A Conversation between a Millennial and a Zoomer

I was listening to this conversation between Dave Smith and Nick Fuentes. I like Dave Smith who is a Ancap Libertarian. His big influences are Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard he’s also stand up comedian. He is one of the Legion of Skanks. The podcast I linked, is where he can discuss his more political opinions but if you want to the comedy you can check out the Skanks. I like his point of view, even though I am not a Libertarian, but I have many, many sympathies with Libertarians. I totally get the instinct to go that way, but from what I know of Human nature, I don’t think it could work. I’m becoming almost a monarchist at this point in my life, but I’m still a work in progress.

Anyway, on his show he interviewed Nick Fuentes. I really thought it was a really good conservation. The first part of the conservation, they discuss the whole gryoper war thing. Which I think is worth listening to but, if you go to the 59 minute mark Dave remarks on the generational divide. Which I really think is worth having a discussion about. So many of the grownups are pushing these policies of cultural degeneracy in the schools, in the movies, in books, etc…. Many of us can’t understand how all of this confusion going on in the broader culture is effecting these kids. The boomer generation is holding the political power and seems to want to fight til their last breath to keep it. Look at the Presidential candidates who are viable. They are all old (with the exception of Mayor Pete who acts old, so it makes no difference) and none of these people in power seem to give a damn about these young people. Especially the ones who are mired in debt with porn addictions. Sure they want to buy their vote with debt forgiveness but if you were buried in so much debt like that wouldn’t you take the life preserver thrown at you? And I know, they took the loan but they are pushed by every single adult in their lives to go to college. Cause if you don’t you’ll never be a productive member of society. So instead of our leaders doing something about the cost of college or perhaps coming up with some kind of refinance of those loans. They do nothing. They see, evil school boards who are pushing the trans agenda. Allowing boys in girls locker rooms and having boys compete with girls in sports. What the heck. Those adults never had to deal with that, and because of some stupid pie in the sky, ideology (and some funding I’m sure) they push this on kids. What do you think that does to these kids and don’t be surprised when there is a backlash. I know so many like to dump on millennials and zoomers, but who raised them? And who influenced them?

I just found this to be an interesting conversation that we need to be having about what young people have to deal with. Also, these kids aren’t going anywhere and they will grow up and take

Political power, don’t you want to know what they are thinking.

7+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

52 thoughts on “A Conversation between a Millennial and a Zoomer”

  1. Listening to Dave Smith, eh? Mate De sounds to me like you are coming to the side of Liberty! If you are looking to expand your intellectual horizons by embracing libertarianism, then I suggest checking out these places:

    1) Tom Woods: https://tomwoods.com/

    2) The Mises Institute: https://mises.org/

    3) https://antiwar.com/

    4) https://libertarianinstitute.org/

    5) https://www.fff.org/blog/

    6) https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=1114

    2+
    avataravatar
  2. My kids are in. one of those groupings, being 35 & 39. Both are successful, though both had their share of growing pains. Neither has any debt since we paid for their schooling.

    This is not necessarily the norm. Or perhaps it is, and we hear the noise from the left and believe it to be true. But from what my kids say and do, and from what their friends and acquaintances say and do, they seem mostly to be pretty conservative. Not necessarily on such things as gays, but certainly on economics.  AND on politics.

    Now one lives in Texas, but the other in Chicago, so it isn’t the milieu. My son certainly pushed back in his formative years, but one of his complaints mirrored my younger liberal sister. “I hate that he’s always right.”

    So maybe something rubbed off – somehow. Perhaps things are quite as they are “presented”.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  3. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Listening to Dave Smith, eh? Mate De sounds to me like you are coming to the side of Liberty! If you are looking to expand your intellectual horizons by embracing libertarianism, then I suggest checking out these places:

    1) Tom Woods: https://tomwoods.com/

    2) The Mises Institute: https://mises.org/

    3) https://antiwar.com/

    4) https://libertarianinstitute.org/

    5) https://www.fff.org/blog/

    6) https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=1114

    I was libertarian-ish about 10 years ago, could never go full libertarian. I like Dave, he’s an amazingly fair guy and he’ll talk to anyone. I love that about him, but he’s a new father and seems to be  starting to struggle with the cultural problems that I did when it came to libertarianism. Which is why I jumped off.

    I’ve been reading Charles Coulombe recently, and if you are a Catholic and interested in American history from the Catholic Perspective then Puritan Empire is the book for you. Charles is a monarchist and a lot of the arguments he makes for monarchy, ironically, I could see a lot of Ancaps going for.

    2+
    avataravatar
  4. I believe the Founders were profoundly libertarian – albeit the Puritans had their convictions that they were right and no one else was.

    0

  5. Devereaux:
    I believe the Founders were profoundly libertarian – albeit the Puritans had their convictions that they were right and no one else was.

    I think they were libertarian not so much because they formally accepted doctrines such as the non-aggression principle (although some did), but that they’d carefully studied examples of tyranny from antiquity to recent history and come to the conclusion that top-down coercive control from a central authority almost always ended up with worse outcomes than pushing authority down to the lowest level practicable (subsidiarity) and that, in many cases, that lowest level was the individual or family.

    Some of the U.S. founders such as Hamilton were top-down planners and authoritarians, but I suspect that even he would have been horrified at the extent the illegitimate regime in Washington micro-manages every aspect of its subjects’ lives to the extent of mandating shower heads that don’t wash off the soapy water and toilets you have to flush twice to make the poo go down.

    Once again, I’ll take the opportunity to plug my favourite founder, the anti-federalist Luther Martin, who refused to sign the Constitution and successfully led the campaign to condition its ratification on the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  6. Mate De:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Listening to Dave Smith, eh? Mate De sounds to me like you are coming to the side of Liberty! If you are looking to expand your intellectual horizons by embracing libertarianism, then I suggest checking out these places:

    1) Tom Woods: https://tomwoods.com/

    2) The Mises Institute: https://mises.org/

    3) https://antiwar.com/

    4) https://libertarianinstitute.org/

    5) https://www.fff.org/blog/

    6) https://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=1114

    I was libertarian-ish about 10 years ago, could never go full libertarian. I like Dave, he’s an amazingly fair guy and he’ll talk to anyone. I love that about him, but he’s a new father and seems to be  starting to struggle with the cultural problems that I did when it came to libertarianism. Which is why I jumped off.

    I’ve been reading Charles Coulombe recently, and if you are a Catholic and interested in American history from the Catholic Perspective then Puritan Empire is the book for you. Charles is a monarchist and a lot of the arguments he makes for monarchy, ironically, I could see a lot of Ancaps going for.

    You beat me to it. I was just going to mention Charles Coulombe. I’ve been following and reading him since his guest appearances on The Mike Church Show, back when that program was on SiriusXM.

    1+
    avatar
  7. Robert A. McReynolds:
    I will have to check this guy out. I don’t have much use for monarchism but I like bashing the puritans.

    You should. He also does a podcast called Off The Menu which will give you an idea of his perspective. He has had done some Theology On tap videos on YouTube where he talks about church history. That can give you an idea of his approach to history before you drop $30 on a pretty long book.
    Charles is a bit eccentric, as many historians tend to be, but I find it charming.

    1+
    avatar
  8. Mate De:
    I was libertarian-ish about 10 years ago, could never go full libertarian.

    You know what they say: never go full libertarian. Actually, nobody says that but I’ve followed a similar trajectory to yours. Libertarianism has, with some justification, been derided as politics for spergy white boys, in which category I arguably belong and you do not.

    My problem with libertarianism is that it is ultimately a utopian project. Unlike other utopian projects like communism, it suffers from the disadvantage that the non-aggression principle prevents the imposition of libertarianism by force, which is the only way it could come about. If a magical force brought an ideal libertarian state into being, it wouldn’t be long before a subset of the group would set about destroying it. It’s like balancing a pencil on its point: an unstable equilibrium.

    I remain a fan of von Mises and of libertarian ideas in general but not as a political system. At least the communists have made a go of it. I’m intrigued by the hierarchy someone suggested (I forget who) as a guide to thinking: socialist at the lowest (family) level through libertarian at the highest (national) level with a republican and maybe some other levels in between. It’s a fleshed-out version of federalism: devolving power to the lowest practical level. Its utility is in the recognition that one form of social organization does not fit all sizes of human groups. I wouldn’t want to have a libertarian family or live in a socialist country.

    I intend to watch the interview and comment on it when time permits. This is a good discussion.

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  9. drlorentz:
    I’m intrigued by the hierarchy someone suggested (I forget who) as a guide to thinking: socialist at the lowest (family) level through libertarian at the highest (national) level with a republican and maybe some other levels in between.

    The citation of this which comes immediately to hand, although I’m sure it wasn’t the first, is from Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Skin in the Game (Saturday Night Science for 2019-08):

    “A saying by the brothers Geoff and Vince Graham summarizes the ludicrousness of scale-free political universalism. I am, at the Fed level, libertarian; at the state level, Republican; at the local level, Democrat; and at the family and friends level, a socialist.”

    This is an illustration of something I go on and on about to the extent of tedium—many problems are scaling problems: what works for a town doesn’t work for a city; what works for a city doesn’t work for a state, etc.  The framers of the U.S. constitution were acutely aware of this and seized on Montesquieu’s separation of powers as permitting scaling up consensual government beyond the city-states which were the only examples of which they knew where it had worked.

    I think they would have been dismayed at the prospect of the system they designed being scaled up to a third of a billion naked apes and a continent-wide, centrally-governed empire.

    7+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  10. drlorentz:

    Mate De:
    I was libertarian-ish about 10 years ago, could never go full libertarian.

    You know what they say: never go full libertarian. Actually, nobody says that but I’ve followed a similar trajectory to yours. Libertarianism has, with some justification, been derided as politics for spergy white boys, in which category I arguably belong and you do not.

    My problem with libertarianism is that it is ultimately a utopian project. Unlike other utopian projects like communism, it suffers from the disadvantage that the non-aggression principle prevents the imposition of libertarianism by force, which is the only way it could come about. If a magical force brought an ideal libertarian state into being, it wouldn’t be long before a subset of the group would set about destroying it. It’s like balancing a pencil on its point: an unstable equilibrium.

    I remain a fan of von Mises and of libertarian ideas in general but not as a political system. At least the communists have made a go of it. I’m intrigued by the hierarchy someone suggested (I forget who) as a guide to thinking: socialist at the lowest (family) level through libertarian at the highest (national) level with a republican and maybe some other levels in between. It’s a fleshed-out version of federalism: devolving power to the lowest practical level. Its utility is in the recognition that one form of social organization does not fit all sizes of human groups. I wouldn’t want to have a libertarian family or live in a socialist country.

    I intend to watch the interview and comment on it when time permits. This is a good discussion.

    Yes, A mix is probably the only actually way to actually run any kind of society. In a way the church basically structured society that way during the Middle Ages. Everyone has the impression that it was top down and authoritarian but it really wasn’t. The principle of subsidiarity is a Catholic social teaching. That structure is reflected in the hierarchy of the church. It is the Pope at the top, who gives his authority to the bishop to bring back to their diocese and then the bishop would bestow their authority to the priests who would run the parish. So if a family had a problem they would take it to the priest because he’s the one on the grown and knows the local community best, and if he needed to he would kick it up the food chain. That is how medieval Europe was structured. The Pope and essentially God and the moral law was the check on power of the king. The king was subject to the rules of the magisterium, And the Pope cannot change the magisterium (I don’t care how hard the German bishops try It can’t happen) so even the pope’s power is checked. Henry the eighth is the perfect example of this, he was king but couldn’t divorce hid wife because it went against the magisterium. So he went and made himself Pope and the rest is history.

    2+
    avataravatar
  11. I find it laughable that a disadvantage would be not foisting one’s ideology on others by force. It would seem to me that if people stepped back and actually that about that premise, libertarianism might have more appeal than it already does. For the record, all ideologies are utopian. It’s inherent in the term: ideal. What libertarianism seeks to do is create an atmosphere of voluntary engagement between people, nothing more.

    2+
    avataravatar
  12. Robert A. McReynolds:
    I find it laughable that a disadvantage would be not foisting one’s ideology on others by force. It would seem to me that if people stepped back and actually that about that premise, libertarianism might have more appeal than it already does. For the record, all ideologies are utopian. It’s inherent in the term: ideal. What libertarianism seeks to do is create an atmosphere of voluntary engagement between people, nothing more.

    Indeed, libertarianism is the antithesis of idealism or utopianism.  It is entirely utilitarian—it recognises that humans, evolved from apes, will seek dominance over one another and try to achieve that dominance by the threat or imposition of violence (aggression).  The “progressive” has the delusion that this will change when a “just society” is created by coercing everybody to be nice, as they define it.  The libertarian is more realistic: people will never be nice.  The best that can be hoped for is aligning incentives with good outcomes, and this happens automatically in a free market.

    The libertarian’s riposte to the collectivists’ argument that it will “never work in the real world” is the track record of prosperity in free societies compared to the mountain of skulls piled up by utopian collectivist  Hell-holes.

    2+
    avataravatar
  13. John Walker:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    I find it laughable that a disadvantage would be not foisting one’s ideology on others by force. It would seem to me that if people stepped back and actually that about that premise, libertarianism might have more appeal than it already does. For the record, all ideologies are utopian. It’s inherent in the term: ideal. What libertarianism seeks to do is create an atmosphere of voluntary engagement between people, nothing more.

    Indeed, libertarianism is the antithesis of idealism or utopianism.  It is entirely utilitarian—it recognises that humans, evolved from apes, will seek dominance over one another and try to achieve that dominance by the threat or imposition of violence (aggression).  The “progressive” has the delusion that this will change when a “just society” is created by coercing everybody to be nice, as they define it.  The libertarian is more realistic: people will never be nice.  The best that can be hoped for is aligning incentives with good outcomes, and this happens automatically in a free market.

    The libertarian’s riposte to the collectivists’ argument that it will “never work in the real world” is the track record of prosperity in free societies compared to the mountain of skulls piled up by utopian collectivist  Hell-holes.

    Amen!

    2+
    avataravatar
  14. John Walker:
    The citation of this which comes immediately to hand, although I’m sure it wasn’t the first, is from Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Skin in the Game

    Thanks for the reference. I read that book so long ago that it’s hard to remember where the idea came from. A scale-free system is, indeed, ludicrous.

    2+
    avataravatar
  15. Robert A. McReynolds:
    I find it laughable that a disadvantage would be not foisting one’s ideology on others by force.

    You have seriously misunderstood, and therefore, mischaracterized what I wrote. The context is not morality. Rather it is effectiveness in getting things done. This distinction was also missed, perhaps deliberately in that case, by leftists who pounced on Dawkins recently for making some remarks about eugenics. It’s reminiscent of those (usually leftists) who like to say, “violence never solved anything.” I’d suggest you ask someone who has suffered multiple gunshot wounds about that but you’d probably find the conversation a trifle one-sided. This is not advocacy of violence or force, though violence does have its place in human affairs.

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    For the record, all ideologies are utopian.

    Only in the most trivial, and therefore, vacuous sense. This is along the same lines as “communism has never been tried.” It’s been tried close enough. A political system never gets established perfectly and ideally. Nevertheless, communism has been tried plenty and it is utopian. In contrast, the American republic was not a utopian project. The founders were fully aware of that their project would necessarily be imperfectly implemented. Measures were specifically built in to accommodate that reality. The project did not rely upon the participants to behave in any particular manner of their own accord.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  16. John Walker:
    Indeed, libertarianism is the antithesis of idealism or utopianism.  It is entirely utilitarian—it recognises that humans, evolved from apes, will seek dominance over one another and try to achieve that dominance by the threat or imposition of violence (aggression).

    I don’t agree. As noted above, a libertarian state is inherently unstable. It only works if the overwhelming majority is on board with its principles. This is not to say that some libertarianesque elements cannot be incorporated into a political system. Subsidiarity is such an inclusion of a libertarian element. Capitalism is libertarian economics.

    Libertarianism, like communism, requires the remaking of man. Instead of the new socialist man, it relies upon making a new libertarian man because most people do not embrace the holistic libertarian vision in all phases of social life. Hence, the only way the system could be put in place is by force, which contradicts the system itself. Communism does not suffer from that limitation, which is why communism has been tried all over the world and libertarianism has not.

    A related problem with libertarianism, in contrast to communism, is that if you get two libertarians in a room, there will be three opinions about what libertarianism is. Again, this springs from its extremely non-authoritarian nature. No government can be organized when there is no consensus on ideology and no enforcement thereof. Force is in bold for a reason.

    John Walker:
    The libertarian’s riposte to the collectivists’ argument that it will “never work in the real world” is the track record of prosperity in free societies compared to the mountain of skulls piled up by utopian collectivist  Hell-holes.

    I don’t dispute that some libertarian ideas have been successfully incorporated. See my comments about capitalism, supra. I don’t know any of “free societies” that (a) would self-identify as libertarian, (2) would be recognized by libertarians as libertarian states, or (iii) anyone else would call “libertarian.” Contrast this with socialist and communist hell-holes that pass all three tests.

    5+
    avataravataravataravataravatar
  17. In the video Dave Smith does address the cultural issue with libertarianism. If you listen to it let me know what you think? I’d love the input.
    Also another problem with libertarianism is what do you do with the low IQ Folks? You know the people who don’t have the time or the inclination to pour over thousands of pages of philosophy and economics.  Libertarianism doesn’t really appeal to people outside a certain demographic. What do you do with the rest?

    2+
    avataravatar
  18. Mate De:
    Also another problem with libertarianism is what do you do with the low IQ Folks? You know the people who don’t have the time or the inclination to pour over thousands of pages of philosophy and economics.  Libertarianism doesn’t really appeal to people outside a certain demographic. What do you do with the rest?

    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    1+
    avatar
  19. Devereaux:

    Mate De:
    Also another problem with libertarianism is what do you do with the low IQ Folks? You know the people who don’t have the time or the inclination to pour over thousands of pages of philosophy and economics.  Libertarianism doesn’t really appeal to people outside a certain demographic. What do you do with the rest?

    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    Libertarians don’t find people jobs; they leave them be. Communists find people jobs. Or, at least, they make people go to work where the people pretend to work and the state pretends to pay them. Only communist states have full employment. Either that or the gulag, which is also employment.

    2+
    avataravatar
  20. Mate De:
    Libertarianism doesn’t really appeal to people outside a certain demographic. What do you do with the rest?

    As I mentioned above, it mainly appeals to spergy white boys. 😉

    Seriously, the ideology does not appeal to all groups equally. To believe otherwise is to embrace blank-slate-ism. And we know where that leads (viz. communism). You’d have to force ‘em.

    2+
    avataravatar
  21. Devereaux:

    Mate De:
    Also another problem with libertarianism is what do you do with the low IQ Folks? You know the people who don’t have the time or the inclination to pour over thousands of pages of philosophy and economics.  Libertarianism doesn’t really appeal to people outside a certain demographic. What do you do with the rest?

    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    Like my dad and his cohort? My apologies if that comment came across as arrogant. Believe me I grew up very blue collar and I went to a trade school, so I know what you mean about the dignity of work. But that is the problem I have with libertarianism. They get in the weeds and over detailed about Austrian economics and the non aggression principle. When all of that stuff that the philosophers agonize over  naturally occurs if you put God first, then family, then country. Live by the moral law, meaning get a job, get married BEFORE you have babies, and STAY married until you die. If we could get people to do just those things most of the libertarian utopia will fall into place naturally.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  22. Mate De:

    Devereaux:

    Mate De:
    Also another problem with libertarianism is what do you do with the low IQ Folks? You know the people who don’t have the time or the inclination to pour over thousands of pages of philosophy and economics.  Libertarianism doesn’t really appeal to people outside a certain demographic. What do you do with the rest?

    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    Like my dad and his cohort? My apologies if that comment came across as arrogant. Believe me I grew up very blue collar and I went to a trade school, so I know what you mean about the dignity of work. But that is the problem I have with libertarianism. They get in the weeds and over detailed about Austrian economics and the non aggression principle. When all of that stuff that the philosophers agonize over  naturally occurs if you put God first, then family, then country. Live by the moral law, meaning get a job, get married BEFORE you have babies, and STAY married until you die. If we could get people to do just those things most of the libertarian utopia will fall into place naturally.

    Now on this I can agree.

    0

Leave a Reply