Our Relationship with Paleo Libertarinism Ft Sola

Speaker 1 00:00:00

What's up, weirdos? Hey, me shit. I got me a little something rolled. The lights are low and we're about to chop it up with Abigail on the Manic Pixie Weirdo podcast, a safe space for weirdos of all shapes, sizes, colors and creeds to relax and speak their peace. So grab your glass of wine and grass the chief as I get off the mic so the main weirdo can speak. Peace. Peace.

Speaker 2 00:00:21

God.

Speaker 3 00:00:23

What is up, weirdos? You're listening to the I'm Abigail, your host, and this is the podcast where we talk about all the different kinds of relationships that we have in our lives. And this week we are joined by Solar, and he is here to talk about his relationship, or our relationship rather, with libertarianism. But first, sola tell everybody where they can find you and a little bit about you.

Speaker 2 00:00:46

Hi. I'm solar. Require in law on the civilian side and I'm found on Twitter is mainly my main source where I post political stuff. That's the main one I could find. I'm planning on branching out, but as of this moment, just Twitter. But it's at Luke's above. That's where you find me.

Speaker 3 00:01:07

Cool. So let's just, I guess, dive right into it. Could you tell us what libertarianism is like, the ideology behind it?

Speaker 2 00:01:20

Libertarianism in itself was originally an ideology brought up through the French Revolution, which the French Revolution was, I believe, one of the biggest pinnacle of Western culture because it bestowed tons of different ideologies among people. And one of those most prominent was libertarianism and lazi affair economics. In a sense, libertarianism has been an official, quote unquote political party in America since the early 1970s, and it's currently has been branched out and there's parties to this day in politics.

Speaker 3 00:01:59

Okay, please correct me if I'm wrong when I'm saying this, but as I understand, libertarianism is basically the idea that I can swing my arms, right? And I can swing my arms for as long as I want, as hard as I want, as fast as I want, whatever, but the minute that my arm hits somebody else, it's not okay.

Speaker 2 00:02:22

And there's a problem that is a key philosophy in libertarianism called non aggression principle. And I'd be happy to go into that later, but yeah, there's also tons of different variations and forms to it. The form I most accurately subscribe to is called paleo libertarianism. It's libertarianism with the economist of Austrian economics like Rothbard and Hopa. And those people basically came to the conclusion that the economy is such a behemoth of a creature that it's unpredictable and hard to control, mainly because of the human factor. And the best way to stabilize it and make sure things don't get chaotic or lead to too much control or too much anarchy is by having a basic bedrock principle of a common faith or common good goal. And they subscribe it to be religion, but it's also, in different views, pushed in through different things. My personal view, I also believe that having not really religious values as a whole, but morally virtuous values of helping each other out and your fellow man is what is necessarily best to be successful in society.

Speaker 3 00:03:29

Oh, wow. I didn't realize that there were all these different branches. What drew you specifically to the Paleo libertarianism? What was it about it that you were like, yes, this makes sense.

Speaker 2 00:03:51

It's kind of a bit of a story, but my family is from Cuba and I'm a first generation American, and I went through the whole phase of listening to talking points really hard, right leaning things, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, do everything yourself type thing. The American dream, basically on steroids, is what a lot of immigrant families believe in. I grew up with that notion. I eventually fell out of politics. I got back into it, and I realized that although my family's heart was in the right place, it's still, I believe, cynical and objectivist in a way where it's only valuing, like yourself and your family above everyone else. Paleo libertarianism came when I recently rediscovered my faith in Cavalicism and start also reading a lot more in philosophy. And I had writers such as Hobbes, Emmanuel Kahnt, I ran a few people bounce around and their ideologies. Plus, like I stated earlier, hanserman Hoppa and Maria Rothbard really inspired me to go to it's called the School of Austrian Economics, Myces institute. And those people have different views varying all the way from anarchical capitalism to, like I described earlier, Paleolibritarianism. But that's how I got to my view.

Speaker 3 00:05:10

Oh, wow. Okay, that's really interesting. Could you talk a little bit about the concept of libertarianism as it applies to a people? Is it more of a community based thing then, or is it like because libertarianism seems to me to be very sort of like the ultimate individualistic ideology, but I didn't realize that there was this whole other portion of it, just.

Speaker 2 00:05:44

Like any other political ideology. There's tons of sub branches and anything like that. The best way I describe it to people is imagine the entire root of politics. The giant tree and the center of the tree, the roots, are all philosophy, different moral philosophies of different types. And I constantly host debates against Communists all the time. And one of the main key notions that we end up agreeing on is that at the end of the day, libertarian ideals as a whole rely solely on the individual, and values of individual is the most important person. That's the person we need to have the most priority over. Well, ideologies inspired by Marks, Lenin, Mao, are more focused on the community as a sense. But I picture it like I said earlier, I picture is a tree where philosophy is the roots and the branches going out are different political theories and ideologies.

Speaker 3 00:06:37

Okay. Yeah, I like that. So I have, like, a lot of questions. I'm sorry, I'm just trying to organize my thoughts. Could you talk a little bit about what is it non aggressive non aggression principle?

Speaker 2 00:07:00

Yes.

Speaker 3 00:07:01

Could you talk a little bit about that?

Speaker 2 00:07:03

Sure. The non aggression principle is universally a core root for all that's. The one thing all libertarians share in common is an aggression principle. It's a philosophical stance that basically states that you should be allowed to do whatever you deem necessary for yourself as long as you are not harming others. And where this gets into it, where it also more spires. My view is that a good example I give to people. If you have your own personal property and you're on your own personal land and someone tries to break in and steal your property and harm you, you're allowed to prevent that from happening and stop them from harming yourself and use self defense. That is okay under non aggression principle because someone's trying to violate your rights, your natural innate rights first. And for a libertarian system, what most of our, like I guess quote unquote dream for this to be is our laws and our policies to be revolved around its core ideas. Does doing this violate someone's individual liberties and rights?

Speaker 3 00:08:09

Does it? That's a very interesting question. I don't know. I assume that's why it's being debated.

Speaker 2 00:08:18

Yeah, it's constant debate on as far the main thing that's constantly being debated in the spaces now is what exactly are our rights to some things? Like I said earlier, communists or their ideals believe you have a right to food, which I would morally disagree with. And then there's other stances saying like you have a right for your own living spaces and quarters and I believe that's something that you work and you apply for and you earn not by getting necessarily mandating people to do it for you.

Speaker 3 00:08:53

So you don't believe that everybody has the right to food. What does that mean?

Speaker 2 00:08:58

What I mean by that is that someone should not be able to just waltz into necessarily someone's personal establishment, their own business and say like hey, give me a free meal. Because it's kind of a quote by Friedrich IJK that there's no such thing as a free meal. Everything comes at a cost, everything comes up labor, everything comes with basic systems stating like hey, you need to work for a certain thing and I am all advocating for in the event that you physically cannot be able to get those things like work for it. Example if you're in like your late eighty s and you feasibly cannot get food in a sense economically I'm okay with having minimal systems where it's baseline is minimal government, but you have private entities also helping out of that providing services for those people.

Speaker 3 00:09:48

Oh wow, okay. So like food banks and stuff to.

Speaker 2 00:09:55

An extent food banks necessarily in the American aspect get almost what's the word I'm looking for taking advantage of. I'd say best of because it's a system that incentivizes a small group I'm not saying all of them, but a small group of people to be able to ride along that line saying like, hey, I'm going to keep this thing. I'm going to keep this status economically, or like, I'm going to keep this annual payroll because that's going to constantly give me free meals. Free meals, free meals. I feel like the intent of food banks were good at first, they made sense, but I feel like a lot of them could be not revolutionized reinvented in a sense where it could be more efficient and more effective to help people who actually need help and stop people from taking advantage of those things.

Speaker 3 00:10:46

Okay, so, like programs like put in place or something or just like restructuring, like how it's Done or whatever.

Speaker 2 00:10:56

A mix of both structuring and programs. Because something a lot of people don't know is that a lot of the food banks we currently have still have the outdated systems of the post grade depression where you had figures like the New Deal program coming in and implementing a lot of government intervention to help people. The only problem with this and the problem I constantly have in history is when you let a government entity reach out and get into people's personal lives and their business, what that later creates is them not wanting to give power up. And we've seen this throughout history and are a good example is the US patriot act after post 911 where government entities were basically saying, oh, look at this great tragedy and grievance, let's take advantage of the people and violate their rights, allowing them to have a list of things to consider people domestic terrorists. A good thing that was later leaked from these documents was one was that if you had only $300 worth of food in your pantry and they were able to inspect that, that could be a possible clause of you being a domestic terrorist. I disagree with that statement. It should not be the government's business how much food you have in your house or what your private property is.

Speaker 3 00:12:08

Okay, so I feel like we can also agree on the idea well, not agree, but I can get on board with this idea about bodily autonomy.

Speaker 2 00:12:22

For bodily autonomy?

Speaker 3 00:12:24

Yeah.

Speaker 2 00:12:27

That'S always been a topic that's constantly sorry, I'm moving right now, getting my charger. That's been a topic that's always brought up in the libertarian community as a big issue because it's one of those really complex issues where you could have either opinion for it. You'll have one sides of libertarians arguing that as a violation to the woman's natural right of body autonomy, but then you'll have another side, more of my side, I guess, right leaning, quote unquote libertarians who believe that, well, that's violating the child's right to life. Therefore you are having an aggression against a child like that. Me personally, I do not have an absolute view on the issue of abortion because I feel like it is a very nuanced and complex topic of tons of gray area. Do I necessarily believe that abortions are good? No. I feel like they're immoral and you're taking the life of a human life. But at the same time I'm not going to try to advocate to push things to stop a woman who is raped from having a rapist baby like that. And that's one of those things that I still keep reading on more and it's like one of those topics I'm kind of always stuck on, if that makes any sense.

Speaker 3 00:13:39

Oh yeah, I just meant more like for the vaccine and stuff like that. Did you think that the vaccine should have been mandated or I just thought like I was just thinking more of like as government overreach for like bodily autonomy, like infringing on people's rights to like choose for their like for themselves and their children, that kind of thing.

Speaker 2 00:14:02

I feel like for instance of, let's say public education or stuff like that. Or where there was a lot of places where it was a public entity or public government building where they mandate, like, you're not allowed to come in here unless you have proof of vaccination, stuff like that. Then I disagree with that, because that's a public service that should not be taken out away from people because they do not have a preference of medical conditioning. Or taking another thing though, where it's kind of like a double edged sword on that is I feel like private businesses, if they want to keyword without government influence, want to necessarily say you're not allowed to my store or my establishment unless you have proof of vaccination, they should be allowed to do that. But if it's like a government establishment, I disagree heavily on that.

Speaker 3 00:14:50

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Yeah, that makes sense. So what about things okay, so like big spectrum things like minimum wage or something like that. How do paleo libertarians feel about that and what are the views for minimum wage.

Speaker 2 00:15:20

Necessarily? I am not a huge fan of minimum wage because I believe that if you were able to implement a system of basic supply and demand where you would have an example. If I go to a business and I'm saying, I'm looking to get a job here, and they say, okay, your hourly wage is going to be $3.50. That business is not going to stay long. It's not going to stay open long because not many people are going to one work for there. So you lost your labor or two. Want to buy things over there. That's the two basic things. And like I said earlier, supply and demand. So people would be going naturally to the more competitive paying, the ones that have more bonuses, the one that has more benefits like that and to have a minimum wage. I feel like necessarily just incentivizes or encourages businesses, like fast food businesses, for example, to set a minimal bar and then have a 50 cent different from each other like that, because that does not spur competition. That makes people companies settle at a bottom. Like, all right, here's how the lowest we can get, we're going to get there compared to if you didn't have a minimum wage. And companies actually have to be self aware and be like, okay, we need to master rates of what current inflation is. We need to actually check on things like this to see if we could hire people who would want to work here at a working wage.

Speaker 3 00:16:43

Okay, so I'm gathering a lot of information. This is really interesting. It feels like there's a lot of faith in people within paleo libertarianism. There's a lot of faith in sort of like people being able to sort of regulate themselves and are intelligent enough to regulate themselves and that people just need sort of like the freedom to do so.

Speaker 2 00:17:15

In a way, I'd agree with you. Yes. Because, like I said earlier, with thought philosophers, economists such as Hamilton, Hoppa or Rothbard, they agreed that for their theory of the most functioning society where people have the most freedom is through allowing people to do things, but also acknowledging that people's religious or faith, values and their morals are what is the bottom rock, the foundation of a society. So I personally believe, and a lot of paleo libertarians also believe that people should be morally virtuous and help out one another and lead by example. So it's okay to have minimal safety nets. I'm not saying abandon all safety nets. So if you're, like, starving on a street, tough luck just waiting to rely on someone else. What I'm saying is that I want us to be in a society and a function where people being homeless is seen as unthinkable. It's like, why would you want someone to starve and suffer like that? People, through their own altruism and good, would help them without government telling them they need to help them without government interference, stuff like that.

Speaker 3 00:18:25

Yeah, that's just like a lot of faith in people. I don't know, I'm kind of romanticizing that a little bit. It feels very, like, hopeful as far as how much faith. I feel like you're putting in into just human beings as individuals and then collectively as a whole to be able to maintain sort of like this code of just like, everybody not everybody fend for themselves, but help each other be a part of, like contribute.

Speaker 2 00:19:09

The key part of that, though, is that people would help on the thing free will. And that's the whole point and premise of Haley libertarianism is that it's the freedom of the individual. What I feel like doesn't make my ideology or I guess as you said, romanticized version, is that a romanticized version to me would be a society that has absolutes example, absolute anarchy. If you ever spoken to any anarchist, the way they try to pitch and sell their thing is there's no rules. You could do whatever you want, it's complete freedom. And to me, I disagree with that statement because that's also not going to create either one, functioning effectiveness, and two, no repercussions for people's actions in a way if they are harming others. That's the biggest thing I disagree with. And where I cite minimum involvement and basic necessity things goes back to Thomas Hobbes Leviathan theory. Are you familiar with that?

Speaker 3 00:20:08

No. Could you explain?

Speaker 2 00:20:10

Sure. So Leviathan theory is an ideal kind of like a thought project brought up by a German philosopher around 1700, if I'm correct on that date. Sorry about that. But it's basically the notion stating that humans and ourselves, we naturally crave two things. One, we crave community, and two, we crave a disciplined system of order or rules. Above and throughout human history we've been finding patterns of that where there's rules communities. Rules communities throughout time, all the way back to the Paleolithic era where there were rules communities. If you were not a hunter, like going out and hunting at the rest and you were like a male in the village, you were kicked out of their little tribe village thing. If you were a female not gathering food or such and you were just lazing about, you would be removed from the village. And a more recent example would be, I guess even the Abrahamic religion during that time, their faith, their Leviathan washing over them was the ideology of religion. And by Thomas Hobbes logic is only natural that humans crave this sense of authority. My argument for that though is in the same argument Hobbs made, is we cannot destroy natural authority. It will always be created, it's always going to be fair. Our question is how can we limit it as much and keep it quote unquote, caged, where it's to a sense where it's almost helping people in a way and not harming them. It's not overreaching and overbearing and crushing them.

Speaker 3 00:21:47

Okay, would that overreach be from say, a body like the government that we would create?

Speaker 2 00:21:57

Okay, like I said, the paleolithics, it was the chieftains and their tribes. For the Abrahamic era of religion, it was their god and then their kings and emperors. Even to the medieval age it was a feudal system. And then now it's just a different, it's the same thing. It's a Leviathan with a different name. And our Leviathan today is government.

Speaker 3 00:22:18

Okay, so tell me more about these social programs, like the limited social programs, I guess. Tell me about that, but also tell me how would this work on a mass scale in some place like say, America? How would you do that? It just seems like so big of a task.

Speaker 2 00:22:43

I'll answer the first question you had about the social programs. One, like I stated earlier and this podcast, was that I would like to find a way to reinvent it and see a system that is fair and just in it and that does not violate people's rights on things. So, like, earlier, like I said, it was just mainly a lot of revisionist of the Hoover era, a lot of revisionist of the FDR era, throwing most of that stuff out and replacing it with a better system where people aren't purposely trying to, quote unquote, time their annual income so they could keep staying on food stamps or two programs. I would like to remove that system or replace it for more efficient, a more better one, one that's more centered on smaller local communities. My second point I would like to make for you saying how can we effectively implement this on a national scale of the United States? One would be to like really in my whole ideology, start small, be a genuine person, encourage others through acts of kindness, altruism and goodwill, and start with a small community. Whether that be a group of friends you have, whether that be a church, a mosque, any of those places like that of worship, where you're just helping each other as your main goal, and you're agreeing that we should naturally help each other without having government intervention, that's on the social scale, how you can fix it on a more government scale. One of my main points that I would like to address is decreasing and taking away a lot of the military bases we have stationed across all over the world. What a lot of people don't know is almost Imperialist Vision, where we have military bases stationed in nearly all of Europe. We have military bases all over the east. It's almost like we're a giant watchdog. We become of a leviathan, a sore for these other countries. I feel like over gradual change, not just pulling the rug off the floor instantly, but gradual change. We start pulling away from these things, taking troops out, decommissioning military bases or even better, trading them over, taking our gear out, keeping the structure and selling them to these countries so they could establish their military presence there and they could watch over themselves. Because a lot of, especially in the European scene, a lot of our resources, we're not really getting a, quote unquote, fair deal. They're not equally paying us for our time there or they're not equally paying us for our distribution and teaching of their soldiers. And it's kind of going back and pulling back gradually and allocating that money back into more community centers like that or back into the economy instead of one. It's a prevent inflation and it will also prevent it also encourage better things like we were spoken about earlier, those food programs where it's more specific and niche to help out smaller communities of areas. How does that answer your question?

Speaker 3 00:25:42

Yeah, no that was really throw. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, I guess that's the next question is, what would it take? And in order to do that, that seems good. That seems like something that should be happening. You know what I'm saying? Oh, no, go ahead.

Speaker 2 00:26:08

The thing that a lot of people seem in any ideology that almost irritates me is they want that instant reaction, that instant response. Now, we need instant revolution. We need instant change. We need all these things. But what they don't know understand. If you look at their history, change happens gradually over time, and that's really what paleo libertarianism advocates for. We gradually revert from almost empire back to a smaller, more quote unquote, family based and community based area where we're helping one another. And by doing so and taking that money out and things there's no need for us to be in, that could help it.

Speaker 3 00:26:46

Yeah, definitely. Okay, so let's just say, hypothetically speaking, all these things happen, right, and everything like, what does that world look like? If it's all going according to plan and we've sped up into the future and we live in this perfect, what does that look like?

Speaker 2 00:27:13

It definitely wouldn't be perfect because I feel like perfect is borderline utopia, and I don't want to sell an ideology of utopianism to anyone because I feel like that's being flawed. I feel like general rule of thumb if anyone promises their ideology would lead to utopia, they're lying. And it's just feasibly impossible because it dwells into the absolutes. Obviously, there may still be some issues. There may be some newer problems that come along through that time. But what I want us to do is in the system, like we said, if you were to go fast forward, I want people to have one thing, one thing that's inalienable. Above all, I want them to have freedom. I want them to have the freedom of the choices of what to do. If someone wants to open up their own small mom and pop shop business, they are more than happy to and more than welcome to. If someone wants to be a stay at home husband or stay at home wife, they're more than welcome to more than happy to. If someone wants to be just a traveler and explore the United States, they should be more than welcome to more than happy to things like this. As long as, like I said earlier, you're not violating anyone's non aggression principle, you're not violating that. I see no issue with if you want to be this hippie in the woods, like, doing shrooms, go ahead. If you want to be a big community leader and helping in service, by all means do that as well.

Speaker 3 00:28:33

Okay? So basically it's the ultimate, like, I don't really care what you do, just don't hurt anybody kind of a thing.

Speaker 2 00:28:44

Necessarily that. And I feel like if I may bring up too, something that gets left out a lot is things that regard environment.

Speaker 3 00:28:52

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker 2 00:28:53

Yeah, that's another big, I guess thing that stumps libertarians for environment. I believe that we should have definitely laws in place that are a violation of non aggression principle to prevent, let's say, mass deforestation or mass like strip mining, things like that. And if they could have a direct, peer reviewed, science proven like response, this is hurting not only the world, but this is hurting these areas, this is hurting America, this is polluting the river bank, stuff like that. It should not be legally allowed. And someone asked me, okay, but how does that violate non aggression principle? And I tell him this analogy all the time. You are a single father or mother with a child living at your house, and your house is right next to a creek, like literally in your backyard. Your neighbor up the street is on his own personal property. But what he is doing is he's getting buckets upon buckets of oil, chemicals, things harmful and pouring them down to water. Your child is playing in that creek, in that water system like that, and now he's sick. That neighbor has violated non aggression principle because what he is doing, even though it's on his own property, is harming everyone else. Is that right?

Speaker 3 00:30:07

No, that does that makes a lot of sense. Okay.

Speaker 2 00:30:10

Where I stand on like environmentalist argument on that, if it's harming something like even the ecosystem that can harm others, then I disagree with it. Mass hunting to the point of extinction, mass deforestation, I'm against all of that.

Speaker 3 00:30:24

Okay, cool. So what about guns? What's up with guns? How do we feel about guns? Like good, bad, don't care, doesn't matter. I don't know. Is there a set like way of thinking for this or is it just kind of you know what I'm saying?

Speaker 2 00:30:52

For the traditional libertarian, as in the Gaston flag waving, the Constitutionalist, those people, they borderline worship firearms. And I in a way understand why is because their entire political ideology is based off of a 1776, you know, founding forefathers plan work and everything. And they always cite while the British tried to take our weapons once, therefore we kept their guns and we fought back. And that's why they're very heavily on pro guns. I personally have no issue or deem no issue in the possession or ownership of firearms. I don't see that as being necessarily an issue. But I won't go so extreme to, I guess, advocate to an absolute about those things if necessarily the way that my other fellow libertarians would.

Speaker 3 00:31:46

Yeah, so that seems to be coming up a lot, though. Is that like these absolutes I find that incredibly frustrating with just today's sort of climate in general, it seems like we've sort of talked ourselves into these absolute corners, if that makes sense.

Speaker 2 00:32:02

I completely agree with you. It's almost like a plague in a sense. And that's. Really, especially when I got into philosophy, I always saw in any instance absolutes never work because they'd always find a way where there's always going to be exception or reasoning, where absolutes should not be needed.

Speaker 3 00:32:20

Right.

Speaker 2 00:32:21

That's just unfortunate. And you are right. A lot of political commentary now is this tribalistic my team, your team, red team, blue team type stuff where if either your one side will call each other a fascist, the other side will call them child groomers, all that stuff like that. It's very barbaric and it takes away the dialogue and the altruism of helping each other regardless of their identities.

Speaker 3 00:32:45

Right. And it's just very frustrating. It's just highly, highly frustrating. And it's so prevalent nowadays. It's everywhere. It's in the media. It's like every time you turn on your television, it's on your phone, it's everywhere. It's so frustrating. But do you have any good resources where people can find good information for news or whatever?

Speaker 2 00:33:16

I have two really solutions for that. One is to continue using the resource or the news organization you are now, but acknowledge that these people have a certain bias. So don't only watch Fox News and say these people tell the absolute truth. They only tell the truth and not acknowledge they have a really right leaning bias. Same for CNN. They'll go and preach CNN and say like, these people have the truth, the absolute truth, and then ignore their left leaning bias. You could acknowledge different medias and perspectives and say like, okay, these people have this view. These people have this view. Let me try to find something in the middle. And leading into that, I guess another source I would recommend for everyone listening. It's called middle ground. It's an entire site that algorithmically checks on people's either profiles, let's say, a politician on Twitter, and it shows like what they retweet. It shows like the people they support and they advocate for. And it has kind of like a very simplistic chart at the bottom saying this person's views are more right leaning or more left leaning order more centered. And you can do this with journalists. If you see an individual journalist article, you could do that fine. But like I say, I always say it best myself and try to encourage it to people. Definitely never keep yourself an echo chamber. Always keep going out and trying to understand more views and learn more because at the end of the day, if we're going to get out of this together, it's by helping one another and learning and understanding other people's views and perspectives.

Speaker 3 00:34:48

Yeah, I totally agree. That's kind of one of the reasons why I want to hold conversations like this is because I don't really know anything about libertarianism other than what I told you. It's very interesting to me because I just simply don't know anything at all about it.

Speaker 2 00:35:09

No, it's completely okay. And I'm glad and I'm happy that you invited me and I'm able to speak.

Speaker 3 00:35:14

Oh, I'm very glad that you're here. I do have several more questions though.

Speaker 2 00:35:18

Keep going. I'm here as long as you need me.

Speaker 3 00:35:21

Okay, so I assume there's no within paleo libertarianism, you don't have to subscribe to a specific faith in order to be considered paleo libertarian. You don't necessarily have to be Christian. And also does that make sense? I assume that's true. I'm sure that's, like, it doesn't really matter.

Speaker 2 00:35:56

I would say that the most paleo libertarians I've interacted with have been of the Abrahamic faith, but that Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, all those fun. But that doesn't necessarily like gatekeeper keep people out who are, let's say, Muslim people who are, let's say, Hindu or Shia or any of those groups like that. It doesn't necessarily gatekeeping keep them out as long as your moral ideology and you could even be atheist and subscribe to Paleoliberitarianism, if your moral ideology advocates for helping others and being altruistic and good in your actions and deeds, then I see no problem with you being someone who subscribes to this ideology.

Speaker 3 00:36:41

Okay, cool. Yeah, cool. So it just doesn't matter then, as long as you basically believe in the same idea of acting altruistically and basically just being like a good person?

Speaker 2 00:36:56

Yeah, that's really one of the days. I know it sounds funny, but we've gotten to a point in politics where saying things like having a whole ideology revolves around being a good person is considered radical. And people would see paleo libertarianism and think this is some niche ideology that's extremely bigoted or all these things, and we're extremely against violence and harming other. We find really no point in having racial ideals and believing in racial superiority over a different people or a different group. As long as our baseline is if your ideas are morally virtuous and help others, then there's no problem with that.

Speaker 3 00:37:38

Cool. Did you try other branches of libertarianism before you got to paleo libertarianism?

Speaker 2 00:37:51

Yes, of course I did. Like I said at the beginning, I kind of went down track. So I used to be a very hard right hitting conservative, and that was just through my views on my family influencing any of them coming out of authoritarian country, basically Cuba, and eventually I love them to death. But I stepped out and I tried to look at other perspectives and different views, and I got really into history and really into literature and reading. And throughout history, something I noticed was that big governments don't usually lead to good things. It's quite the opposite. And I've kind of always been against that notion that we need a giant government controlling our movements and ideologies and telling us where to go, what to do type thing. And I feel like the best solution is to let people just do what they want to do. But after my whole conservative phase and I went through history and stuff, I decided to say I was independent, didn't know what yet. Then I found libertarian and then I just subscribed to the baseline libertarian ideology. And I unfortunately ended up not enjoying it as much because they had things in there that was similar to being okay with corporatism. And I'll get into that later if you'd like me to, or getting into topics such as age of consent, what they were talking about, just like really weird things like that. And it just didn't reflect my moral values. And it didn't really reflect to an extent my economic values either. They were just basic lazi of fair economics. And unfortunately at the time that was a good system. But in today's modern era, I feel like it lost its purpose and doesn't work as well.

Speaker 3 00:39:39

Oh yeah, totally. Could you expand on the corporate test thing?

Speaker 2 00:39:49

Yes. A big thing, not morally, but economically, that separates paleo libertarians from the different groups is we are extremely, almost feverishly against corporations. And what I mean by that is that we believe in individualism in a free market. And something that most libertarians turn a blind eye to is corporations or corporations taking control. A good example for this being Amazon, okay, if you have a giant corporation controlling the free market, it's no longer a free market. It's them dictating the prices of what they want to dictate, controlling things they want control. Throughout history, we've seen this through Cornelius in the steel industry. We saw that through Rockefeller in this oil industry. We saw this through Vanderbilt in his railway industry, where you had these typhoons dominating a market and giving people basically borderline slave labor. I just disagree with that notion entirely. And I feel like necessarily for us to have a true free market, it is okay, the one exception for government or one of the very few exceptions of government to step in and quote, unquote, stop these things from being created. And Teddy Roosevelt did a phenomenal job of doing this when he saw his corporations. And he put a stop at that by just setting a basic simple groundwork and a rule and taking people to court and having their companies broken up the smaller ones and helping smaller areas like that.

Speaker 3 00:41:18

Yeah. Wasn't that part of the new Deal?

Speaker 2 00:41:22

After a new deal. That was Teddy Roosevelt.

Speaker 3 00:41:24

Right? I'm an idiot. I'm so sorry.

Speaker 2 00:41:26

It's okay. Yeah.

Speaker 3 00:41:30

Okay. You tried all these different kinds of versions of libertarianism, I guess, and then you found paleolibritarianism. Could you just very quickly, is there too many for you to name or could you name like, a couple just.

Speaker 2 00:41:51

So people know paleolibritarians?

Speaker 3 00:41:55

No, of like, the other types of libertarianism.

Speaker 2 00:41:57

Oh, Christ. Okay, so 1 minute. I actually have something saved on this.

Speaker 3 00:42:06

You don't have to name all of them. You can just name it.

Speaker 2 00:42:08

No, I have something saved. I have a file saved for this conversation. Yeah, just for us, like talking and.

Speaker 3 00:42:15

Things what is up, you guys?

Speaker 4 00:42:17

I wanted to talk to you a little bit about our sponsor for this episode, newsletter. It's an audio app for iOS and Android where they basically take articles from all over the world and all the trending topics that are on the Web at any given moment. And it reads them to you in like a natural voice, like a human being would.

Speaker 3 00:42:36

It's basically the first time in the.

Speaker 4 00:42:39

History of the Internet where the entire web becomes listenable.

Speaker 3 00:42:42

It's really cool, you guys.

Speaker 4 00:42:43

They have all different kinds of articles.

Speaker 3 00:42:45

From all different kinds of topics so.

Speaker 4 00:42:47

That you can stop scrolling and start listening, which I really love. You can follow any topic, all the topics, whatever topic you want to talk about or listen about from Sports, Science, Bitcoin, even the Kardashians, like everybody, they have all the latest articles and it reads them to you. So it's super easy. They also have podcasts, which is why I'm talking to you guys about it, because our podcast, along with podcasts from over 50 other countries are on the app.

Speaker 3 00:43:14

So that's really, really cool.

Speaker 4 00:43:16

You can start listening there as well. It can download and use Newsly for free right now at www dot newsley me. Or you can use this link in the description and when you use the promo code, p one X one E p zero D-C-A-S-T that will give you a free month of premium subscription to Newsley. So go check it out, you guys. And thank you so much to Newsletter for sponsoring this episode.

Speaker 2 00:43:45

Okay, I got it. Here. So they are, I guess, briefly explaining some of them. There's the Iron Rand objectivist, Oliver, libertarians. And they based most of their works and things on the Russian philosopher Iron Rand and her books atlas Shrugged and The Fountain Head. Her whole philosophy that is on Objectivism is that we should do only what is good for ourselves and we should not care about anything else. This ideology puts ourselves above others and while we're framing in the parts of the law so she would argue that let's say if there was a homeless man on the street and you gave the homeless person money, you would not necessarily do that to help the homeless person. You do it because it made yourself feel better and it revolves around the self. Another one is, I guess, if you want to include them, it's kind of a new term that I find funny, but conservative libertarians. Yeah. The reason I find these people a bit of a joke is because they contradict each other. They advocate for having a strong military force and just lacks policies economically and like a strong, almost impenetrable border and things like this. And why I find that contradicting is that you're not taking that money and you're giving it to the people. You're putting it back into the government and you're expanding on it. And I find it almost laughable like that as an ideology. And I'm sorry for anyone who's conservative libertarian, it's just find a light, please. And then there's one more. It's like agro libertarian, which is the group of people who believe it's okay to have laws in place that necessarily prevent certain markets from being around. So like a drug trade or any markets like that. But it sounds good on paper. But the whole motive for them doing this is very, I guess, cynical and sadistic to me because they say they want a black market because it would make that black market economy prices go up and it will fuel things. So they are completely okay with having laws in place for child trafficking. And they're like and you think on the outside, oh, that's good, they're against child trafficking when in reality they're all for it because yeah, it's creating a really strong market in the black market. I disagree with this notion and same with drugs, but anything black market, those are those guys. But yeah.

Speaker 3 00:46:14

Oh my goodness.

Speaker 2 00:46:16

Yeah. They're one of the extremist ones that honestly are kind of like, I guess a black mark almost for libertarians. And we don't like to talk about them. They're like the person you talk away in a corner, you just don't mention them.

Speaker 3 00:46:33

Okay, what else? So many things. Personally, I have super bad anxiety and I can't go to a physical job. I work from home. Is that cool? Under paleo libertarians, is that cool?

Speaker 2 00:46:55

You aren't harming anyone. You're doing your own thing. You're working on the best you can if you're the best of your ability in your own system. And through paleolibritarianism, let's say. If you're having anxiety or something, my best advice for that would to find either moral foundation or ground to have I'm not necessarily saying in religion it could be in anything as long as it's a virtuous moral ground. And trying to put yourself slightly little by little out of your comfort zone day by day and try to meet new people, meeting you, I guess, group of friends or community and help one another and find yourself in like projects, volunteering, stuff like that.

Speaker 3 00:47:34

Yeah, totally. But what about other disabled people? How does that work under paleo libertarianism.

Speaker 2 00:47:44

I believe I didn't touch on this enough earlier, but I think I mentioned it when talking about people who are disabled or physically and feasibly cannot do things. I am okay of having a small government entity in there to help those people. Almost like a safety net. I would prefer to have the baseline of it to be almost like the table of it, to be the government helping. But on top of that, other private industries working coincide with the government and creating programs that help.

Speaker 3 00:48:16

Oh yeah.

Speaker 2 00:48:17

Yes. An extremely good example of this, what I love every time I highly recommend people looking up this organization. It's called Safe, Safe Place and what it basically was was that the government in the early 2000s were overflowed with abuse children who were escaping households and they couldn't really do anything about it. And unfortunately, a lot of those situations they had to literally give these kids and give them back to abuse of families. So I know it's despicable to me and it's just really heartbreaking. So what a lot of people ended up doing this is mainly founded by church communities and other groups was they came together and created Safe Space. Safe Space is a project meant to help that overflow of the government and help necessarily bring in people, like, abused children, young, pregnant teen mothers who were being abused by her family or people who were, like, socially acid. Even people who were the LGBT community who were kicked out of homes because their parents didn't like them being gay, all the stuff like that. They were a private organization that helped. And that's what I mean by M. Okay with having a government as a foundation, but other groups helping out, I've.

Speaker 3 00:49:28

Never heard of them. That's amazing. I've never heard of this.

Speaker 2 00:49:32

Yeah, they're a really good organization. And they may be small and more regional areas, but especially in the Southeast, you can go in some places and you'll see a sign that says it's a little house and it's yellow, says Safe Space. Basically a person like, let's say a teenager recalled them, like, hey, I need a safe space. I'm going to be at this soft sign in this area. They would send someone down there to pick him up and bring him to comforting living conditions where there's like food, water and stuff like that and clothing.

Speaker 1 00:50:00

Oh, wow.

Speaker 2 00:50:01

And the best thing about this organization as all is that it's all through virtuous and caring about one another with the basis of not even one religion, but just basic human care for one another. And that's why I love so much about this organization. But huge shout out to them though.

Speaker 3 00:50:18

Yeah, that's super cool. Oh my gosh, I'm going to have to look them up. That's awesome. What about an organization like Habitat for Humanity?

Speaker 2 00:50:27

Can you go into more detail by that?

Speaker 3 00:50:29

Well, I just mean, like, I assume like, nonprofits would still exist.

Speaker 2 00:50:34

Yes, 100%.

Speaker 3 00:50:35

I'm completely and nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity would feasibly be okay?

Speaker 2 00:50:44

Yeah, there's no issue against them. Really. What I tell people is that if there's any really question they have, like, well, would this be okay in a society? Go back to non aggression principle and think, is this going to violate anyone's rights? Is this going to harm someone? Is this going to harm necessarily the environment, leading to a chain of reaction of them harming another person? If that makes any sense.

Speaker 3 00:51:07

Yeah, that makes sense. Okay, cool. If you will come back at some point, that would be amazing to sort of continue this for part two, if you would like to come back. No pressure.

Speaker 2 00:51:26

Yes, I'm all for that. Is there any questions you would like to ask me? Like, anything else you want to throw out?

Speaker 3 00:51:34

Not at the moment. But this is why I have to get you to come back. Because I'm going to wake up at two in the morning and think of something and then you know what I'm saying?

Speaker 2 00:51:48

I'm sure I'm going to do it at the moment. I hang up too. Like, Dang, it sure brought this up during a conversation.

Speaker 3 00:51:53

For sure. Well, thank you so much. But thank you so much for coming on. Go ahead and tell everybody where they can find you again and I won't keep you any longer.

Speaker 2 00:52:03

Yeah, sure thing. You can find me on Twitter right now. Under at Luke Sapolveda and Solar Requiem is my username and account name. I routinely host debates in my spaces. And sometimes I don't host debates. I host dialogue talking and stuff. So feel free to stop by, say hello and thank you again, Abby Gill, for hosting me on your podcast.

Speaker 3 00:52:26

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for coming. You can always check me out at MP weirdo podcast on Twitter. The underscore main underscore weirdo one is the TikTok and the Instagram. You can always email me at manicpixiewierdo@protonmail.com. If you have something that you would like to say, feel free to share. But thank you so much, Sola. I really appreciate you coming on. Have a good one.

Speaker 2 00:52:47

You too.

Speaker 3 00:52:49

Be kind and stay weird, guys. Bye.