uses its monopoly on violence to silence unpopular opinions. He contends that while expressing hatred toward groups like communists or fascists may be offensive, it is a valid emotion and a survival mechanism rather than something that should be criminalized. According to his view, the only legitimate use of force is in self-defense or the defense of others against physical attacks; therefore, any law restricting speech based on content, such as Holocaust denial laws, violates the principle that individuals have the right to be ignorant, stupid, or hateful without facing state intervention, provided they do not physically harm anyone.
The transcript traces the historical roots of modern wealth and liberty to the year 1776, identifying three pivotal events: the publication of Adam Smith's *The Wealth of Nations*, the first industrial use of the steam engine, and the American Declaration of Independence. The speaker emphasizes that Smith's work proved that zero tariffs are optimal for national prosperity and dismantled mercantilist thinking, while the Industrial Revolution marked a shift in economic power. However, he places the greatest emphasis on the Declaration of Independence not merely as a break from British rule, but as a philosophical declaration that every individual is sovereign over their own life, values, and path to happiness, free from the dictates of kings, landowners, or religious institutions.
In contrast to this ideal of individual sovereignty, the speaker critiques modern democracy as having become a new form of enslavement where the majority rules over the minority, effectively replacing the king with the state. He illustrates this by noting how regulations and social pressures now dictate what businesses can do and what individuals can say, stripping people of their autonomy under the guise of collective decision-making. While acknowledging that the United States retains some protections through the First Amendment, he warns that even there, the spirit of liberty is eroding as society increasingly accepts majoritarian control. Ultimately, his conclusion is radical and uncompromising: freedom means allowing everyone to speak and act freely, including those with whom we disagree or who we despise, because the only time force is justified is when an individual's rights are directly violated by another person's actions.
Read the full video transcript
So, what was the first law that was
passed that restricted the ability of
people to offend people in Europe?
It was a lot before woke. What was the
first law that was passed? And you'll
you'll probably be sympathetic to this
law
because because it's it's silencing
people we don't like, which
objectively we shouldn't like. But what
was it about?
Well, that's a long time ago. But in
modern times, what's the first law that
restricted free speech in Europe?
What is the one thing in in parts of
Europe that you argue for and you could
get fined, the government will come
after you?
Yeah, hate speech is
What's that?
Yeah, no. I mean, something very
specific.
So,
I'll just comment on his speech. What
does it mean to What does it mean to say
hate speech, right? I hate communists.
I really do.
And I hate fascists. I really do. Is it
okay for me to hate them?
Yeah. It's absolutely not just okay.
I think it's a virtue to hate communists
and fascists.
And I should be able to say, you guys
suck. You guys are evil. You guys are
immoral.
Are they going to be offended? Yeah.
Should we stop that? I mean, what does
hate mean?
Hate is an an emotion we feel against
something that threatens us. Hate is a
good thing, not a bad thing. It's a
survival mechanism. So, the idea of
banning hate speech is ridiculous. But
the first law that restricted speech in
Europe was a law against Holocaust
denial.
Now, Holocaust denial is evil. It's
wrong. It's stupid. It's ignorant.
But
you have a right to be ignorant, stupid,
and animal
as long as you don't hurt other people.
So, if you're willing to be for if
you're for free speech, for example, you
have to be for free speech.
All of it.
Including the stuff you really, really,
really hate. Like, I hate communists and
fascists. They have a right to speak.
And I have a right to
be hateful in my speech against them.
That's what freedom means.
So, again,
we like to be middle of the road on
everything.
I don't.
I'm radical
pretty much everything.
So, I believe that if you have free
speech, you have to let everybody speak.
Including people who are hateful,
including people who I don't like,
including people who I hate, including
people who objectively, without any
question, are lying,
or
deceiving, or are wrong on what they
say.
So, freedom
freedom means the absence.
Freedom means the absence of force.
Freedom means no coercion. No force, no
force inflicted on people who speak
stuff we don't like.
No force inflicted on people who
do things we don't like.
The only time force is legit, when is it
okay to punch somebody?
Self-defense. Absolutely.
Or in defense of others, but defense,
right? If somebody is attacking, we can
use force against the attacker.
So, that is the only time it's
appropriate to use force, right?
Now, what is the nature
What is the nature of government?
What is the essential nature of
government? Of course.
What government different
than
business, than regular interaction that
we have?
Well, somebody said it. The government
is the only
entity that is allowed to use force.
Right?
It has a monopoly over the use of force.
Always has. That's the nature of
government. In need The government is a
gun.
So, if we said freedom means
you can do whatever you want ex- except
violent you know, punch somebody else.
And it's only legitimate to use force in
self-defense, when is it only legitimate
for the government to use force?
When should the government use force?
>> When you break the law, in self-defense
or to
>> Well, depends on the law, right? If I
make a law that says you can't speak a
certain
opinion, then is that legitimate for the
government to use force then?
So, when is it legitimate for the
government to use force?
>> To protect the life of other people.
>> Yeah, so
you said before it's okay to use force
when it's in self-defense.
So, the government's job is to use force
to protect people.
In other words, in self-defense.
Now, what would that mean? If the
government only used force against
self-defense, what would the government
do?
Like
when you go to the doctor and and talk
to the doctor and you you know, cuz
you're sick and and you're not feeling
good. Uh does the government have is
there self-defense involved there?
And yet the government sticks its neck
in sticks its business in there and
tells the doctor what he can and cannot
say to you, what diagnosis, what
treatment he can and cannot give you.
But, that's not self-defense.
So, if the government should be limited
to self-defense,
right? Because that's what force is
limited to,
then the government has no business in
what, 90% of everything it does?
90% of the laws passed have nothing to
do with self-defense.
And yet, every law that's passed is
force.
Is force.
So,
we'll go back to what caused this
increase in wealth and income.
What caused it is freedom.
It's the establishment of country after
country after country where the
government was limited, limited
to protecting the rights of individuals.
And what do rights mean? We talk about
rights all the time, but rights mean
freedom.
Rights mean freedom of action.
The the idea that every individual is
sovereign. Every individual has the
right to choose their own values and
pursue their own path, and nobody has a
right to use force on them
in contradiction with their own views,
their own ideas, their own motivations.
So, what happened is, you know, I like
there's a particular date that I like
when this starts going up like that.
What What do you think the date would
be? What would be a good date to start?
>> 1776
>> 1776.
Somebody is uh Somebody's been cheating.
You've heard me do this before.
Cuz that was the quickest 1776 ever got
from an audience. All right. Yeah, 1776.
Why 1776? There's three reasons.
The Declaration of Independence is the
obvious one. Let me leave that to last
cuz I want to talk about that a little
bit. But the other two reasons are one,
what book, famous book, was published in
1776?
Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, right?
I would say you should all read it, but
it's actually pretty hard to read. It's
not an easy read. So, you know, if
you're really motivated, go read it.
It's a good book. But beware, it's it's
not easy.
Um seven The Wealth of Nations was a
book about capitalism.
It was a book about the value of free
markets, about the value of free trade.
It destroyed mercantilism.
According to The Wealth of Nations, what
is the
best tariff rate that every country
should have?
>> Zero.
Adam Smith proves that zero tariff rate
is the exactly the right tariff.
If you want to benefit your own country.
Anytime politicians tell you, "We No, WE
NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES by raising
tariffs." Point to Wealth of Nations.
The arguments against it are all in The
Wealth of Nations. It's only 250 years
old, so maybe it takes like 500 years
for politicians to actually understand
it.
Sorry. I know there's some politicians
in the room.
But, uh
reality is it's been proved. Zero
tariffs is the only rational rate of
tariff.
In spite of everything you hear from
Donald Trump and every other politician
out there, they're actually hurting
their own country when they raise their
own tariffs.
That was Adam Smith.
What else happened in 1776? Second thing
that happened was the first use of the
steam engine
for industry, for actual in a factory.
So, you get the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution. Somebody said
Industrial Revolution. And the third is
the Declaration of Independence. And why
is the Declaration of Independence
important? I think it's important. I
think the 4th of July should be
celebrated as a global holiday, not just
an American holiday, because I think the
whole globe benefited from it. The
Declaration of Independence is a
declaration of freedom.
Not just American freedom. It's not
about declaring independence from the UK
from the from the British.
It's about declaring the independence of
the individual from the state, of the
individual from his duty
to the collective. It's about the
individual freeing himself.
Declaration of Independence says you
have a right. Every single individual on
planet Earth, not just Americans. Every
single individual has a right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now, what does life mean? What does a
right to life mean?
What does it mean to say you have a
right to life?
>> Self-governance.
>> Yeah, self
you have a right. In other words, you
have the freedom to act and think and
speak whatever you want.
It's nobody else's business
what you do,
unless you're violating their rights.
And the only way to violate somebody
else's rights is with force.
You have a right to liberty,
which means you have the right to act
and pursue your values and speak and
write and publish your stuff
free of force, free of coercion.
And you have a right to pursue your
happiness.
Pursue your happiness.
That's very individualistic, right? Only
you know what's going to make you happy.
And again, as long as you're not
violating somebody else's rights, as
long as you're not forcing using force
on other people, nobody ever the right
to tell you you can't do that.
Or here's what you should do because
this will make you happy. Avoid it, this
other stuff. Can't do that.
I mean, the Declaration of Independence
is a declaration of freedom. It's a
declaration of independence of the
individual from
fill in the blank. Whoever governed used
to govern What Who used to govern the
individual? So, before like before the
this massive increase in wealth, before
the Declaration of Independence, who did
your life belong to?
The nobles, the king, who else?
What's that?
Owners of land. Who did your life Who
And even the noble the owners of land,
who did their life belong to?
The king, right? Somebody above them.
There's always somebody above you.
Who else did your life belong to?
The church, absolutely, religion. Your
life belonged to God and the church, and
the church governed and told you what to
do.
I mean, the tribe, the you know, the the
the the the witch doctor, the the
church, which is very similar. Um the
the king.
Your life didn't belong to you.
What the Declaration OF INDEPENDENCE
SAYS, "NO, that's all wrong. Your life
belongs to you, not to them.
You get to run your life,
not them."
What is the modern version?
This is like
This is the most controversial thing
I'll say probably today to you.
What is the modern version
of king, tribe, church, all of that? Who
Who does your life belong to today, like
in no way?
Well, politicians are just They were
just reflective of the culture, right?
So, you know, don't blame politicians
for stuff. Blame yourselves.
Anything politicians do is the fault of
the people, right? We get the
politicians we deserve. Like in America,
I I mean, it hurts me to say this, but
we deserved Donald Trump.
I'm not a fan. You might not have
noticed, but I'm not a fan of Trump. And
and we deserved uh, Obama, and we
deserved Biden. We deserved these
people, right? Cuz we we voted for them,
and we couldn't find anybody better.
So, now, what's the what's the what's
the authority that basically dictates
your life, and your life doesn't really
belong to you, it belongs to them?
>> Democracy.
>> Yeah, democracy.
>> The state.
>> The Well, democracy. The majority.
The individual doesn't matter anymore.
What matters is what the the majority
believes. So, if the majority thinks
that hate speech should be banned, it's
banned.
If the majority thinks that the
government should make iPhones, then the
government will make iPhones. If the
majority thinks that
I don't know, they just don't like you.
Then they'll find a way to get rid of
you.
I mean, democracy, pure democracy,
majoritarian democracy, where the
majority always governs,
is anti-individual liberty. It's
anti-individual freedom.
Because it basically says the group, the
majority of the group gets to decide
what an individual can or cannot do.
If you don't believe me, you know, try
starting a business,
and, you know, say, "I'm I'm I'm just
going to do my thing." And, you know,
the majority will come in and say, "No,
no, you've got Here are the regulations.
Here are the controls. Here are the
things you have to abide by." You are
not free.
But, you're not enslaved to a king.
You're not enslaved to a tribal leader
or witch doctor anymore. Now, you're
enslaved, particularly in Europe, but
also in the United States, to democracy,
and there's nothing to protect you.
At least in the US, we have a
constitution and a bill of rights,
which a little bit protects us.
But, you don't have those protections.
This is why you can have speech hate
speech laws in Europe, and we we don't
have hate speech laws in America, cuz we
have a
you know, the First Amendment.
We lucked out.
Nobody in America believes in the First
Amendment anymore, but it's in that
ancient document, so we're cool.
We have a court that still upholds it
sometimes, when it feels like it.
So, when I say freedom, I mean freedom.