Why Government Doesn’t Work Anymore | Steve Baker

工党采纳了财政部的建议，削减了富裕养老金领取者的冬季燃油补贴。这样做是正确且明智的。显然需要削减，但它是在保守党领导人竞选期间宣布的，又是又一次。所以，做了容易的事情，那就是与养老金领取者站在一起，反对这项不公正的削减及其愚蠢之处。[哼哧]这对保守党来说是一个绝佳的机会，可以说：“终于，工党愿意在现实世界中过着朴素的生活。当然，我们支持这项削减开支。保守党和改革派应该支持所有削减开支，并且应该反对所有增加[音乐]税收的举措。如果说有什么例外的话，那就是在国防和刑事司法等国家的基本职能方面。你知道，真正从富裕的养老金领取者那里拿走冬季燃油补贴，仅仅是需要做的事情的开始。改革派和保守党都未能抓住这个时刻，这让我同意你的观点，即目前没有一个政党向公众提供能够拯救国家的纲领。>> 是的。第一个来电者。>> 等一下。一件重要的事情。我的头发看起来还好吗？>> 你的头发很棒，伙计。[笑声]>> 我们要保留这个。是的。史蒂夫，你是第一个三次登上节目的嘉宾。>> 嗯，我确实感到荣幸。我是说，多么荣幸。下次我感到沮丧和不被重视时，我会记住我三次登上你的播客。>> 嗯，我们喜欢你来这里。嗯，史蒂夫，为什么国家不再运转了？[笑声]>> 怎么回事？>> 这是庞大的管理主义时期结束了。>> 是的。>> 我是说，第二次世界大战结束后，人们投票支持国家权力的大幅增加。这让丘吉尔非常担心。他已经向他的内阁分发了哈耶克的《通往奴役之路》。《通往奴役之路》当然警告说，英国正在走德国走过的路。哈耶克写这句话时是认真的。但当然，每个人都认为这是荒谬的，并且不相信它。丘吉尔在二战后输掉了选举。公众投票决定在他们的生活中增加更多的管理主义。哦，我喜欢那个时期的文学作品。有一本书叫《管理革命》，作者是伯纳姆，一位改过自新的美国托洛茨基主义者。他说，新政，美国的嗯，美国的“新政”，英国的干预主义，法西斯主义，社会主义，共产主义，基本上都源于同一种现象，即人们相信他们的生活会由权威的其他人更好地管理。这很好笑，不是吗？>> 是的。不幸的是，这种想法席卷了全世界，而我们在这里，多年以后，尤其是在货币贬值了 50 年之后，最终掩盖了国家长期支出超出其承受能力的事实。社会不再运转，问题不可能出在税收太低，监管太少，政府借款不够，或者债务不足，或者信贷太贵，因为这些都不是事实。所以，我们正处于一个世纪的管理主义的终结。我认为这是社会主义的第二次危机。第一次危机很容易看清，因为冷战结束了，柏林墙倒塌了。这现在是干预主义形式的社会主义的危机。>> 后门社会主义。>> 是的。这是一场灾难。但如果人们将责任归咎于自由市场，那尤其是一场灾难。>> 嗯，这确实发生了，因为像我或你这样为自由市场而战的人会说，这不是自由市场。这是裙带关系。这不是资本主义。别再指责资本主义了。>> 嗯，你同样也看到了马克思主义者，公开的马克思主义者，或者那些不承认自己是马克思主义者的马克思主义者，扎克·帕兰斯基。[笑声]>> 是的。>> 但真的很有趣。我嗯，你看了他和罗里·斯图尔特以及战犯的采访吗？>> 我没看。我确切地知道你说的是谁。是的。>> 但我没看。所以他们问他，他的经济灵感来源是谁，他说，比如“政府先生”，嗯，我想也许是詹姆斯·梅德韦，我不记得他的名字了，但他说了格蕾丝·B·布莱克利。>> 她出来发推说，我不是经济学家，我是马克思主义者。>> 是的。>> 我当时想，嗯。但我去读了她的一篇文章。>> 我会说，我几乎完全同意她的诊断。这就是所谓的“马蹄理论”。是的。>> 社会主义者和自由市场资本家都对同一件事感到恼火。我说这话不是指理论家，而是指普通公众，那些更有可能投票给左派或右派的人都在指向同一个问题。我们面临制度性失败。问题是，那些更具催化剂性质的人会想，好吧，我要投票给改革派，他们会解决问题。然后，我们看到了绿色政党的崛起，马克思主义者和社会主义者说他们会解决问题，而我只是不认为这可以解决。>> 嗯，嗯，好吧。所以，我通过投票。>> 嗯，那里有很多需要梳理的地方，对吧？所以，考虑到策略，它是目的、方式、手段。所以，如果我们能先说，好吧，实际上，我们可以就什么错了达成一致。你知道，所以假设左派和我同意存在巨大的经济不公正。我认为这是因为国家法定货币，它长期以来都在扩张，极大地扰乱了社会进程，并导致了不公正的财富分配，而国家干预则加剧了这种情况，国家干预为拥有资产的人提供了特权，等等。讨论一下，对吧？但左派会认为存在巨大的经济不公正，因为他们认为资本主义就是这样做的。好吧，所以，我们可以同意存在经济不公正。我们可以同意房价如此之高，以至于年轻人无法组建家庭等等，这是件可怕的事情。所以，我们至少可以就存在应该纠正的不公正达成一致，但然后我们需要进入，好吧，什么，好吧，我们将选择什么目的？我们想去哪里？有什么方法可以到达那里？以及实现我们目标的手段是什么？所以，这确实是我们在这里要讨论的策略问题。我认为这是潜台词。好吧。是的。因为你说投票解决不了问题。但我们以前说过，无论你投票给谁，政府总是会赢。>> 是的，我一直引用这句话。是你爸爸说的吗？>> 是我爸爸说的。非常明智的建筑工地木匠。>> 所以我一直引用这句话。谢谢你。>> 不，你说得对。这很好。这确实是个好话，不是吗？好爸爸。但想想议会选举。可爱。>> 是的。议会继续在地方上执政，并处理社会关怀等事务，而且很少做得足够好，但投票率约为三分之一，而大选的投票率将是三分之二。但他们不这样做，他们不这样做，“哦，可怜的我，三分之二的人懒得表达意见。”我告诉你，我们会盘点一下，然后开始关闭一些东西。”他们不这样做，对吧？他们只是继续征收议会税，然后失败。然后失败。>> 那么，该怎么办？>> 嗯，你看，你，抱歉，你在政府工作过。>> 是的。>> 你已经解脱了。>> 是的。>> 我读了伊恩·邓恩的书，《威斯敏斯特如何运作以及为什么它不起作用》。我认为你可以称这本书为恐怖片。它揭示了当我们开始了解我们如何将无能的人放在没有经验的部门负责人时，这是多么可怕。>> 但他们想出名。他们想改变一切。>> 是的。是的。>> 嗯，以及它的功能失调程度。对我来说，这太可怕了。但你已经在里面了，你能告诉我们多少关于它真正是什么样的，为什么它不起作用？>> 嗯，我会尽我所能告诉你，在可用时间内。>> 吓唬听众。>> 无能绝对是一个主题。好吧，我曾多次与几位常务秘书开玩笑，关于公务员制度的工作方式，我曾对他们说，嗯，当然，公务员制度是为了应对冷漠和无能的部长而设立的。我告诉过的每一位常务秘书，有几位都笑了，因为这是真的。公务员制度的设立是这样的，即使你有一个无能、冷漠的部长，国家也会继续运转。部长只需要签署他们被展示的文件，他们甚至不需要阅读它。我们不应该这样。所以，我们需要的是能够真正治理国家并以一些强有力的实际想法来治理国家的部长，以便实现人们会赞同的效果。但通常发生的是，每个人都在考虑如何获得他们真正想要的工作，这通常是最高职位。而这通常意味着为他们的议会同事举办酒会来讨好他们。所以，这是一条油滑的路。嗯，这只是人们的本性。他们想进步。他们雄心勃勃。他们喜欢地位。他们想被认为是了不起的。而不是简单地，你知道，卷起袖子，专注于手头的任务，并投入到眼前的这项工作中。我记得一位首席党鞭对我说：“史蒂夫，你很特别，因为你只专注于手头的任务。”我记得当时我想：“哦，我现在知道我哪里做错了。”[笑声]>> 但是，所以，我们前几天做了这件事，我们做了一个节目。是的。>> 和嗯，我们用了人工智能，我，我想是 Grok，因为它更接地气，我们问，所有政治家跨越光谱的共同点是什么？是的。>> 他们共同的目标是什么？这不是服务公众，而是为了再次当选。>> 基本上是当选。是的。>> 并再次当选。是的。所以，这是权力的积累和维护。但这不一定是不高尚的。如果你不能实现其他任何事情，除非你当选，那就是他们忽视一切的时候。看，我之所以进入政界，主要是为了反对非法战争，你之前提到了。我曾经见过那个人。给了他很大的压力。>> 好。>> 抗议我们对恐怖主义的反应，特别是我们最终允许自己陷入“特殊引渡”的方式。>> 嗯，在我们的货币体系中解决巨大的问题，并让我们就欧盟进行公投，因为我非常坚决地认为权力必须对选民负责，因为如果你不能在投票箱中和平地罢免政府，正如卡尔·波普尔所说，你必须以其他方式进行。所以，对每个人来说，我们能够和平地在投票箱中罢免不令人满意的政府要好得多。因此，就欧盟进行公投。所以我之所以进入政界是为了做这件事，我非常清楚，对我来说，当选和再次当选是实现这些目标的手段，人们可以同意或不同意我选择的目标，但我对我的所作所为是坦诚的。人们选了我，所以我觉得自己有权做我所做的事情。嗯，但仍然是这样，你必须当选并再次当选。>> 当然。我知道，我明白，但一旦你当选，激励因素就起作用了。>> 是的。特殊利益集团，投票集团。>> 是的。>> 以及获得货币创造的途径。>> 是的。>> 对我来说，这造成了一系列非常明显的扭曲激励。我过去两次选举都没有投票，史蒂夫，我下一次也不会投票，因为我拒绝投票给衰败。>> 我看不到我们可以通过投票摆脱这种情况。工党执政下的生活水平正在恶化。是的。>> 我看不到他们能在未来三年内提高生活水平。我现在看不到任何一个政党能提高生活水平。所以，这是对政治阶层的毁灭性批评，我同意你的看法。是的。是的。>> 所以我一直在做一个名为“为自由未来而战”的项目，我正戴着徽章。例如，我曾与约翰·莫伊汉勋爵合作，他写了一本精彩的书，名为《重返增长》，厚达两卷。>> 那个的 TLDDR 是什么？>> 抱歉。>> 如何重返增长的总结？>> 重返增长的总结是，我们需要减税和减少监管。这意味着我们需要削减开支。>> 你的意思是政府是增长的障碍？>> 是的。现在，问题来了。不幸的是，在民主制度下，人民会得到他们应得的政府。现在，你说了关于枷锁解除的事情，因为作为一名民选政治家，我不会喜欢那样说。我担心公众投票，公众，你也是，彼得，你会得到你应得的政府，因为有人会当选。而我们面临的问题是，我们中的任何一个人作为选民，对选举结果的影响都微乎其微。然而，我们仍然必须忍受随后的政府。那么，如何才能成倍地放大你的行为效果呢？我在这方面是个老生常谈。上次选举时，只有十几个人参加了我的候选人连任会议。我决心，如果我失去了我的协会的支持，我就会离开，我会放弃，我会说，“好吧，我失去了协会的支持。”我进了房间。只有 12 个人在那里决定我是否能成为威克姆的候选人。其中三个人是我认识的我的死敌，反对者，[哼哧]对吧？我环顾四周，我想，如果他做到了，他可能会有多数票来罢免我。我现在要用俗语说，我想，好吧，[脏话]那个。我不会向那个从一开始就一直困扰我的混蛋屈服，因为他想成为议员。>> 嗯。>> 他一直困扰我。我不会向他屈服，因为他设法在当天出现并让他六个人投票反对我。所以，在那一刻，我决定，如果我输了，我会去整个协会。但我的观点是，我当然赢了，因为我是一名政治家。我知道该怎么做，我赢了。我拆除了他试图做的事情，我打败了他。但我的观点是，我在这里。我是一个非常实际的自由主义者，作为一个实际的政治家，我本可以那天被一小群人赶下台。而人们只是，这就是不参与的问题，即使你做了，我的意思是，有些人可能认为我好或坏，人们可能不喜欢我做的妥协，或者别的什么，但这无关紧要。如果你找到了你喜欢的人，请记住，你坐在家里喜欢他们并祝他们一切顺利是可以的，但有人在房间里试图罢免他们。如果你不在那里投票支持他们，他们就会被罢免。所以，当你谈论扭曲的激励时，你说的话有很大的道理。但最终，作为一个在政府内部工作过的人，作为一个候选人，见过整个过程，很多时候，问题很容易通过支持者出现一小时的周六早上来确保你被重新选出来来解决。>> 他们会吗？但人们甚至知道他们应该这样做或如何做吗？>> 这就是我在这里的原因。>> 对吧？>> 这就是我再次和你在一起的乐趣，因为我喜欢你问的这些问题，我喜欢有机会告诉你的观众。如果他们加入任何一个政党，并出现并成为那半打人中的一员，他们就能变得强大得多。>> 国会主权是好事吗？>> 嗯，个人主权是好事吗？因为民主到底是为了什么？有很多观点。>> 对我来说，民主是约束权力的要素之一，这样人们就可以免受胁迫。但如果这是明确的同意，你投票给政府，我们投票给工党，他们的宣言说，“我们不会对工薪阶层征税。”预算一，他们通过后门对工薪阶层征税。>> 是的。>> 预算二，他们再次通过后门对工薪阶层征税。他们只是[脏话]撒谎。他们只是撒谎。>> 而>> 而我们该怎么办？好吧，我们必须再等三年这种[脏话]，然后我们再投票，祈祷。这就是为什么我和扎克·戈德史密斯一起，我认为是在 2010 年议会期间，10 年到 15 年，很久以前了，他和我都主张全面无限制地召回议员。所以，你必须有一个合理的门槛，因为你不能，你不能有 100 人的门槛，因为你的工党对手会每天召回你。>> 你但你需要一个门槛，我不知道，假设 10% 的选民。我不知道正确的答案是什么。这是任意的，但让我们做出决定。但如果 10% 的选民说，史蒂夫·贝克被召回，因为我们不喜欢他所做的，你将面临大选。抱歉，你将在你的席位上面临一次补选。所以，这个运动，>> 所以我们没有召回。我们确实有召回，但到政治家们忙于担心他们的对手因为不当工党或保守党，或者别的什么而召回他们时，到人们完成削弱它时，我已经不记得规则了，但它有点像你必须犯下轻微的刑事犯罪，或者被制裁。>> 不能只是因为你[脏话]。>> 不能是因为你[脏话]并打破了你的承诺。不。所以，但我一直都是，而且是>> 请原谅我，因为人们会不喜欢我这么说。当政治家真是太难了。哦，我明白了。当然是。不，我不明白。>> 但政治家们不喜欢这样，但我仍然支持无限制召回，并设定一个适当高的门槛，这样公众就可以决定。所以，你所要做的就是为召回你的议员以面对另一场选举做出贡献，就是去市政厅，把你的名字写在书上，或者在网上做，随便什么。然后，如果我们都在支持你的竞选活动，你的竞选活动很强大，我们可以说，“好吧，让我们召回，让我们召回所有这些议员，因为我们处于这种境地。我们不能，因为他们拥有议会多数席位。>> 我们现在正与一个拥有议会多数席位的政府坐在一起，民意调查显示，如果明天举行选举，他们只会获得四个席位。我是说，这对他们来说是生死攸关的。>> 是的。>> 但他们仍然掌权。他们仍然能够做一些事情，比如制定政策和税收变化，这对人们产生了真正毁灭性的影响。>> 他们可以做各种可怕的事情。>> 但如果你能召回足够多的议员，如果有的话，你可以举行足够多的补选来改变平衡，然后你可以进行不信任投票，罢免政府。那是有可能的。>> 是的。所以，我的意思是，是的。我的意思是，在我走进这里之前，我没有想到这一点，但实际上，召回，实施无限制召回，并设定一个适当的门槛，请原谅我。>> 再说一遍。>> 我走进这里之前没想到。>> 但他不会编辑。>> 他不会编辑。>> 不，我们什么都不编辑。>> 这是喝酒的麻烦。>> 他们看到你现在是个人了。>> 是的，他们看到了。一点点老模酒把我给打倒了。[笑声]设定一个适当的门槛，你可以动员全国数百万人民去网上填写表格，或者去市政厅签署文件，说，“我想召回我的议员。”如果我们能召回足够的议员，你就能推翻政府。这就是我们需要的东西，以便给予公众，因为这是一个戏剧性的事情。让我们说清楚。我们不希望处于公众可以每周民主地推翻政府的境地，因为我们确实需要一个好政府。这个节目由我的首席赞助商 Iron 提供，Iron 是下一个大事件的 AI 云。Iron 构建和运营下一代数据中心，并提供最先进的 GPU 基础设施，所有这些都由可再生能源提供动力。现在，如果您需要可扩展的 GPU 集群，或者只是想知道谁在为人工智能的未来提供动力，请访问 iron.com 了解更多信息，网址是 irre.com。>> 但如果，如果政府面临可能被民主推翻的威胁，也许他们会做得更好，这会改变激励。问题是，没有激励。>> 对。现在，他们知道他们拥有，因为这是假设的同意。>> 他们假设他们拥有同意，直到他们举行选举。>> 他们知道他们可以通过提高税收来逃脱惩罚，他们知道他们可以通过。>> 乔治在我们当选后不久就将增值税提高到 20%。>> 嗯。>> 他，我不记得确切说了什么，但他让公众相信他不会。他可能没有承诺他不会。我不记得很久以前说过什么了，但当然，我们不是以提高增值税至 20% 的承诺当选的。但增值税 20%，我是说，我们在销售点有如此广泛的商品，增值税达到 20%，这太离谱了。嗯，确实贯穿了整个价值链，但嗯，政治家这样做是因为公众的记忆力很短。他们认为，嗯，人们会继续前进，并在下次选举时忘记这件事。而这就是我们面临的问题之一。任何人观看此节目的人都参与公共生活和政治以及金钱以及所有这些。但绝大多数人都不参与。我可以给你讲讲我第一次竞选时敲门的故事。我还是个新手。我第一次竞选。这是一个议会席位。我走到一扇门前，我甚至现在都能带你去那栋房子。我经常开车经过。敲敲敲。没人。这是第一件事。通常没人。如果他们在，通常不是个好时机。非常令人沮丧。总之，我转身离开。车停了下来。显然，车里有妈妈、奶奶和孩子们。你好，史密斯太太。我叫史蒂夫·贝克。我作为保守党候选人来拜访您，看看您过得怎么样，看看您是否有任何担忧或问题想向我提出。看看这句话多么容易说出口。哦，她说，“嗯，让我想想。”她只是有清单。嗯，妈妈刚做完一次很好的医院检查。孩子们在好学校。我丈夫有一份好工作。我们很快就要去度假了。嗯，是的，生活很不错。我们可以负担房贷。非常感谢。>> 这就是正常生活，对吧？>> 我认为我们都面临的一个问题是，>> 等一下。如果你现在和那个人说话，你认为那个清单会是什么？>> 嗯，我可能得回去。>> 嗯，是这样的。我不得不把我的孩子从私立学校退学，因为我负担不起。我们现在负担不起度假了。嗯，嗯，我丈夫不得不关闭他的公司。我是说，看，>> 这很容易。但我的观点是，对大多数人来说，大多数时候生活大致还算可以。>> 但现在，你认为？>> 可能不是。我认为这个国家充满了不满。但这就是我们谈论实际政治行动时的情况，这些行动实际上可能产生影响。嗯，你可以撤回你的同意，说我不投票。但从我的角度来看，实际情况是，即使在投票率只有三分之一的议会选举中，他们也会继续执政并行使权力。所以，撤回，他们，他们这样做，投票率只有 10%，他们只是继续前进。所以，如果你不投票，你仍然会被统治。>> 那么，好吧，他们，你会被统治。那么，你如何才能获得一个像样的政府呢？嗯，不幸的是，即使我们每个人只能产生微小的影响，我们也必须去产生这种影响。这就是我提出的论点。在民主制度下，我们只能这样。为什么政治家会做这些愚蠢的可怕的事情？>> 因为他们可以。>> 因为他们可以。但他们为什么想这样做？因为我们已经同意，每个政治家都想再次当选。嗯，我恐怕又一次，枷锁解除了。我 14 年来所看到的是，整个公众想要的是更高的支出和更低的税收。这就是为什么我们在财政上总是处于[脏话]状态，因为一个想要更高支出和更低税收的公众总是会驱使想要再次当选的政治家借贷和货币贬值。这就是为什么自 1971 年以来货币的价值一直在下跌。这就是为什么尼克松不得不结束与黄金的最后联系。我是说，他还有越南战争。但战争和福利的结合给纳税人带来了无法承受的负担。所以，它只会导致债务和货币贬值，这就是为什么一切都如此[脏话]。>> 但我一直，这就是我一直回到约束权力的问题。我，我一直在，就像过去两天一样。很有趣。所以，我一直花了很多时间研究美国的形成。我我我喜欢《独立宣言》。哦，太棒了。是的。>> 和和，但今天我研究了它的历史。是的。我不知道全部背景。我知道“无代表不纳税”，但我不知道是因为我们试图为七年战争融资，而我们基本上只是在掠夺他们的资源，而没有统治他们。我不知道那个背景。>> 你还记得他们试图征收的税有多低吗？>> 2%。是吗？是的。我知道。我经常和我美国朋友开这个玩笑，我说，那只是 2% 的茶叶税。2% 的茶叶税。你现在付多少？>> 现在时代变了。>> 是的。你们加州人，税收高达 60%。但但，你知道，我理解了一些元素，而且我读过《联邦党人文集》的一些部分。我没有全部读完，但我读过一些，而且我但我也理解《联邦党人文集》的基础，我们把汉密尔顿和麦迪逊视为英雄，因为他们赢了。他们创建了政府。所以，我的一位朋友对我说，“你读过《反联邦党人文集》吗？”我说，“不。”但在我脑海里，我的假设是，《反联邦党人文集》是反对美国成立的人。他们可能确实如此，但实际上，我认为它比这更微妙。现在，我的理解是，他们试图做的是捍卫自由。所以，你看到了这场关于支持联邦政府进行防御和征税的人与支持自由、希望捍卫人民权利的人之间的斗争。然后，我认为是某种妥协，他们得到了《权利法案》。>> 我看了看，我说，嗯，现在它坏了。为什么坏了？如果你看看所有不同的事情，基本上联邦党人赢了，但反联邦党人可能在最后笑了，因为我认为他们被证明是正确的。当我研究最大的错误时，就是他们没有对权力进行约束，那就是对金钱的约束。如果你在宪法上不能创造货币，想象一下那个场景。那么，你宪法上就不能创造货币。那么，你就受到限制了。我认为我们国家以及欧洲、美国、任何国家所做的最危险的事情就是赋予政府创造货币的能力。>> 弹性货币是愚蠢的。是的。高度弹性的货币。所以，我指的是，是的。是的。我认为这是一种犯罪。是的。但即使如此，你也必须非常，我花了 25 年的时间与货币学者合作，这是一种荣幸，有时也是一种折磨。>> 因为他们在很多方面经常意见不合。其中之一是准备金率，如果你银行账户里有 100 英镑，应该有 100 英镑的黄金支持。这是，而任何其他东西都是犯罪，这是 100% 准备金的观点。>> 但其他经济学者会说，这是愚蠢的，只要每个人都明白发生了什么，部分准备金就是合法的。现在，>> 但这不是公平的部分准备金。>> 嗯，所以，我在这里提出的观点是元观点，对吧？我的观点是，即使你接受具有全球声誉的古典自由主义到自由主义货币学者，他们仍然在准备金率等基本问题上意见不合。所以我得出了这样的结论：货币体系需要做的最重要的事情是将其置于私营部门，并仅受普通商业法的监管。>> 你说的是货币与国家分离。是的，当然。>> 是的，我百分之百同意。>> 这就是为什么我提倡比特币和黄金。现在，如果货币出了严重问题。所以，德特·莱希特克的书《纸币崩溃：弹性货币的愚蠢与即将到来的货币崩溃》，写于 2010 年。我赞同第一个版本，我赞同第二个版本，它还没有发生，但这就是弹性货币系统所做的，即国家可以创造货币或通过借贷创造货币。这些货币系统总是以通货膨胀的崩溃告终。如果我们西方发生通货膨胀崩溃，他们会怎么做？他们会说，“哦，看，可怜的我，我们搞砸了，伙计们。我们会让你使用黄金和比特币。”不。他们会做什么？>> 重置。>> 他们会发行 CBDC 并要求我们使用它们，这几乎是肯定的。例外情况是，我与一家名为 Glint 的公司合作，该公司为美国各州提供咨询，这些州现在已经立法规定黄金和白银是法定货币，美国宪法允许这一点。实际上，它说各州不能，但黄金和白银是法定货币。所以，他们不能创造自己的货币。>> 但关键是，他们不能，美国各州不能在宪法上采用比特币作为法定货币，但他们可以采用黄金和白银。但各州正在这样做。所以，如果你现在住在佛罗里达州，你可以持有黄金和白银作为法定货币，这可以免除各种税收。所以，这很有趣，因为在美国，就实际情况而言，各州现在正在回归健全货币。他们为什么要这样做？因为这符合政治家的利益，因为公众想要。所以，对我来说，民主的关键始终是说服公众和意见领袖接受围绕自由的健全思想，因为之后政治家会跟随公众舆论。认为政治家引领公众舆论是一个巨大的错误。政治家试图通过跟随公众舆论来再次当选。这是另一件事。所以，除了部长们冷漠和无能之外，另一个问题是他们并不是真正的领导者。他们是追随者。但但但这种追随，我认为并不均匀分布，因为它追随了足够多会投票给你的人。这就是为什么你，这就是为什么我如此反对政府与工会之间的关系，因为工会是集团选票。>> 他们胁迫。>> 他们胁迫。他们胁迫。他们为了自己的利益而胁迫。但但，你知道，他们代表多少人？但他们有多大的影响力，比如就业权？我认为这是有害的。我认为这是危险的，这就是我的问题，当你允许政府，因为我认为我们正在从一个极端走向另一个极端，史蒂夫，自然地，当你赋予政府创造货币、制定法律、减少权利的能力，然后根据偏好群体分配时。我认为你所做的就是制造麦迪逊警告过的、华盛顿警告过的派系问题，因为你将偏好某个特定群体。>> 是的。>> 而而而，那些被排斥在外的人会想，这对我来说不公平。>> 我没有投票支持大规模不受控制的移民是一个很好的例子。是的。>> 然后他们会找到一个政党，他们会说，“好吧，我们将阻止这一点”，他们会支持那个政党。当那个政党上台并分配给另一个政党时，你就得到了这些。>> 所以，我非常清楚，我们目前的移民水平是一个巨大的问题。必须降低。但同样，我也非常清楚，这不是移民的错。而现在的问题是，政治家们很容易将责任归咎于移民。>> 但我不想，抱歉，我不想专注于这一点。我只是想说的，史蒂夫是>> 歧视。不，不，这些摇摆越来越极端。是的。我认为改革派和绿色政党的崛起代表了这种极端。我认为美国的觉醒左翼运动以及现在特朗普再次发生的事情是极端的，因为每个政党都将另一方视为生存危机，而我认为这是尼克·富恩特斯崛起的因素之一，这些极端，这些向极端的摇摆，我认为最终会导致暴力。这是我最大的恐惧，就是你达到了那个点，就像压力阀在那里，我认为，我认为这个国家现在有压力。>> 是的。>> 当它爆发时，我认为可能会发生暴力，而我>> 我建议你请我的朋友保罗·多兰教授来，他写了一本名为《信仰主义：如何停止憎恨我们不同意的人》的书，因为我和他注意到在 COVID 期间有一种现象。一旦他告诉人们他正在与我合作反对 COVID 的极端封锁和限制措施，人们就会说，“什么？史蒂夫·贝克，脱欧派？”他们因为脱欧而憎恨我。等等。而他，你知道，我们在一篇关于 COVID 疫苗护照的文章中写道，在《泰晤士报》上，所有的评论都是关于我对脱欧的看法。而这一切，以及人们对他关于 COVID 的看法，让他意识到这种两极分化的问题有多么严重，它就像种族主义一样，人们一旦意识到有这一细微之处。我有一点不同意彼得的看法。因为我不同意他这一点，所以我现在看不到他身上所有的优点。所以，保罗写了这本书，是为了设定一个框架，说明我们如何超越这一点，并开始真正地再次倾听彼此。但就日益增长的派系主义而言，是的，这就是保罗写这本书的原因。这是一个真实的现象，而且非常危险。我认为我们所有真诚的人都必须鼓励人们保持民主和合法，我知道你也是。但我们也必须，我认为要承认风险非常真实。偶尔文明会崩溃成野蛮。>> 我年轻时是一名皇家空军军官，我们正在前南斯拉夫上空巡逻，因为在欧洲发生了种族灭绝，在 80 年代末 90 年代初。>> 是的。>> 当然是第二次世界大战。我是说，第一次世界大战之前，人们认为战争已经结束了。而我恐怕这就是会发生的事情。我们认为战争已经结束，野蛮行为将永不复返。然后它发生了。而文明，历史表明，文明实际上比人们普遍认为的要脆弱得多。现在，这是为了认识到历史现实。而原因，我仍然在公共生活中的原因之一，并且还在努力穿西装，而我本可以在家放松，为圣诞节做准备，是因为我也非常担心我们的文明将走向何方。经济中的所有腐败以及 20 多岁年轻人所遭受的不公正，他们本应能够买房并考虑组建家庭，如果他们愿意的话。如果你在伦敦，即使你是一名收入丰厚的专业人士，在 20 多岁时买房的机会也很渺茫。渺茫。是的。这种不公正及其对我们文明的影响。嗯，人们会去哪里？因为，同样，人们通常不会坐下来阅读关于货币理论的巨著，以便找到他们困难的根源，即中央银行和计划体系。但他们很可能会责怪某人。当你开始责怪，你正在受苦，你正在受苦，然后某个煽动者出现，并愿意责怪某个少数群体，现在这就变得危险了，而且存在一个真正的危险，那就是我们所有人的诀窍是坚持法律，和平抗议，深思熟虑，创造一个思想领袖和你的思想领袖，你是一个重要的思想领袖的环境。>> 嗯，你看，我和康纳，我的意思是，我们已经有一周，甚至更长的时间，像 10 天，两周，我们在家里进行了非常激烈的辩论。>> 是的。>> 到了我们俩，可能我多一点，都有点沮丧。对吧？这是公平的吗？>> 康纳的主要分歧是？>> 嗯，所以，让我给你一个例子，我认为与彼此沮丧不是问题，而是试图找到答案的过程令人沮丧。>> 是的。所以，很多时候，我采取与他相反的立场，只是为了测试他。>> 这是一个非常重要的红队挑战，这是一个非常重要的现象。>> 是的。他推动我。所以，比如，我读了很多历史，很多美国历史，比英国历史更多。正如我所说，我一直在研究，我对联邦党人和反联邦党人之间的斗争非常着迷，再次是联邦党人。我们需要一个联邦政府，而他们是反联邦党人。我们需要自由。而这种平衡在哪里？而我，嗯，方向上是自由主义者。我总是想要小政府，但我不是一个或资本主义者。我接受政府的现实，但我希望尽可能多地保留自由。我认为，我认为，我认为在这个国家，我们对自由的热情不够，不理解它意味着什么以及为什么它很重要。所以我一直在推动康纳。他们说，“我看到了争论。反联邦党人预测的一切都在美国发生了，在这里也正在发生。”所以，如果他们是对的，那么权力就没有约束了。因此，我们需要新的权力约束。因此，我认为我的信念是我们都需要一场和平革命，告诉政府，“这不再奏效了。我们，我们的生活水平下降了，我们无法通过投票摆脱它。这是因为这种自由的侵犯我们的权利，以及创造货币，以及这样做，并根据偏好进行分配，我们将左右摇摆。”所以，我停止了政策。这是我们得到的东西之一。这是我们发生冲突的时候，康纳有一个很好的问题。你可能有一个更好的答案给我，关于每次他问我政策时，我都说我不在乎政策。我只想谈论权力约束，因为是权力约束阻止政府做损害国家的事情。是的。而你总是对我怎么说？>> 我说，所有这些都在政策上分崩离析，因为每个人都有个人偏见，这是与生俱来的，你永远无法摆脱它。>> 而且，顺便说一句，所以，没有任何权力约束会阻止你代表你的人民做决定。保守党仍然会根据保守派的思维和框架做出决定。>> 嗯，这当然是这样的，每个人都有内在的偏好，你可以称之为偏见，或者任何东西，以及视角和经验。你知道，我无法改变我来自康沃尔工人阶级背景的事实。嗯，你知道，我试着理解奥尔德尼人，但我只能观察他们。但是，但是，[笑声]这，我个人不认为，嗯，它影响了我如何在下议院投票，但它是政治论文和整个学位中一个非常重要的主题。但我认为我想问人们的是，你是否赞成一个人能够将自己的意志强加于另一个人？几乎所有人都说不，除非他们在做有害的事情，而我们正在试图阻止这种伤害。这就是问题的本质。在什么情况下，一个人或少数人强加自己的意志于他人是可以接受的？当你开始将问题表述为在什么情况下强迫他人是可以接受的，大多数人会说这几乎是不可接受的。这就是为什么我们有法律禁止我们称之为犯罪的事情。但一旦人们开始用正义和平等的语言来包装它，人们突然开始，哦，费塔已经消失了，现在强迫别人是可以的。但另一种方式可能是告诉人们，想象一下，如果你能保留更多你赚的钱，你的生活会发生什么。想象一下，如果你的雇主，而不是支付他们自己的国民保险缴款，以及你的工资，并且还必须支付巨额的商业税，甚至在他们从客户那里赚到一分钱之前。想象一下，如果他们不必支付商业税，也不必支付雇主的国民保险。想象一下，他们能付给你多少更多的工资，以及你的生活会有多大的可能。>> 嗯，史蒂夫，如果没有商业税，没有增值税，也没有雇主的国民保险缴款，想象一下他们会创造多少其他企业。我退出了。>> 然后像就业权这样的事情就会有不同的背景。我希望每个人都受到善待。我雇佣了两个员工。我想雇佣更多员工。我是四家公司的董事。嗯，我想让人们受到很好的对待。我想超越人们对一个伟大的工作环境的期望。[哼哧]>> 史蒂夫，我喜欢规划事情。权力限制如何影响税收？>> 我能问一个问题吗？你同意吗？>> 我能再强调一下这个关于更多企业的问题吗？政治有两种基本方法。声音，大喊大叫和强迫别人，或者退出选择。是的。如果有更多的企业，那些被老板雇佣得不好的人就可以去别处找工作。是的。>> 而就业权将处于完全不同的背景。如果你只有少数雇主，而且无处可去。国民医疗服务体系将是最糟糕的之一，因为如果你是一名护士，你要去哪里？有一些私人。>> 你去私营部门。>> 但有限。

意思是这些事物的相对大小。>> 好的，那你就辞职，然后去一家机构工作，这家机构会让你重新回到 NHS 工作，拿更多的钱。>> 我们到了。>> 这就是格里夫。所以康纳的问题很有意义。是的，>> 你正要问。嗯，让我想想。>> 我只是喜欢把事情梳理清楚，比如我们实际地过一遍。>> 那么，在此之前，你是否同意我的前提，即我们这个国家没有足够的自由，要恢复自由，我们就需要对权力和政府施加更多的限制。你同意还是不同意？>> 是的，当然同意。太好了。>> 除了其他任何事情，如果你只看税收的高度，这就回答了你的问题。看看管制的范围。看看税法的长度。它，它，它，即使是最粗略的一瞥，事实也告诉你，我们不是在经历自由危机。我们正处于国家控制的危机之中。>> 酷。所以你明白了。>> 你明白了你的权力结构。>> 在实践中是如何运作的？以税收为例。它如何影响税收？>> 要，要，要降低税收。别无选择。我们必须在人们会感受到的地方削减开支。但权力限制如何阻止他们？>> 提高税收？>> 你是在问可以创造什么样的权力限制，>> 能够做到这一点？>> 等等，等等，因为我认为我们是从略微不同的角度来处理这个问题的。我正在考虑鉴于我们今天所处的位置，我们如何才能到达我们想要去的地方？但我觉得你问了我一个不同的问题。我觉得你在问我，如果我们有小政府，我们如何限制权力以确保它不再壮大？我同意这是一个重要且必要的问题。但我们今天面临的紧迫问题是，税收处于历史最高水平，而且可以说，我请一位经济学家写了一篇论文，他确实写了，而且已经发表了，大卫·B·史密斯（David B Smith）关于英国的税收能力极限，答案是肯定的，税收处于令人痛苦的水平。所以，康纳，我的回答是，革命已经过去，就像覆水难收一样。权力实际上已经变得不受约束，因为税收处于历史最高水平，>> 借贷也处于历史最高水平。>> 是的。还有货币贬值，正如我所说，我一直在说，因为图表一直是一条直线，直到大约 50 年代，你知道，大约在第二次世界大战的时候，然后到了 50 年代，它开始上升，1971 年，然后你从它开始，它就像一个火箭发射，它，它，它在我们的生活中是完全不同的背景，要么钱保值，要么它就会崩溃，而且这不像是一个温和的过渡，它，它，它发生在 1971 年，而且它，它发生是因为政客们没有受到约束，他们试图满足公众对高支出和低税收的需求。这就是为什么沮丧不是一个抽象的问题。我们在养老金、国民医疗服务体系（NHS）和社会关怀方面的支出比我们能负担的要多。现在这是一个非常实际的问题。不知何故，必须有一位像马来西亚风格的英国人物当选，对公众说：“如果我们继续走这条路，我们将面临恶性通货膨胀的崩溃和彻底的毁灭。”>> 是谁拿着链锯，你还是我？>> 嗯，我们其中一人应该这样做。有人必须这样做，因为我们确实面临毁灭。但这意味公众必须被说服 [哼鼻声] 愿意说：“彼得，这是授权。请去削减开支，这样我们就有了盈余，而不是赤字。”我们知道你需要削减养老金领取者的冬季燃料补贴。我们知道你需要结束三重锁。我们知道 NHS 的支出不能增加。实际上，它可能不得不减少。我们中的更多人可能不得不为更多的非危及生命的程序付费。想象一下，>> 或者无论它是什么，无论它可能是什么。我们必须做些什么来削减开支。>> 没有好的答案。这是你想要哪一个？你想要长期的衰落，我认为我们将得到阿根廷、黎巴嫩和黎巴嫩的结合。>> 但我，但是的，>> 或者我们大家团结起来，同意这是 [脏话] 每个人都接受削减，我们经历一次痛苦的重置，然后重建国家。>> 嗯，>> 所以就是这样。这是一次重置，因为你刚刚同意了，史蒂夫，>> 它就会再次开始增长。>> 所以，>> 那么我们该怎么做？我们每 50 年重置一次吗？>> 嗯，或者对权力的约束。让我们非常小心我们实际上能在一个拥有数千万人口、数十亿人口的世界里做出的选择。>> 社会是一个，它就是一个复杂的动态系统。这意味着什么？这意味着就像蝴蝶扇动翅膀，天气就会改变。相对小的变化可能会产生不受约束的影响。>> 谁知道什么会走红。我们必须非常小心我们许下的愿望。>> 所以，所以，我，我是一个保守的自由主义者。你知道，我知道我想成为一个自由主义者，但我非常非常谨慎。我们，我们实际上不想要一场革命。我不知道革命会发生什么。我们偶尔在这个国家发生过骚乱。当人们开始焚烧里面有人居住的建筑物时，这不是一件好事。>> 同意。>> 是的。而且你知道，一旦有人开始这样做，然后我发现一位退休上校写信给我，说警察应该用实弹射击正在骚乱的年轻人，哦，哇，哇，哇，哇。停下来。停下来。停下来。>> 突然我们就到这里了，我汗流浃背。>> 嗯，是的。所以，嗯，或者是的。所以，当，当有人呼吁重置时，我想，嗯，等等。让我们非常小心我们在这里要求的是什么。对我来说，问题是，非常实际地看看发生了什么。工党接受了财政部的建议，削减了富裕养老金领取者的冬季燃料补贴。这是正确且明智的做法。当冬季燃料补贴出台时，富裕的养老金领取者告诉我：“我不需要这笔钱。我把它花在好酒上，或者捐给慈善机构，随便什么。”显然需要削减。但它是在保守党领导人竞选期间宣布的，又一次。>> 所以，容易的事情做了，那就是站在养老金领取者一边反对这项不公正的削减。而且它的愚蠢之处在于，这是保守党的一个绝佳机会，可以说：“终于，工党愿意在现实世界中过着节俭的生活。当然，我们支持削减开支。保守党和改革党应该支持每一次削减开支，并反对每一次增税。如果有什么例外的话，那就是在国防和刑事司法等国家基本职能方面。但除此之外，他们应该绝对支持每一次削减开支。而且你知道，从富裕的养老金领取者那里拿走冬季燃料补贴仅仅是需要做的事情的开始。而改革党和保守党都未能抓住这个机会，这让我同意你的观点，即目前没有一个政党。向公众提供一个能够拯救国家的平台。>> 因为赢得选举的利益意味着你可以把问题推迟。>> 但让我们清楚我们在责怪谁。我们在责怪那些投票的养老金领取者，上帝保佑他们。我的意思是，我们不是在责怪他们。每个人都会根据自身利益投票。>> 嗯，是的，但就是这样。但不知何故，我们必须说服养老金领取者。嗯，我们可以维持三重锁和所有人的冬季燃料补贴，以及免费巴士通行证，这对一些人来说非常重要。但这些将是你的孩子和孙子的后果。你要求我，作为你选出的代表，让你的孙子孙女过着奴役的生活，无法买房、组建家庭、为自己创造未来，这样你就可以把恒温器调高一度。[音乐][音乐]但你要求公众相信政客。这就是，这就是我的问题。回到康纳的观点。>> 如果，如果，我敢肯定，美国先辈们看到现在会感到震惊。>> 是的。>> 他们的项目出了问题，他们会想，我们哪里出错了？[脏话] 我们不知道法定货币。我们没有对货币的约束。现在，扎克·帕兰斯基（Zack Palansky）在接受采访时说：“我过去犯过一个错误，认为政府的预算就像家庭预算，而我不再这样想了。>> 因为我可以印钱。”>> 因为我可以印钱。而我则说：“不，你应该这样想。”实际上，甚至更糟，就像我可以贷款，获得汽车贷款，或者如果我需要的话，可以获得贷款，但我必须偿还，否则我就会失去我的房子或我的车。你知道，有后果。我认为这对于，我认为它应该像家庭预算一样对待，但它应该得到公众的同意才能借钱。我的意思是，如果，如果宣言的意义何在，如果他们不遵守。>> 但如果，是的。>> 但如果，如果存在问责制和后果，你必须平衡账目，如果你选择借贷并使国家负债，你必须获得授权，这意味着它必须通过全民公投。我认为一旦你改变了这些激励措施，并告诉政府他们必须这样做，他们实际上必须这样做，他们不能为特殊利益创造金钱，他们实际上必须说我们负担不起，我们不做，或者我们负担不起，我们不做。这就是对权力的约束。我真的很在乎。这是我最关心的事情，那就是我们理解什么是法定货币，并限制政府创造货币的能力，有两个原因。原因一，通货膨胀是不公平的。这只是不公平。对于那些拥有资产的人来说，这很好。>> 这是极其不公正的。>> 这是极其不公正的。这是，这是完全不公平的。但是，但是，即使是，但是第二点是，当你能够创造金钱并选择根据偏好分配时，你就分裂了社会。>> 是的。>> 你说他们是好人，我们是坏人。我们要把钱给好人，而那些反对的人是坏人。然后我们就回到了极端摇摆。>> 嗯，所以这是，我本来想早点说的，很高兴你提醒了我。公共选择文献中有一个很好的论点，而且非常成熟，即国家绝对不歧视的政策将极大地限制权力，只是拒绝允许政客歧视一个群体而偏袒另一个群体。>> 但但你可以享有法律上的平等，>> 像，像对待人们一样平等。是的。>> 但即使是福利，那也是一种偏好。所以你仍然会有一些偏好，但如果你的偏好仅限于预算，我认为你只是改变了激励措施。>> 是的。但即使是福利，让我们真正地，你知道，摆脱束缚。>> 是的。>> 有一本很棒的书叫《工人阶级病人与医疗体系》（Workingclass Patients and the Medical Establishment），它谈到了 1911 年的《国家保险法》如何摧毁了互助会。整个福利国家的建立是为了扩大当时在大型互助会中为普通工薪阶层提供的福利。将这些福利扩大到那些负担不起的人。但相反，他们所做的就是摧毁它，并创造了一个无法。>> 原谅我。>> 这公平吗？>> 不。我的意思是，嗯，所以平等。>> 所以，在一个完全平等的社会里，每个人都必须接受福利，或者没有人接受。>> 嗯，所以这是，这是非常重要的事情。我们所说的平等是什么意思？所以，我相信每个人都应该被视为道德上平等。这是形式上的平等，即使我们知道人们在道德上并不真正平等，但在法律上，我们对待他们是正确的，然后他们获得政治平等，这在议会中很难实现，每个人的投票都应该算数，法律平等，法律平等地对待每个人，然后机会均等，你所做的不是试图坚持结果均等。现在，一件疯狂的事情是，这种对结果均等的坚持，平均主义一直是社会主义的标志，试图让每个人都获得平等的结果。>> 但它总是导致暴政。而现在对我来说，一件疯狂的事情是，我足够老，记得冷战期间，我们的情报和安全部门负责阻止颠覆、破坏议会民主等等。>> 等等，他们会在这里监视。>> 是的，他们会的。他们关心我说的话。而，而，而那里的重点是，即使是今天，令人难以置信的是，情报和安全部门歧视白人英国男孩，因为他们组织需要更多样化的人。现在我毫不怀疑他们的组织应该反映国家。但阻止有才华的白人男孩申请他们的实习机会，因为他们的身份。这正是他们当时建立起来要反对的那种颠覆。>> 这就造成了种族战争，这是一场骗局。你知道尼克·富恩特斯（Nick Fuentes）吗？>> 我不知道。>> 他在美国，他变得非常非常受欢迎。>> 我听说过他的名字，但事实是，我现在太忙于谋生了。但他代表年轻的直白人男性。>> 是的。>> 和，和表达和代表他们的不满。他完全正确。但他也想要，我不认为他会说他想要一场种族战争，但他想要，我的观点是，他想要一个新的，偏袒白人的。我认为这又是同一个问题。>> 我们只需要停止偏袒。偏袒，所以，等等，你知道，生活很艰难，有时我们做出我们没有预见到后果的选择，即使它们当时看起来是很好的选择，但它们并没有像我们希望的那样发展。有时我们做出糟糕的选择，它们注定会适得其反。但那是我们做出的选择，作为人类，我们应该有尊严地做出自己的选择，并让它们为我们服务，从中学习，并有一个成长的过程。我的意思是，最终，我们正在讨论的所有这些都归结为这一点。生命的意义是什么？我认为生命是一个变成更伟大、更美好的过程。>> 是什么，康纳？生命的意义是什么？>> 追求幸福。>> 追求幸福。>> 追求幸福。是的。为什么不呢？而且>> 或者有一个目标。>> 但我们最终认为我们表现得好像我们没有尊严，没有道德能动性。我们不断屈服于国家告诉我们该做什么，以及那些认为他们知道什么对我们最有利的政客。而且，而且，而且，说它有损尊严听起来有点装腔作势。>> 不，这确实有损尊严。>> 这是对我们作为人类的权利的根本侵犯。>> 不，他们正在羞辱我们。>> 他们正在羞辱我们。>> 羞辱我们，>> 但，但这种羞辱有多种形式。但是，你知道，看着一个年轻人，拥有令人惊叹的工作和巨大的职业前景，却很高兴能以五十万英镑的价格买下一套维多利亚式联排别墅的两居室底层公寓，并为此感到高兴。我看着它，我想，嗯，是的，我分享你的快乐，但哦，你真可怜。五十万英镑的抵押贷款，用于伦敦一栋略微扩建的维多利亚式联排别墅的底层。>> 而我父亲是一名飞机工程师，工作很好，>> 但他从未想过要在伦敦做中层管理。>> 是的。>> 而我母亲是一名护士，>> 拥有四居室的独立屋，供两个孩子读私立学校，我们每年都有假期。同样的工作是不可能的。>> 什么，什么年份他们那样做的？在 80 年代？>> 嗯，80 年代和 90 年代。好的。那>> 在货币部署真正开始流行之前。>> 是的。我的意思是，你现在看看。所以，假设现在一名飞机工程师的收入是多少？也许八万英镑，我不知道。我猜的。而我母亲是一名护士。>> 我的意思是，我通过放弃飞机工程转行软件，薪水翻了一番。>> 嗯，[笑声] 所以，假设他们两人加起来有十二万英镑。好的。那么这两个人的税后可支配收入是多少？天哪，每月五六千英镑，也许吧。好的。那么抵押贷款是多少？>> 四万两千英镑？什么？年可支配收入。>> 飞机工程师四万两千英镑。>> 我的意思是，他比这多一点。嗯，不，他从那开始。>> 他高于中位数。>> 好的。但是，但是学费上涨了 50%。所以，所以，>> 他没有过你描述的生活。>> 每月每个孩子一千五百英镑，所以是每月三千英镑。而那套房子的抵押贷款现在可能是六十万英镑。嗯，所以那是另一个两千英镑的抵押贷款。每月。什么都不剩了。就像你超出了限额。这，这是不可能的。而且，还有货币贬值，而，而货币贬值对我来说是懦弱。>> 这是没有脊梁骨的。>> 当然是。是的。>> 这是偏好。这是权力游戏。而我，史蒂夫，我太 [脏话] 受够了。我受够了，因为我>> 但，但，所以我也受够了。但疯狂的是，这是一次美妙的谈话。我很荣幸来到这里。但老实说，对我来说，沮丧的是，这就是我 2007 年决定从政时的状况。当时全球金融危机爆发了。自互联网泡沫破裂以来，我一直在研究奥地利学派经济学，它打断了我的硕士学位，因为我本应在软件行业发财，然后泡沫破裂了。发现了奥地利学派经济学以及对繁荣-萧条周期的解释。我想，哦，那不可能，因为如果是这样，政客和经济学家就会改变货币体系。我多么天真啊。又过了七八年，全球金融危机爆发了。我已经被里斯本条约和欧盟的推进激怒了，这与选民的明确意愿背道而驰。我仍然不明白为什么不是每个人都对一个权力结构被推进，而违背了人们的同意感到愤怒。我的意思是，这太离谱了，但人们仍然支持欧盟。这对我来说毫无意义，即使经历了所有这一切。是的。>> 对。但我当时充满了这种火气和愤怒，>> 而我现在仍然充满热情。但如果说有什么不同的话，我想我只是被现实所磨砺，看着会发生什么。如果你和你的观众不投票，政府仍然会当选。我亲爱的爸爸，他就是他，愿他安息，他是对的，政府会当选，他们会随心所欲，选民人数更少。但即使是像伟大的民意调查专家约翰·柯蒂斯爵士（Sir John Curtiss）那样，在选举之夜，我接受了采访，他说，谈到摇摆，我说：“最大的摇摆是待在家里。”他立刻驳倒了我，所有人都接受了。但去看看威克姆（Wickham）之类的地方的数据。>> 是的。最大的摇摆不是转向工党。而是待在家里。工党。这不像威克姆的选民从保守党转向工党。我的选票崩溃了，但工党的选票只下降了。太多人待在家里了。甚至民意调查专家也不在乎 [脏话]。他们根本不在乎不投票。他们只是敷衍过去。这和社会主义者一样。社会主义者继续他们的计划，即使他们无法获得制定计划所需的信息。这根本不可能。这就是为什么社会主义总是失败。而民意调查专家也一样，如果你待在家里，民意调查专家乐于忽视你，并用科学包装的 [脏话] 来谈论摇摆是如何发生的。>> 给我一些可以投票的东西。>> 嗯，我很乐意。但你知道疯狂的是什么吗？疯狂的是，在民主制度下，这可能真的会落在你和我身上，为你的观众提供一些可以投票的东西，因为除了我们还有谁？>> 嗯，我的意思是，这又回到了原点。这就是为什么我现在对选民如此热情。一，理解金钱是如何运作的，以及它如何与他们作对。>> 以及不受约束的权力意味着是的，你可能会投票给某人，他们会根据你的偏好或你的群体来分配资源和权利，但如果他们输了，>> 对立面就会对你不利。就像，你想生活在那个世界里吗？是的。>> 你想生活在那个世界里，在那里它变得如此生死攸关，以至于要赢吗？还是你想，因为我不认为这是关于每个人都赢。我认为这是关于每个人都有最好的机会去赢。>> 是的。>> 每个人都有最好的。>> 你知道人们忘了，人类的正常状态是在田野里挨饿赤身裸体，没有食物。人们谈论富足，好像那是生命中的自然状态。就我们所拥有的富足而言，这是因为自由市场的奇迹，人们在强大的财产权、合同自由、价格、利润和亏损的条件下合作，从而带来富足，因为我们创造，我们合作，我们创造。这是伟大的奇迹和见解之一。任何打断这种社会合作、价格、利润和亏损、合同自由、强大财产权进程的事物都是坏事。M 但我们有它，>> 但不幸的是，这就是已经出现的情况。我的意思是，凯恩斯写过，其他人也写过。是思想真正重要。是 70 年代和 80 年代那些疯狂、狂野、愚蠢的新马克思主义学生政治思想，现在是执政阶级的核心意识形态。被绝大多数掌权者视为理所当然，无论他们是记者、公务员还是监管机构。他们现在只是，或者说，那些决定 MI5 实习项目招生政策的人，他们现在认为歧视白人年轻男性是好的，是积极的。>> 而我们应该。>> 然后他们对他们被激进化感到惊讶。我的意思是，老实说，你编不出来。而且对他们来说是正常的。而且我们不应该放过媒体，顺便说一句，因为他们同样有罪。>> 所以我的“为自由未来而战”项目旨在接触记者。这就是为什么我们在播客上采访记者。我们采访政客、智囊团和意见领袖，主要是记者，因为我真的希望记者解释为什么新闻业有效。为什么他们采访部长时，经常问一些关于谁上谁下的琐碎八卦问题，而真正重要的问题是，部长，你为什么花钱远远超出纳税人的承受能力？你增税对就业有什么影响？我认为有一个，我认为有一个比这更重要的问题，你如何花钱，以及其影响是什么？这就是问题所在，他们正在处理，媒体正在处理左翼，你知道，政策，以及，你知道，谁，我不知道，和谁睡觉，谁说了什么，而没有人，就像，为什么>> 为什么是我，皮特，来自贝德福德，有一个播客，他说：“等等，这里有什么东西不起作用，权力限制有问题。为什么只有我在看历史，然后说：“我们被告知会发生这种情况，而且它确实发生了。为什么我们不解决它？为什么他们不深入研究呢？这让我非常恼火。”>> 嗯，你感到恼火是完全正确的。我同意你。所以，这非常，我的意思是，再次出现相似之处。当我厌倦了政治和公共生活时，我的决定是直接投身其中。你的决定是开始一个播客。嗯，不同的背景，它们都是，它们都是有效的。我认为它们都是对需要做的事情的绝对有效的贡献。顺便说一句，我现在也是一个播客。我很想让你来我的播客。>> 我很乐意。我不知道，嗯，是的，但现在我，我想要一场革命。>> 是的。但问题是，谢天谢地，你想要引发的革命是一场和平合法的革命。，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，，,

mean the relative size of these things. >> Well, then you quit and then you go and work for a agency who employs you back in the NHS for more. >> There we are. >> Which is the griff. So Connor's question is relevant. Yeah, >> which you were about to ask. Um, remind me. >> I just like to map things out like let's like actually go through it. >> So before that, do you agree with my premise in that we don't have enough liberty in this country and to restore liberty, we need more constraints on power and government. Do you agree or not? >> Yes, of course I agree. Great. >> Apart from any other thing, if you just looked at the height of taxation, that answers your question. Look at the extent of regulation. Look at the length of the tax code. It it it just even the most cursory glance at the facts tells you that we are not in a crisis of freedom. We're in a crisis of control by the state. >> Cool. So you get that >> you get your power structures. >> How does that work in practice? Let's take taxes for example. How does that affect tax >> to to get to get taxes down? There is no escaping. We will have to cut spending in places which people will feel. But how does limitations on power stop them >> from upping taxes? >> Are you asking what limitation on power could be created that >> that does that? >> So hang on a bit though because I think we're approaching this from slightly different places. I'm thinking given where we are today, how do where we get to where we want to be? But I feel like you're asking me a different question. I feel like you're asking me if we had small government, how would we limit power to make sure it didn't grow large again? And I agree that that's an important and necessary question. But the absolutely pressing problem we have today is that taxes are historic highs and arguably I asked an economist to write the paper he Julie did and it's been published David B Smith are with the UK's limits of taxable capacity and the answer is yes taxes are at excruciating levels. So really Connor, my answer to you is that the revolution was it's water o it's water over the bridge that power has ended up practically unconstrained because taxes are at historic highs and >> borrowing is at historic highs. >> Yeah. and currency debasement as I say keep going on about it because the chart was a flat line until about the ' 50s you know about the time of the second world war then through the ' 50s it starts coming up 1971 and you go from it's a rocket show rocket ship and it it's categorically different contexts for all our lives either money holds its value or it collapses and it's not like it was a gentle transition it was it was 1971 and it that that happened because politicians weren't constrained and they tried to meet the public's demand for high spending and low taxes. And this is why frustration is it's not an abstract problem. We are spending more money on pensions and the NHS and social care than we can possibly afford. And it's a very practical problem now. Somehow a Malay style British figure must get elected saying to the public, "If we continue down this path, we will have a hyperinflationary collapse and face utter ruin." >> Who's getting the chainsaw, you or me? >> Well, one of us should do it. Somebody's got to do it because we do face ruin. But that means the public have got to be brought [snorts] to be willing to say, "Peter, here is a mandate. Please go and cut spending so that we have a surplus, not a deficit." And we understand you'll need to cut winter fuel payments to pensioners. We know you'll need to end the triple lock. We know that NHS spending can't go up. Actually, it might have to come down. More of us might have to pay for more non-life-threatening procedures. Imagine >> or what whatever it whatever it might be. We got to do something to get the spending down. >> There's no nice answer. It's which one do you want? You want long-term descent into which I think we're going to get a combination of Argentina and Le and Lebanon. >> But I but yeah, >> or do we all group together, we agree it's [ __ ] everyone takes a cut, we have a painful reset, and we reestablish the country. >> Well, >> so that's what it is. It's a reset because you've just agreed, Steve, that >> it will then start to grow again. >> So that's >> So what do we do? Do we reset every 50 years? >> Well, or a constraint on power. Let's just be really careful about what the choices are which we can actually make in a nation of tens of millions of people, a world of billions of people. >> Society is a it's literally a complex dynamic system. What does that mean? It means like the butterfly flaps its wings and the weather changes. Relatively small changes can have unconstrained effects. >> Who knows what's going to go viral. We've got to be so careful about what we wish for. >> So, so I'm I'm a conservative libertarian. You know, I know where I want to be a libertarian, but I'm very very cautious. We We actually don't want a revolution. I don't know what's going to happen in a revolution. We've occasionally had riots in this country. It's not a good thing when people start burning buildings with others in them. >> Agreed. >> Yeah. And you know, once somebody starts doing that, then I find an old retired colonel's writing to me saying the police should be opening fire with live rounds on young people who are rioting and Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop. Stop. Stop. >> Suddenly we're here and I'm swe >> Well, yeah. So, well or Yeah. So, when we when somebody calls for a reset, I think, well, hang on. Let's just be really careful what we're asking for here. The the the the issue for me is look very practically what happened. Labor took Treasury advice to cut winter fuel payments from better off pensioners. It's a right and sensible thing to do. When winter fuel payments came in, better off pensioners were telling me, "I don't need this money. I spend it on a good bottle of whiskey or I give it to charity, whatever." It obviously needed to be cut. But it was announced during a Tory leadership contest, yet another one. >> So the easy thing was done, which was to stand with the pensioners against this unjust cut. And the stupidity of it, it was a great moment for the Conservative Party to say, "Finally, the Labor Party is willing to live modestly in the real world. Of course, we support this cut to spending. The Conservative Party and reform should support every cut to spending and they should oppose every rise to taxation. And if there was a exception at all to that, it would be in the fundamental functions of the state like defense and criminal justice. But other than that, they they should absolutely support every cut to spending. And you know really taking winter fuel payments from better off pensioners is only the beginning of what needs to be done. And the fact that both reform and the conservatives failed to rise to that moment makes me agree with you that there is not currently a political party. Offering a platform to the public which would save the nation >> because the interests of winning election means you can kick the can down the road. >> But let's be clear who we're blaming there. We're blaming pensioners who vote there and God bless them. I mean, we're talking about don't blame them. Everyone will vote with self-interest. >> Well, yeah, but this is it. But somehow we've got to persuade pensioners. Well, we can maintain the triple lock and the winter fuel payment for everyone and free bus passes is very dear to some people. But these will be the consequences for your children and grandchildren. You are demanding that I, as your elected representation, hold your grandchildren in servitude, unable to buy a house and form a family and make a future for themselves, so that you can turn the thermostat up a degree. [music] [music] But you're asking the public to believe politicians. And this is this is my my problem with it all is that going back to Connor's point. >> If if and I'm sure the the the forefathers of America would be horrified if they saw now. >> Yes. >> Their project went wrong and they'll go where did we go wrong? [ __ ] We didn't know about fiat money. We didn't have constraints on uh money. Now, Zack Palansky when he was doing the interview, he said, "I used to make that mistake of thinking of uh the government's budget like a household budget, and I don't anymore >> cuz I can print money." >> Cuz I can print money. And I'm like, "No, you should think of it." Actually, even even worse, like I can take out a mortgage and get a car loan or get a loan if I need it, but I have to pay it back otherwise I lose my house or lose my car. You know, that there are consequences. I think it's even worse for the I think it needs to treat it like a household budget, but it should have the consent of the public to borrow money. And what I mean by that is that if a if what is the point of a manifesto they don't keep to >> but if Yeah. >> But if if there was accountability and consequences that you must balance the books, if you choose to borrow and put the country into debt, you have to have a mandate which means it goes to referendum. And I think once you flip those incentives and you say to the government that you have to do it, they have to actually they can't create money for special interests. They have to actually go we can't afford that and we're not doing it or we can't afford this or not doing it. And that's a constraint on power. I really care. It's the one I care more about anything is that we understand what fiat money is and we constrain government to government's ability to create money for two reasons. Reason one is inflation is unfair. That's just it is just unfair. It's great for those who got the assets. >> It's radically unjust. >> It's radically unjust. It's it's totally unfair. But but even but the second point is when you can create money and choose to allocate based on preference, you divide society. >> Yeah. >> You you say they're the good guys, we're the bad guys. We're going to give the money to the good guys and the they're the bad guys who oppose it. And then we get back into that swings of extremes. >> Well, so that's to I meant to say this earlier, and you're glad you've reminded me. There is a good argument made in the public choice literature very well established that a policy of absolute nondiscrimination by the state would go a long way to constrain power just to refuse to allow politicians to discriminate in favor of one group and against another. >> But but you can have equality under the law for such >> treat people equally. Yeah. >> But but even with welfare that is that is a preference. So you will still always have some preference, but if your preference is restricted to a budget, I think you just flip the incentives. >> Yeah. But even welfare, let's get really, you know, offshackles off. >> Yeah. >> There's a brilliant book called Workingclass Patients and the Medical Establishment, and it talks about how the friendly societies were destroyed by the 1911 National Insurance Act. The whole establishment of the welfare state was supposed to extend the benefits which were then seen amongst the large friendly societies for ordinary working people. extend those benefits to those who couldn't afford them. But instead, what they did was destroy it and create a system that couldn't be >> pardon. >> Is that equal? >> No. I mean, well, so equality. >> So, in a completely equal society, everyone would have to receive welfare or no one would. >> Well, so that this is the this is the a really important thing. What do we mean by equality? So, I believe in everyone should be treated as mor treated as morally equal. That's formally equal even though we know that people are not actually morally equally worthy but formally under the law we treat them right then they get political equality that turns out to be quite difficult to get through parliament everyone's vote should count the same legal equality that the law treats everyone legally equally and then equal opportunity what you don't do is try to insist on equal outcomes now one of the crazy things this this insistence on equal outcomes egalitarianism was one of the hallmark always has been a hallmark of socialism trying to get equal outcomes for everybody, >> but it always leads to tyranny. And one of the crazy things right now for me, I'm I'm old enough to remember during the Cold War that our intelligence and security community was charged with preventing amongst other things subversion this that and undermining of parliamentary democracy. >> Hold on. They're going to be watching here. >> Yeah, they will. They care what I say. And the the the point there is that even today, it's incredible that the intelligence and security community discriminate against white British boys because they need more diverse people in their organization. Now I don't doubt that their organization should reflect the country. But stopping talented white boys from applying for their internships because their because of their identity. That is exactly the kind of subversion that they were established at a time to stand against >> which creates the race war which is a scam. This is Do you know this Nick Fuentes? >> I don't know. >> He's this in America. He's become very very popular. >> I've heard his name but the truth is right now I'm too consumed trying to make a living. But he's representing young straight white men. >> Yeah. >> And uh and vocalizing and representing their frustrations. He's totally right. But he also wants I I don't think he would say he wants a race war, but he wants to I my uh view is that he wants a new DI which preferences whites. And I think it's the same problem again. >> We've just got to stop preferencing. Preference just so hang on. So, you know, life is hard and sometimes we make choices which we don't foresee the consequences of and even they might have seemed quite good choices at the time, they don't work out the way we would have liked. Sometimes we make bad choices and they were bound to backfire. But they were choices we made and as human beings, we deserve the dignity of making our own choices and having them work out for us and learning from them and and having a process of becoming. I mean, in the end, all this that we're discussing boils down really to this. What is life for? I think life is a process of becoming something greater and more. >> What is it, Con? What is what is the purpose of life? >> Pursuit of happiness. >> Pursuit of happiness. >> Pursuit of happiness. Yeah. Why not? And >> or having a purpose. >> But we've ended up thinking we're behaving as if we're behaving as if we had no dignity and no moral agency. We're submitting to the state constantly telling us what to do and politicians who think they know what's in our best interests. And it's it's it's to say it's undignified sounds somehow pompous. >> No, it is undignified. >> It it is a fundamental invasion of our right to be human. >> No, they're humiliating us. >> They they are humiliating. >> Humiliating us, >> but but that humiliation takes many forms. But, you know, watching a young person with an amazing job and a huge career ahead of them being glad to buy a two-bedroom ground floor flat in a terrace Victorian house and for half a million pounds and be glad to buy it. I I look at that and I think, well, I yeah, I I share in your happiness, but oh, you poor thing. A mortgage for half a million pounds for the ground floor of a slightly extended Victorian Terrace in London. >> And my dad as an aircraft engineer, great job, >> but it was never going to be a middle management London job. >> Yeah. >> And my mom as a nurse >> owned a detached four-bedroom house and put two kids through private school and we had a holiday every year. That is impossible on the same job. >> What What years did they do that in in the 80s? >> Uh ' 80s and 90s. Okay. That is >> before monetary deployment had really got ripping through. >> Yeah. I mean, you look now. So let's say what what would a aircraft engineer now? Maybe 80 grand. I don't know. I'm guessing. And my mom's nurse. >> I mean I doubled my pay by giving up aircraft engineering and going into software. >> Well, [laughter] so let's say 120 grand between the two of them. Okay. So what is your dis what is your disposable income after tax for those two people? God, five, six grand a month maybe. Okay. So what's a mortgage on a >> 42,000? What? Disposable income a year off. >> Aircraft engineer 42,000. >> I mean, so he's a little bit more. Well, no, he started it on that. >> He's above median. >> Okay. But but but school fees have gone up 50%. So So >> he's not having the life you described. >> It's one and a half say it's one and a half grand a month per kid. So that's three grand a month. And a mortgage on that house will probably be 600 grand now. Um so that's a mortgage of what? Another two grand a month. There's nothing. There's nothing left. Like you're over the limit. It's it is not possible. And that there's monetary debasement and and and monetary debasement for me is cowardice. >> It's spineless. >> Of course it is. Yeah. >> It's preference. It's power games. And I'm a Steve, I'm so [ __ ] over it. I'm over it because I >> But the the So I'm I'm over it, too. But the crazy This is a wonderful conversation. I'm so honored to be here. But honestly, the frustration for me is that this is where I was in 2007 when I decided to get into politics. When the global financial crisis then hit, I'd been looking at Austrian school economics since the dotcom bust happened and interrupted my master's degree because I was expecting to make my fortune in software and then the bust happened. Discovered Austrian school economics and the explanation of the boom bus cycle. I thought, oh, that can't be right because if it was politicians and economists would change the monetary system. How naive I was. On we roll another seven, eight years and the global financial crisis hits. I'm already furious about the Lisbon Treaty in the EU being rolled forward positively against the expressed wishes of electors. I still don't understand how not everyone's furious about a structure of power being built positively against withheld consent. I I mean, it's so outrageous and yet people still are in favor of the EU. It's it makes no sense to me even after all we've been through. Yeah. >> Right. But I was full of this fire and fury then >> and I'm still deeply passionate about it now. But if anything, I suppose I've just been tempered by the reality of watching what happens. If you and your viewers don't vote, the government will still get in. And dear old dad, he was all he was, bless his heart, he's right, the government will get in and they'll suit themselves on a smaller electorate. But even like Sir John Curt Curtis, the great pollster on election night, I was interviewed and he said, talking about the swings, I said, "The big swing is to staying at home." And he immediately shot me down and everybody accepted it. But go and look at the data of in somewhere like Wickham. Yeah. The big swing was not to the Labor Party. It was to staying at home. The Labour Party. It's not like the voters in Wickham swung from the Conservatives to Labor. My vote collapsed, but the Labour vote only fell. People just pe too many people stayed at home. And the even the pollsters don't give a [ __ ] They don't give a [ __ ] about non- voting. They just gloss over it. It's just the same as the socialists. The socialists proceed with their plans even though they cannot obtain the information necessary to make their plans succeed. It's just not possible. That's why socialism always fails. And the pollsters are as bad if you stay at home. The pollsters are happy to ignore you and talk a lot of [ __ ] dressed up as science about how the swing has happened. >> Give me something to vote for. >> Well, I'd love to. But you know what the crazy thing is? The crazy thing is in a democracy it might end up it literally really might end up falling to you and me to give your viewers something to vote for because who the hell else is there? >> Well, I mean this is again I I go around in circles. This is why I am so passionate now about the electorate. One, understanding how money works and how it works against them >> and how unconstrained power means yes, you might vote for somebody who allocates resources and rights and things to to to your preference or to your group, but if they don't win, >> the opposition is going to work against you. And like, do you want to live in that world? Yeah. >> Do you want to live in that world where it becomes so existential to win? Or do you want because I don't think it's about everyone winning. I think it's about everyone having the best chance to win. >> Yeah. >> Everyone has the best. >> You know that people forget that the normal condition of humanity is starving naked in a field with no food. People talk about abundance as if it was a natural condition of life. In so far as we have abundance, it is because of the miracle of the free market that people cooperating under conditions of strong property rights, freedom to contract, prices, profit and loss leads to abundance because we create, we cooperate and we create. That's one of the great miracles and insights. Anything in that interrupts this process of social cooperation, prices, profit and loss, freedom to contract, strong property rights is a bad thing. M but we have it and >> but unfortunately this is what has grown up. I mean Kane's wrote about it, others have written about it. It's ideas that really matter. It's what was crazy, wild, stupid neo-Marxist student politics ideas of the 70s and 80s are now the mainstream ideology of the governing class. taken for granted by the vast majority of people in power, whether they're journalists or civil servants or regulators. They now just but or indeed the people who've decided on the admissions policy of the MI5 internship program, they they now think it's okay positive. They now think it's positively a good thing to discriminate against white white young men >> and we should >> and then they're surprised that they get radicalized. I mean, honestly, you couldn't make it up and is normal for them. And we shouldn't let the media off the hook, by the way, because they're just as complicit in this as well. >> So my my Fighting for a Free Future project aims to reach journalists. That's why we interview journalists on the podcast. We interview politicians, think tankers, and opinion formers, mostly journalists, because I really want journalists to explain why journalism works. Why so often when they interview ministers do they ask them frivolous gossipy questions about who's up and who's down today when the question that really matters is minister why are you spending so far beyond the taxpayers's means what is what are the implications for employment of that tax rise I think there's a I think there's a more important question than that how can you spend and what are the implications and this is the problem they're dealing the the media are dealing with left try, you know, policy and, you know, and who's I don't know, shagging who and who said this and and nobody like why >> why is it me, Pete from Bedford with a podcast who's going, "Hold on. Something's not working here that that there's a problem with the limitations and power. Why am I the one looking at history and going, "We were told this would happen and it's happened. Why aren't we addressing it? Why aren't they going that deep? Pisses me right off." >> Well, you're absolutely right to be pissed off. I agree with you. So it's very I mean again parallels. So when I got pissed off with politics and public life, my decision was to go and just dive straight into it. Your decision was to start a podcast. Well, different contexts were like they're both they're both valid. I believe they are both absolutely valid contribution to what needs to be done. I'm now a podcaster as well. By the way, I'd love for you to come on my podcast. >> I would love to. I don't know what Well, yeah, but now I'm I'm I want to spark a revolution. >> Yeah. But the thing is, thank God the revolution you want to spark is a peaceful and lawful one. the the the the problem with revolutions, genuine revolutions, you just don't know what's going to happen. >> I know. >> And to me, the if it if it is the case, and I think history bears out that it is the case, that ideas are what really matters. Because why is the pen mightier than the sword? It's because ideas are more powerful than armies. It's ideas that shape the course of human lives. And it's not actually, it's not the ideas in the heads of everybody going around their everyday lives. Actually, it's the ideas in the heads of people who shape opinion. Journalists, podcasters, social media influencers, and yes, politicians, regulators, people who edit newspapers, people who write newspapers, the people who actually shape the terrain of debate. You know, why have we ended up that any idiot with a car and a carving knife can now carry out a terrorist attack? How has that happened? You know, we should be asking really serious questions about why anyone would want to do it. And I've got to be a bit careful not to stray into But we we've ended up with a crazy situation now. You they can't hijack airplanes. So now we've got to have security apparatus around Christmas markets. >> Oh, sorry. Birmingham for for hostile vehicles. Yeah. But Steve, this also comes back to the money. Why did Nixon really come off the gold stand finance the Vietnam War? Cuz he wouldn't be able to sell war bonds. And it's like he c he came off the gold standard to finance the war. And I think the other way, how many wars would we not had >> if we we were constrained? Well, >> absolutely. >> Would we be in this situation where we were bombing brown people in the Middle East because Tony Blair wanted to suck up to the Americans? And would we have destabilized the region? Would they be coming? I don't see um um uh uh jihadists and Islamists from, you know, pissed off with what's happening in Gaza or what's happening. I don't see them attacking like blowing up markets in Brazil and I don't see them they're blowing them up in the countries that contributed to the wars attack those countries and those war Ron Paul used to speak about this all of the time after 9/11 and um we've got to be really really careful about where we go with the conversation like this because I'm just absolutely clear no overseas adventurism. >> Yeah. >> Military power is absolutely vital. It's there for defense. We do not send it overseas other than in so far as we need to for our own straight up defense of our own territory. We don't go into other countries for the regime changes. We just we do not. But unfortunately, people fall into this error. But also, we have to say to everyone, you absolutely never under any pretext or any excuse engage in terrorism of any kind. Innocent people deserve their security and we absolutely will act to protect them from those threats. But then people are going to ask questions as you do as Ron Paul did. How did we bring this on ourselves is effectively the question that people are asking. But we have got to untangle so many difficult things now. >> Power constrain power. >> Constrain power. >> Power >> but also equal treatment. >> Yes. Yeah. >> And property rights like but I think they're downstream like that's that's all part of the same conversation. Sunset clauses on special powers. You know, we've got to deal with all of this. And somehow Steve I don't know. I mean, I see I say in a con. I was like, am I mental? Like, why is it me here who's getting so worked up, who's spending all day every day thinking about this and trying to come up with a solution and think, well, actually, we need a peaceful revolution and we can bring government to its knees. Like, am I mental or am I actually on the money? >> Well, neither. I would suggest we absolutely do need to dramatically change the way that the state functions and to what ends. But how we do that is the big question. So, on this podcast, you are definitely hearing me talk about Bitcoin a lot. Well, why? We live in a really strange time with governments driving inflation with their reckless spending and endless money printing. There is a way out of this. There is a way to protect your money, and that is by stacking Bitcoin. I've made loads of shows about Bitcoin. You can go and research this. You can go and read the books. But the truth is, it is the hardest money ever created. If you are interested in protecting your financial future, it's time for you to get on the Bitcoin train. I have I've been stacking Bitcoin personally and through my businesses since 2017. It's protected me. It's secured my family's future and it also strengthens all of my businesses. So, if you want to start stacking Bitcoin, where do you do it? Well, for me is with Gemini. They're a fully licensed full reserve exchange and custodian. So, they give you a secure way for you to buy and own your Bitcoin. There's no risks and no funny business. So, if you're serious about stacking Bitcoin the right way, head over to gemini.com, which is gem ni.com. I mean, look, let' let's suppose that this podcast went really viral, okay? Yeah. Let's suppose tens of millions of people watch this video and sign up to your pledge, which I've signed, by the way, cuz I definitely do not consent to this government. >> But suppose they did. And suppose by some mechanism, the government peacefully fell when Parliament returns in the new year. Okay. So now we're into a general election. it because that would you can't the government if the if parliament's fallen there's a general election who's ready to give us a government we want at the moment looking at the polls, we would probably end up with either a lib lab green coalition or a reform conservative coalition >> but if suppose we had either of those coalitions which one's more likely to give us what we want probably a reform conservative coalition have are they even remotely ready to form a government uh and and deliver in ways that we would approve of. The answer's got to be no. >> Actually, I say I have an idea. Connor inspired ideas. >> Yeah. Also, no, no government will give you what you want because what you want is directly affects them. So, it's not about dissolving parliament and another election. It's about how do we change the >> they'll water it down. Well, so I mean we've had a parliament for a long old time and prior to the first world war, the dominant political ideology in this country. The the center ground of politics was classical liberalism. It was a different classical liberalism to the American version. But when the big political battle of the day was Gladstone versus DIL, they were Draeli wasn't a classical liberal, but he was forced to operate on a classical liberal territory. So I think the answer to your question is to make sure we get the government we want. We have to create the conditions whereby the public demand a classical liberal to libertarian government and they will only do that when the opinion formers are shaping opinion in that direction. We've got an idea. >> Go on tell us if we're being naive. Single issue party call it whatever it wants. The constitution party. >> Yeah. that comes out when its mandate is if we are elected our one job and our one job only is we're going to come in and we're going to constrain the power of government. This is exactly how we're going to do it. Deliver the mandate to the public. You obviously have to find MPs who will run who will support this. Mhm. >> Um if you win power, you go through the process of undoing whatever statutes you need to do and implementing whatever laws create the constraints on the understanding of the public then you will call another election afterwards and that party will stand down. Now if you started it now maybe in in the best you in the best case scenario you win a few seats but you go in saying you will want us at the next election because this next government will fail. >> Yeah >> and then by the next election everyone will go [ __ ] they were right. >> Yeah. The trouble with these next elections remember what we were saying earlier is this rotten Labor government that's failed after a year has got another three and a half years of nonsense >> eventually. Not if I've got anything to do with it. But so this is I I actually genuinely think that it's really implausible that this government will fall e even if even if half or twothirds of the population signed up to your I do not consent pledge. >> What if they stopped consenting? >> But what does stopping consenting mean? Does because you you're not asking people to stop paying their taxes taxes because they go to prison for that. >> But what if they stop going to work? >> Well then they'd go hungry. I mean in the end they I mean but they're not going to >> but it happens in other countries. But it's not it's there's a nonzero chance you could pull it off. >> I I I well or Okay, there is a non-zero chance. >> But that's but that's one option. The other >> But the the where I think I get really impatient with you is because I've been and I mean I'm not annoyed. >> No, no, no. >> But I've been a government minister in three departments and I've stood for election five times >> and I've spent 14 years dealing with politicians and officials and the public. And what everybody wants above all is to be able to pay their mortgage and feed the kids and perhaps go on holiday. And so when you start saying your plan relies on people staying at home and not going to work, it's like it's going to run into the fundamental problem that people want to pay their mortgage. I mean that's why civil servants are not in favor of a smaller civil service because they are in favor like everybody else paying their mortgage which is fair enough. >> Single day strike. >> We could have a single day strike. Yeah. with the warning that if we don't have uh the government come to the table next month, it'll be a two-day strike. >> But again, I mean, yeah, but government come to the table with whom? Because th this is this is again if you talk about power and where it's located. >> One of the things we >> It's in Soho right now. >> Yeah. One of the things we did test very nearly to destruction in our country during Brexit was whether Parliament actually is the origin of power in this or the expression of the public's power. And that that that that's really the of course in a democracy power is with the people the voting electors. But what we tested nearly to destruction is whether that power crystallizes for decision-making purposes in the House of Commons. And the answer is yes. I mean I personally held more times than I can remember the WhatsApp broadcast list which decided which way things were going to go. And I I it was literally me with not that phone because I've upgraded it, but one of these phones in my hand and uh people all looking at me and I sent the message and the vote went one way or the other. And then history changed. And that's I think why I get a bit impatient because we've got a mechanism by which the public can change the course of the life of this country. And it's an incredibly effective at its best mechanism. It's just we got a bunch of idiots sitting in it arguing with each other about [ __ ] ideas that will never work. But how do you get people who aren't idiots then? >> That this is where we come back to. I'm sorry to what I said at the beginning. People have got to join a political party and I honestly and please don't scream at me when you're watching this podcast. This is the problem. For years, we've neglected political parties. The membership of political parties has collapsed since the days of the Cold War. And it it's not surprising you end up with a more limited field of candidates, a more limited field of selectors. candidates when they stand up to be asked questions don't get a Pete McCormack asking them, "But what about business rates?" Just just walk me through what high business rates actually do to me when I'm trying to open a cafe and and just explain to me what that what what it actually means for me before I've had a sold a single coffee to have to pay however many thousand pounds it is for whichever shop you've got. And just force them to answer that. And I mean, you could ask them about the football regulator. I mean, personally, I I'm not very interested in football. But when somebody asked me to oppose the football regulator, I I refused because I thought if it really comes down to the football regulator, I can't be bothered. >> Maybe I was wrong. Maybe since so many people are engaged in football, I should be talking all the time about the bloody football regulator. Why on earth does football need a state regulator? Perhaps you think it does. I bet you don't. >> No, of course not. Thank God for that. Football is in the right place. >> Well, is it probably our biggest most successful export of the last 20 years? Honestly, it was Tracy Crouch who I know and respect who conservative MP who came up with these ideas and it's like what do they do? Do they just sit there going what new things can I come up with that >> well they want to make a difference? So she she's not here to answer for herself and I do like Tracy and Tracy's one of the few people who like me I think we're the only two who have both refused to join a government on principle and resigned from the government on principle. So there's only two of us of that much principle. I just disagree with her on this point. Tracy undoubtedly absolutely loves sport and loves football and wants to make foot football better for the fans. I absolutely do not impugn her motives, but how she ended up coming up with something that leads to us having a state regulator of a sport, I just I just don't I just don't get it. And it it's a sign of how hopeless things have become. But there's there's really no way around it. The government's always going to get in. The government will get in with members of parliament sitting on the green benches in the House of Commons. So then the problem does reduce to how do you make sure you haven't got [ __ ] idiots sitting there? That's a phrase I've enjoyed saying. I'm going to say it again. How do you make sure you don't get [ __ ] idiots sitting on the benches of the House of Commons, unprincipled, blowing with the wind with no real conception of how the economy works. You've never had to raise an invoice and live by it. How do you do that? You have to go to the selection meeting and weed them out at the selection meeting so that they can't get on just because they happen to know the right person to get through to be on the candidate list and say the right things on the day in front of the tiny number of people who happen to be blown away by what they said. The only thing you can do is go to the meeting as frustration as it is and say >> I feel like it feels like hope. It feels like cross your fingers and hope and I'm beyond that. That's my problem Steve. I am beyond that. I and interestingly I realized because of some something somebody put on X is they uh I'm not just rebelling against the government. I'm rebelling against every single person who backs the government and says it works. I'm rebelling against all of it. >> So I'm really clear that the state as such doesn't work. I want a smaller state which does less. I I would >> That's not that. No, what I mean is there are people who think think it's good as it is >> and I'm rebelling against them. Well, rebelling against people who think I'm all for rebelling against and and absolutely fervently, democratically and lawfully opposing those who think that more state power is a good idea. They're called socialists. They're absolutely wrong. They've been proven to be wrong time and time again through history where socialism always ends up collapsing very often into misery and mass murder. And still they say that wasn't socialism because it wasn't utopia. And they think and they think that socialism equals utopia. So if it's not utopia, it wasn't really socialism. And this is a stupidity which with which we should not have to put up. But when you say to me it's hope, this is I think where I do genuinely get frustrated. The reason I come in a suit is to inhabit that I am a privy counselor who was a parliamentarian and I was a parliamentarian really not a politician. I stood up for what I believe to rewrite all the time without fear or favor and it's done me an immense amount of harm. It hasn't helped me get on. I you know it's difficult now to make a living because I go that's what's right. We're gonna do that. And that's why I come wearing a suit. I'd much rather be in a t-shirt. But I come to to inhabit the politician to just try to get across that I've been through it. I've been there. Five general elections, 14 years of experience. I know how these structures work. It is not a strategy of hope to be in the room to speak and to vote. That is how pass that is how power is exercised and removed structure. I >> I think it's a structure wrong >> but it's a strategy of hope that people will engage like that and I don't think they will. But even then, Pete, you're so you're asking people to not go to work and that's also hoping that they will >> but but but also even if they do and you get the right people in there again without the right constraints and power we'll still have the I mean >> so we are unfortunately life in society absolutely does put us at the mercy of the men and women around us and that is the fundamental problem we all face. >> Yeah, >> of course it is. We are at the mercy of those we inhabit this country and this planet with. And one of the things we are both engaged in in our different ways is trying to influence what those good men and women think and what their children grow up to think in the hope that they will stop enforcing on us the stupid idea that the government should do more and tax more and regulate more in hope of making our lives better when we can all see it doesn't work. So unfortunately we are all stuck if we want a better world that we've got to influence our fellow men and women. We're just trying different ways. >> Can I try a different way? Since it's the 23rd of December, it's Christmas in a couple of days. >> Yeah. Happy Christmas, by the way. >> Yeah. Happy Christmas. The big story of the Bible, since we're coming to Christmas, the reason for renewal is that big story of the Bible is that power does not work to set society right. I gave this as a theological lecture to a room full of theologians and got away with it. Nobody told me I was wrong. The only critique I got was I mispronounced stoay, which is one of the kinds of love. But the point is this. The big story of the Bible over thousands of years, the reason that Christ came is because power will never set society right. The law, God gave the people the law and said, "Follow the law." They asked for a king. S and Samuel told them on behalf of the Lord what the king would be like. He tyrannized them and charged them taxes of even 10%. It's in 1 Samuel 8 if you want to read it. Ongo all the prophets demanding that the people turn back to the law with the exception of Habacook. Habacook can see what terrors are coming down the road and cries out to the Lord on behalf of the people. And God says, "Leave it with me. I'm in charge." Time passes. Christ comes. Christ fulfills the law. Sets it aside. And we we and we're saved by grace. It I've set this out in a in a Substack people can find online. And as I say, theologians listen to me. They didn't tell me I was wrong, but you never hear the bishops say this, and I wish they would. The whole point of the Christian story, which begins at Christmas, is that power and law cannot set society right. What we've got to do in life in society is choose a different way of relating to one another. And Christ told us what that way is. It's love. Now, people at this point be rolling their eyes or screaming at, but but look, we're sitting here frustrated that this way of doing things doesn't work. M >> and there is a big thick Bible a book called the Bible which agrees with us doing thing and the Old Testament laws aren't all about how to slaughter a bull. They're about which fibers you can mix together in clothes. >> You know they've detailed product regulations and all of that got swept aside by Christ who said we're going to live by grace and love one another. >> And and and this to me is why as we go into Christmas doing this is why I said yes immediately. We it it's so frustrating and we've got to conduct politics on a secular basis. But for me as a Christian looking at the problems we face, I just think, yeah, this is just going to keep on rolling on until we give up on the idea that the law and power will set society right. We need the public to decide they would like to live a better and different way. >> Okay. So, if it's love, do I need to stop calling KS Marijuana? >> It would be for the best, but I've sat here and called people [ __ ] idiots on the record. So I have things I I have even in this moment shown that I am a sinful man with things to repent. >> I am a sinful man. Connor, anything else you want to add? >> So your solution is to rely on the greater wider population to be kind. >> That if this is the gospel of God, yes, since it's Christmas, the gospel of God is you have to love one another and that power is never going to work. But I've put that in because it's Christmas. From a secular point of view, >> from a secular point of view, we have got to keep struggling on, wrestling on, and persuading people that they want the state to do less and taxes to be lower. And it would work, >> which I agree. I no longer consent.com. That's my website. >> I have signed up. >> Go check it out. Um, Steve, I I always love chat to you. I love chatting to appreciate you. I'm saying happy Christmas. I think this is going to come out >> Boxing Day. So, happy Boxing Day. I hope everyone had a lovely Christmas. No, >> no, next Tuesday. >> Next Tuesday. It's going to come out next Tuesday. >> Twix. >> So, I hope everyone had a great Christmas and Steve have a great Christmas and uh Viva La Revolution. >> Viva Revolution. >> See you all later. Bye.