Populist Revolt Rolls On: Free Markets, Liberty, Sweeping the World



well freedom's busting out all over and maybe it's time for a new vocabulary to track this 21st century phenomenon I everybody I'm bill little here with Steve green and Scott OTT and this is your right angle on the sort of worldwide kind of slow kind of steady tendency of the people to start looking for representatives that actually represent them rather than tell them how they're supposed to feel conservatives want a big election in Australia Ross do head over at incident tells us to do that I'm so sorry Ross excuse me I didn't if I if I didn't get your name right but he's talking about all around the world there's a conservatives are doing well in India you know Teresa Mesa day maybe we should revote this brexit thing and that we think we think we just will find somebody else thanks thanks for coming in and so what's actually happening here and and as usual attached to this article is a tweet from Richard the cat Richard Fernandez who's just one of the most brilliant guys out there really everything he says just magic to me but here's what he said about what he thinks is going on the current tide of political upheaval is basically rejectionist it's a backlash against the 20th century nihilist project it's necessary but insufficient the harder part which comes next is building a successor to the ruins of 20th century ideology and that's the part that really got my attention Steve we still we still have political parties that that that have identities that go back to the Republicans freeing the slaves and the Democrats fleeing the Union and then then we went through a period where the Democrats were you know with the party of the little working guy and them and the Republicans were the cat were the the party of the guys with the you know with the golf courses in the private clubs and the aunts and everything and now we're back to some other strange thing but it's beginning to look to me like like the entire landscape what what he said about 20th century politics on some level it's really 19th century politics that we're still dividing ourselves along the lines of first quarter of the 20th 21st century boy that is that that really could not be more true wow that was so good I just I completely forgot what I wanted to say and now I've got to go on this this different track uh what's going on in Europe you know it's this populace revolt and it's it's fairly angry and it's fairly incoherent and it's absolutely the result of this huge failure of the European Union and of this progressive moralism on the on the backstage Scott was talking about some of the some of the ugliness going on in Europe and what they call the right wing it wouldn't really be the right wing in this country and I argued that it's it's the natural reaction against a policy that says you know it was really wrong for us to try and impose our culture on Africa and Asia during the colonial period so now we're going to invite all these people in to impose their culture on us and you need to sit down and shut up about it and people are angry and they are frustrated what they don't have is a is a program but we haven't that was a populist revolt we're hoping it doesn't turn into a nationalist revolt and again I have to differentiate here between the United States and Europe in Europe nationalism tends to be sort of a benign thing we want to look inward and improve ourselves in Europe nationalism tends to be a you know we're so great that we're gonna take your land away so we can have more of it it's it's an exudate and land for for the ethnic Germans it's we're gonna restore our national honour by retaking Alsace and Lorraine the Serbian national identity revolves around a loss they had to the Turks 500 years ago it's it's it's always it's always about anger it slights real or imagined against the other and so we've got to channel this populist revolt into something productive before it turns into a nationalist revolt which as we've seen in European history really starting with Napoleon and going on through the two world wars turns into something very very ugly like the word had never seen before and what occurs to me is we have a similar argument in this country we argue that we have to go back to the Constitution we have to go back to the way things were and people seem to read that as sort of a straightjacket hey you know we broke loose of these bonds we don't want to go backwards we want to go forwards and and that's a mistake in the argument that we are making the Constitution limited government free market capitalism these aren't straight jackets you wear these are sort of non ideology ideologies limited government and federalism just like free market economies give everybody enough elbow room to do their own thing whatever they want you get to build your own little system within the system with the people that you want to build your little system within a system with and you don't have to deal with anybody else that you don't really want to it's it's completely liberating in a very real sense of the word you know one of the first things people did when they came to this when they when they found this country wasn't oh now we have to behave like everybody else because it's capitalism what no people went out and formed hippie communes in the in the 18th and 19th centuries this is this is a proud American tradition of having enough elbow room to do whatever it is you want to do and that's what we have to sell it as not a return to the political past but as a non ideological system where you get to do what you want to do and you don't get to tell me that I can't exactly and once again we find ourselves ambushed by the fact that the left understands the power of language and we simply don't they've redefined the word liberal into meaning nothing and justice Bentham meaning nothing and so on but one of the things that they did was it this is actually relatively news to me oh we found this out a year or two ago that apparently the term capitalist was coined by Karl Marx okay now this is interesting so Scott when we're talking about getting rid of like old labels and looking at the 21st century through the prism of the 21st century and not the late 19th century this entire idea of of capitalism as it was defined by Marx was the term capitalist was designed to be exclusionary in other words if you wanted to have a decent life you had to have capital you had to have accrued money not money that you were gonna earn not just a good idea and hard work you had to have the big sacks of money with it with the dollar signs on them and and that's what it took for you to be a happy person is you have capital well that's not what we're talking today anybody certain certainly this business is not is not started by huge sacks of money you know it is a free market and that's what we have in the 21st century of a free market we're not capitalists to the degree that Marx named as capitalist we're just defending the system that's given it that name and it's a perder ative name same with socialism so do you think that when you hear Bernie Sanders get up there and you see these social saying you know the workers of the world need to unite you know you know it's like my family comes from coal miners in Wiggum in in northwestern England and I've seen pictures of coal mines there and it's rough but compared to what the what they're doing to the to the graphic designers out in Santa Monica I mean you want to talk about about conditions that just make a grown man weep but this is exactly what I'm talking about right the entire socialist argument is to prevent things like nine-year-olds losing their hands in the machines that makes you know that makes the rifle borer on the on the Krupp cannons and and and and it's it's just old hat and it's time to go yeah I understand in those marketing offices that the on the free lunch buffet they're very nearly out of quinoa so like the eating lettuce they're eating lettuce in the streets now our workers world unite you know there's a book that I'm probably about a 25 30 percent into right now that came out a long time ago back in the 1970s by a guy named Jude Winooski and it's called the way the world works you know one of his theses in this book is that the people are right the you know in the case of a electoral system the voters are right and that if you're one of those politicians who thinks that the problem with the country is that the people are doing the wrong thing then you're not listening you don't understand the people will produce the outcome that they desire and you can't stand in the way of them even with guns and tanks ultimately and so I think it's a fascinating thesis and you see this started to play out around the world and that the the literate people the the chattering class believe that the people have made fantastic mistakes when they do things like vote to pull England out of the European Union or vote to elect Donald Trump as president the United States that this has been a huge blunder of epic scale and that the only reason they did it is because they're in some way ignorant or they're deprived of the facts they don't usually posit that the entire you know half of the population is evil but they basically say that they've been hoodwinked and and jude wanniski basically makes the case that no other people in their aggregate are smarter than that and they they don't really make mistakes they constantly make course corrections and this is another course correction I think that we're seeing in this country and the and capturing the languages language by doing things like using the term free market I think is important if you're a free market person the idea of capitalism is amoral and that's why mark Marx used that term he was playing to the basic morality that each person has and if you paint somebody as some as a person who came to an enterprise not with his own hard-won wealth but was something that was given to him and that he he brings only that while other people bring sweat and toil and perhaps their limbs or their very lives then that is immorality because he is sitting in his corner office just you know waving a pencil and things happen and its of no consequence to him in any kind of a substantive way and so we issue that kind of capitalism that's not what capitalism is you know the idea that you can start your own business and that eventually you can get to the point where you don't have to work 16 hours a day in order to make a go of it but you can actually provide a job for somebody else who can pick up the slack in those areas that you were doing I used to sell things to small business people all the time mostly advertising years and years ago and I was I always marvel that these little businesses where these people were trying to to craft a successful business plan and I would remember saying to one guy who ran a hoagie shop I'm like you and your wife are here every hour of every day this isn't a business this is a minimum wage job for you and and they were like what do you mean and I and I said look you're you're doing work that you could hire other people to do for minimum wage that means you're not actually running a business when you're making sandwiches if you want to make this a business at some point you've got to be able to design it in a way that it can be self-sustaining without your personal ministrations every hour of every day and and there is hard work in doing that it is not just waving a pencil at somebody or you know pressing a button on your desk and asking Jeeves to come in and perform some tasks for you and I think if we understand that and sell that more effectively to people capitalism or free markets are not about what the guys doing on Wall Street it's about what the guys doing down the street who's running that little you know nail salon it frankly it's about that it's about the person who's driving a truck as his own business and hopes someday to be able to afford to buy a truck and eventually to hire somebody else to drive that truck and then maybe to have six or seven people who are expanding into a regional or statewide or national truck firm because that guy started out driving a truck and had a dream free markets are about dreams capitalism is about immorality and we need to reclaim the high ground morality this is exactly right and and that's why I think this entire premise is so important all of these terms are obsolete they don't mean anything anymore and we're defending words by the definition that's got so a bleep oint it out of a person who brings nothing to the business except big sacks of money that he probably got as an earl or a Duke it's essentially you know they went straight from the aristocracy into into early stage capitalism to that degree it gives it gives people who oppose business immoral not only a moral cover but moral imperative to bring down this system where where the guy who was born with money makes more money and the people who work hard make nothing and this is why you constantly hear the left talking about income inequality but no one's ever talking about output inequality because as Scott also mentioned the great thing about an entrepreneur is the old saw you know an entrepreneur somebody who's ready to work an 80 hour week so that they don't have to work a 40-hour week and that's that's pretty much exactly how it goes and this is the world of today and everybody out there understands this everybody I was joking about earlier graphic designers and all of these people they're they're gig based jobs they don't work for the same company for 50 years and get a gold watch thing they hire out subcontracting and so on so every single day that goes by as we become less and less industrial more and more information age Society the the terms that not only the left is using but the terms that we are using are obsolete and we need to stop using them and we need to go to the source of what it is we're actually doing just to wrap up Ross and in his article basically said that what he thinks is as it's got also pointed out is that it's a rejection of people being told what to do by their by their better certainly Donald Trump's election was that and damn near a miracle and we're starting to see it all around the world people are tired of being told what they should think by it by a government that thinks that we need new citizens because they're not doing what we what we tell them to do so I think it's that kind of invasion of the left that constant putting politics into everything everything everything is starting to hurt them back hurt them badly and just as a sort of an amusing little note to close on at the end of this honest opponent talking about how the left is always trying to bully people into into their moral position he wrote they'd rather feel like heroes than win people over and I looked at that sentence and I remembered it because when I glanced at it just a moment ago I just before we started the show I thought he wrote they'd rather feel like herpes than when people what's it called when you realize I spell and that's when I realized that the difference between heroes and herpes is a very very small vertical stroke in the middle of that word and I think it's time for us to decide as a nation which you know which future which future are we going to take you know we're going to stick to the old game we're gonna play by the new rules are we gonna America gonna be heroes or herpes that's the question and just a short time ago I thought it was herpes without fail turns out this entire idea of the of being on the wrong side of history is also a Marxist invention and anything that they invent causes a lot of misery so some people may be for it but as for me I'm agin it and I think I think these guys are too thanks for joining us this shows made possible by the paying members at bill Whittle comm small cadre you might say of people who are who are putting their own money into an enterprise to try and make sure that other people get to keep their own money so if you'd like to be one of them we'd love to have you over at bill little com we'll see you next week on right angle you




Comments
  1. Is going "back to the Constitution" really re-entering a straitjacket, Mr. Green? Some might contend that it is a restoration of liberties which have been lost through government growth. I think the problem/challenge with going "back to the Constitution" is that, without the moral/ethical framework of Christianity throughout the majority of the populace, the republic created by those who wrote that selfsame constitution cannot work.

    The topic of this video makes one consider whether the … establishment of nationhood(?)… is remaining a function of location, given that we can now communicate and move so easily throughout the world, or if it is becoming a function of religion/ideology.
    That people of like minds are the more able to conquer a portion of real estate because they are able to tap into the resources and support of those in other parts of the globe a la the islamic hijrah (also spelled hejira or hijra).

  2. People have gotten a taste of globalism & they don't like it. They're trying to relate nationalism with Nazism – don't help them get away with that. A true Capitalist believes that your capital is your own. The Elitists always believe that they know what's best for everyone – yet a simple evaluation shows that they're often the most useless of people.

  3. "People in aggregate don't make mistakes, they make course corrections." That seems rather overly sanguine. What about Venezuela – people voted that nonsense in because they wanted it. Nazi Germany was a huge mistake people of Germany made. "People in aggregate" do often make colossal mistakes with epic consequences.

    And as I always say, what is popular isn't always right, and what is right isn't always popular.

    Not to disagree with the thesis that this is a positive course correction, just to disagree with the sanguine assessment of "people in aggregate".

  4. Taking land is B.S. No one that is a European nationalists at present pearches about landgrabing. They the European nationalists, speak of idenity, heritage and culture.

    Ding, dong globalism is dead and no one shreds a tear.

    Monopolies need to be demonpolyized. The specific businesses do not need any mention.

    #thewestisthebest

  5. Steve Green. . .2 minutes in and you hit the nail right on the head. Scott Ott about twelve minutes in you also hit the nail on the head. My sentiment has always been if you own a business you must be married to it to succeed. Work gentlemen is a four letter word and so is LAZY. Sometimes I allow Scott to annoy me especially when it comes to the second amendment, But he's not alone there. Bill Whittle I truly need to listen to your programs more all three of you gents are pretty straight up. Amen for that.

  6. The issues are the same as 1860. We just have slavery by alternative means. Now we use debt to do the slavery. The slave lords are the silicon valley tech giants. Trump is the Lincoln freeing the slaves.

  7. When Friedrich Nietzsche announced that God is dead it ushered in postmodernism. The idea that there is no Objective morals that transcend us, no meaning we simply make our own morals. Now the world seems rules by moral less tyrants and those consumed with their own guilt to the point of acting absurd.

  8. WEALTH is not a fixed quantity that can be hoarded. It must be continuously generated, like electricity. Both disappear when people stop cranking, and attempts at redistribution by the unskilled is extremely hazardous. ("Money" or currency—no pun intended—is not wealth.)

  9. In a book about libertarianism I learned to consider the opposite of government solutions to be civil society. Which includes every other institution, the church, the Family, your great grandfather's lodge of benevolent Elks or whatever. And certainly the digital age has only added to it. Clay Shirkey says that now we can do big things for love, when in the past we could only do big things for money. And sense when have conservatives been against people doing things for spiritual reasons, or living humbly in order to conserve the environment, or the culture?

  10. Another oft-forgotten word for capitalism is liberalism, or neo-liberalism after Hayek, Reagan and Thatcher.
    Unfortunately, nowadays liberalism means neo-marxism. Thats ironic.

  11. Based on the freaking out over “trade war”, the end of America being undercut by slave-states like China and Mexico is really scaring the ones who profit from status quo ante out of their shoes.

  12. You can't gain the high ground of "morality" by supporting "government", an immoral institution based on coercion and theft. And personally I don't see any problem with just bringing capital to a business instead of hard work, after all the capital was earned via hard work at some prior time, or at least it should have been. Currently, there are a large number of extremely wealthy people that have NOT legitimately earned the capital they have, but that's a separate problem.

  13. People born with money make more money. Modern European billionaires can trace their lineage back to landowning nobles; inter-generational accumulation of capital is well documented and a categorical problem with our economic system.

  14. One of the most effective ways of taking away political power to bully and waste the energy of us working people from “the chattering class” here in America (to borrow Steve’s term), is to make certain we don’t allow them to have their student loans simply forgiven. That will force them to spend their “protest time” at work, instead of finding more ways to avoid responsibility.
    What government subsidizes, it gets more of– without fail. Unless this generation is required to accept the terms of the contracts THEY SIGNED, then there will be no hope for the future of America.
    We CANNOT allow people who made STUPID financial decisions in their college careers, using money they borrowed from you and me, by the way– to be given amnesty from paying it back. All that will do is embolden them to return to government every time they foolishly indebt themselves– and that is what they will teach their children.
    If this is a nation of principles, then it must abide those principles– or perish.
    Granted, it is Christian to grant mercy to debtors– but that’s to be done one man to another— not en masse, using money taken by force from taxpayers.
    I can see allowing debtors to make payments within their ability, along with sacrificing any future federal income tax refunds to the student loan fund until the balance is paid— but NO amnesty.
    The principles of sound money management must be instilled in ALL Americans– not just the working class.
    The spoiled rich kids who thought that simply getting through college would guarantee them a high-paying job and a lofty place in society, need to learn that their position in society and their economic success is EARNED— not granted by a degree.
    It is imperative that this generation learn they are entitled to nothing in life for free— that the opportunity cost for the money they borrowed for their college education (regardless of what they got out of it) is their disposable income— until it is repaid, with interest.
    If they opted to use those years as a drunken extended adolescence, or wasted them on a pointless degree in an effort to rebel against societal “norms,” then they need to be accountable for their decisions, and required to reimburse American taxpayers with whatever employment they can manage to secure.
    We citizens are under NO obligation to allow such debtors to simply walk away from their obligations under the guise that the terms were “unfair,” or the amounts too onerous to repay. What would such a ‘benevolent’ abdication of contractual terms say to those of us who DID pay back our student loans?
    What about those of us who would have LOVED to go to medical school, but who instead opted for a degree in an allied-health profession, because we understood that the amount of money we would be required to borrow would be far too much to repay should we become unable, for whatever reason, to finish the dozen or so years of schooling? Would WE get to reduce the taxes we pay by the equivalent amount of money we would’ve borrowed for what we REALLY wanted to study? Or would we get to write off the income we COULD have made as a busy general surgeon– instead of as a PA, or RN, or therapist?
    Of course not! But this is the dilemma such bargains create— not to mention the sheer inequity of some being required to repay debts, while others skate with absolutely zero consequences.
    Even if we see that there’s no way for an individual to repay the full amount of their loans, they must still be required to make the effort. If we cannot recover the money we lent to people in good faith, then at the very least, the terms of repayment must come at the price of their sense of self-importance and entitlement, and must deprive them of belief that they are somehow more important or more worthy than their fellow citizens.
    If there is ONE gift ‘we the people’ should give lavishly and freely to citizens who begin to believe that our federal government is an ATM from which they are guaranteed a withdrawal any time they feel “victimized”– it is the gift of humility.
    (NOT humiliation… ‘humility’).
    Humility is a seed, from which MANY other positive traits and gifts grow. It should be planted generously in those in need of it, protected at first from the choking weeds of victimhood and self-defeat, then allowed to germinate into desperation and motivation.
    Only after being firmly rooted in the knowledge that there is no easy way to get out of growing and producing, will the plant finish growing to it’s maturity, where it bears the fruits of self-sufficiency, prosperity, and gratitude.
    More important, it will pass those gifts along to its offspring.

  15. This is why I have come to eschew the word "capitalist" and embrace the word "individualist". The free market just sort of plops out as a result of individuals exercising their freedom.

    This also helps us understand that any other alternative is necessarily "collectivist" — and it must tell individuals what to do, if it puts the collective above them. Thus, any alternative to "individualism" must necessarily lead to loss of freedom.

  16. "Workers have no nation." – Karl Marx
    WRONG! The worker has only his God, nation, and family. It is money that has no nation.
    The Globalists hate the worker and want all the money. We the people strongly disagree!

  17. The key difference between nationalism now and then is the focus of it. Formerly as pointed out, it was about taking away what the like next door had. Nowadays it feels more like trying to hang in to what you can call your own. Certainly here in Britain that's what it feels like.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *