WBD392 Audio Transcription

Will Bitcoin End The State? with Stephan Livera

Interview date: Wednesday 1st September

Note: the following is a transcription of my interview with Stephan Livera. I have reviewed the transcription but if you find any mistakes, please feel free to email me. You can listen to the original recording here.

In this interview, I talk to Bitcoin Educator and MD of Swan International Stephan Livera. We discuss the foundations of libertarianism, the state's creeping growth, and how Bitcoin will keep it in check.

“My view of rights is they are inalienable...the government does not give you rights; it’s on the government not to impinge on your rights.”

— Stephan Livera

Interview Transcription

Peter McCormack: Hey, man!  We haven't done this in person.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, it's been a while.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, but we've only ever done them over remote interviews, haven't we?

Stephan Livera: Yeah, I think so.

Peter McCormack: We've got loads to talk about because I'm the statist, you're the libertarian.

Stephan Livera: That's right.

Peter McCormack: There's things we don't agree on and there's things we do agree on.

Stephan Livera: Right, and there's things you need to be crucified for.

Peter McCormack: Things I need to be crucified for, you're right.  Then, there's things that you need to wake up to the real world.

Stephan Livera: All right, yeah!

Peter McCormack: But we're definitely in a period of you being, "I told you so", rightly so on certain things, so I think there's a lot to talk about.  I think a good starting point is, you've been on my show three or four times and we've talked about libertarianism, but obviously all of our shows have grown a lot over the last year, lots of new people coming in.  So, I think we need to retouch on some of those subjects because people won't have heard this before.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, sure.

Peter McCormack: Then we need to talk about Australia.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: We need to talk about generally what's going on with reactions to COVID, the impact on money, you escaping, your new job.  There's shit loads to talk about.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, lots of things.

Peter McCormack: Wo, let's just start with libertarianism, just for anyone who's listening and they're, "What is this libertarianism stuff?  I've not heard about it", because I hadn't heard about it until I discovered Bitcoin.  Just explain to them what a libertarian is, what it means to you.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, of course.  In my view, a libertarian is someone who is concerned with the rights of the individual and also essentially, what is the right way society politically should be structured, and what are our rights versus the state's rights.  So, in my view, I essentially deny the existence of political authority.  I'm saying, we should not treat the state like it is a special category, we should treat it like you or me, just like an individual would. 

As an example, if it would be wrong for me to go round pointing my gun at people and saying, "Hey, you pay me some money so that I can go and run public services", that would be wrong for you or me to do, so it should also be wrong for the government to do that.  I see it's almost like the golden rule; we're applying the same consistent rule to every person, regardless of whether I have a special badge that says I'm a policeman or I'm a judge or I'm a tax collector or whatever. 

So, I guess at a high level, that's essentially how I would explain it to somebody.  The classical formulation that we normally talk about in libertarianism is the NAP, the non-aggression principle.  The idea is you should never initiate aggression against somebody else; that violence in self-defence is permissible, but you generally do not aggress.  So, I do not steal your stuff, you don't steal my stuff.  I don't harm your body, or I don't harm your property; that's the general idea.  But then maybe we'll go one step deeper there.  If we also explain this idea that it's the different isms, it's not that they don't have a theory of property rights, it's that they have a different theory of property rights to what libertarians believe. 

Libertarians, in my view, believe in what's called homesteading, and so the idea is that property should only be transferred if you are the first to it or to mix your labour with it or through an agreement, a contract.  I sell you my land or I buy land from you or you pass it on, like a father passes it on to the son or something like that.  So, we view other forms of government that don't respect those rules essentially are giving themselves a special right to something that they shouldn't have. 

Summarising that, essentially in my view a libertarian is somebody who believes in more of a private property society.  The idea is all the services would be privately provided, even the roads would be privatised.

Peter McCormack: The roads!

Stephan Livera: Yeah, and that's where often the first thing people say, "Oh, what about the roads?"

Peter McCormack: We're not going to do the roads.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, we won't get into that today, but the broader idea is all those other things could be provided by the market.  One way it could be explained is to think, "Well, if I think the government shouldn't be making cars or food, well should the government be the one making the legal system as well?" 

In fairness, there's different types of libertarians.  You've got the minarchist libertarian, who believes in a small state, and you've got the anarcho-capitalist who believes in zero government, but to be clear they still believe in governance, there would still be rules; it would just be determined by private property owners.  Over time, there's a market of rules and laws that form over time, and so we think of laws and rights as natural; some would say God-given and others would just say you just naturally have these rights, as opposed to a statist conception, which is more like you only have the rights that the government grants to you.  We view it as logically separate or antecedent or prior to.

Peter McCormack: I'm writing down a lot of questions because there's things I want to cover.  Just to be clear, I agree with everything you said.  In some ways, I am in agreement with you, everything you said is right.  That's why I've referred to myself recently as a reluctant statist, because I'm still not 100% sure on the practicalities of what you said. 

One of the interesting discussions, and people will batter me for saying this, but I heard a very interesting debate between Bret Weinstein and Eric Weinstein where Eric was talking about the state having the monopoly of violence is a good thing.  I'm not saying I agree with him, but I think you have to have the debate to decide whether you think there should be a monopoly on violence or whether there should be private security forces, etc.

So, I refer to myself now as a reluctant statist, because I agree with everything you say, but I still believe in democracy is the best we have right now.  Is that in line?

Stephan Livera: Yes, I understand where you're coming from.

Peter McCormack: So, I've got some questions, because I'm writing them down as you were saying this.  You haven't explained that thing to me before in terms of private property, in terms of the first to it, which is a really interesting concept.  Do you not think that creates some chronological disadvantage to people who are born today versus people born hundreds of years ago?

Stephan Livera: Interesting point, but let's remember we also benefit from people who came before us too.  They accumulated capital and that capital is what allows us to have all of these nice things that our grandparents or great-great-grandparents could never have dreamed of; or even a king 200 years ago doesn't enjoy the same technology and access that you and I have now. 

But to answer your question about property though, essentially what I'm saying is it's more like this is the only way to have a peaceful resolution of these things.  Otherwise, property rights are only given in scarce things and otherwise only one person can stand on this point at one time.  So, we need a way to peacefully, and using reason, allocate who is the rightful owner; you own that property number 3 King Street and I own number 5 King Street, or whatever.  That's the only way that we see it as a peaceful and prosperous, efficient society that could really work is that you need a private property theory of rights.  I guess that's how I would answer that.

Peter McCormack: One of the things it makes me think about is when you think of a nation state, different nations have different resources, whether it's Venezuela has its oil or African countries which have their diamonds or whatever resources they have, and I always think of the resources of the nation as something that can be mined, recovered from the ground and be used to sell them to the market to provide things for that nation, to provide something for the people. 

The first person who gets to it essentially, or you'll probably argue back actually the first person who gets to it is the state and they're all greedy fuckers anyway.  But in my ideal world, that resources of the nation is something that should be for the people of the nation, the people who are there.  That's why I think that "first to it" sometimes creates a disadvantage for people later on, especially in certain societies.  You've grown up and spent a lot of time in Australia.  You weren't born in Australia, were you?

Stephan Livera: I was born in Sri Lanka.

Peter McCormack: Somewhere I need to go as well, actually.  But we've spent most of our lives in fairly rich, prosperous nations.  We've both also had the opportunity to visit other nations where people don't have the same chances.  That idea, the first to it, I just sometimes think for some people it's harder for them to get onto that ladder.  I know I'm sounding like a socialist right now but I'm trying to work through these ideas, and I guess where I'm going with this is, well, let me put a different question to you.  Are you a minarchist or an anarcho-capitalist?

Stephan Livera: I'm in the anarcho-capitalist camp.  Basically to be clear, I believe that would be the theoretical ideal.  Do I believe it will happen in my lifetime?  Maybe not, but I believe that's the general principle.  The guiding principle is your property is yours, my property is mine.  Let me give you an analogy.  It would be like saying, "We should strive for a society where there's no murder and no rape".  Now people wouldn't come back to you saying, "Oh, see that's stupid.  We'll never have a society with no murder and no rape".  The point is what should we be?  We should strive to respect each other's rights and responsibilities and so on. 

So, that's the sense in which I'm an anarcho-capitalist, but I know probably it may never happen in my lifetime.  But if I can incrementally push in that direction, I'll take it, right.  If it's a win, if it's an improvement in that direction, I'll take it.

Peter McCormack: Without making the six-month joke, what is the difference between a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist?

Stephan Livera: You already knew the joke.

Peter McCormack: Michael Malice said it to me.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, basically I view libertarianism as the broader category and then there are subcategories like anarchist, anarcho-capitalist and maybe even bigger government than minarchist is the classical liberals who broadly fit into that category as well.  So, I just see it as there are some libertarians who believe that the only way it could be done is with a small government state and that the government should do the typical national defence, maybe courts, some of those things.

Peter McCormack: Maybe roads.

Stephan Livera: Well, the roads is the common joke.

Peter McCormack: Borders.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: Maybe some conservation.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, they would generally say it only has traditionally two or three functions, like national defence, maybe police and maybe courts and that's pretty much it.  Everything else is basically free market.  Then there are those of us who think that's inconsistent, we believe actually everything should just be privately done, even private courts and private national defence.  National defence, I guess, doesn't really make as much sense in that context, but you get the idea.  You might have private defence agencies and it might be funded through insurance. 

So, there might be some big skyscraper and that skyscraper will normally need insurance against fire or something else.  Well, similarly it might need defence against an attack and then guess what, insurance companies will be the ones who might pull together some of those funds for this little city area and then that could form part of the defensive budget, if you will. 

But I also think Bitcoin is going to take us into a world something closer to that.  It may not be anarcho-capitalist, but it may be more like Bitcoin citadels and maybe it might superficially look more like a feudal system, like a king or a lord, but I think it might be more like a private opt-in city.  So, there are people doing this kind of thing.  I've interviewed Titus Gebel of the Free Private Cities project; that's one example and I think that's now being led by Rahim Taghizadegan; I've interviewed Rahim as well.  But I think that's also another idea of how this may go in a way that's a more libertarian direction but not necessarily anarcho-capitalist, even if that's the ideal.

Peter McCormack: Those Free Private Cities, because my problem with the citadel idea is I think of it as a bunch of people who made a whole bunch of money in Bitcoin, they get to go and build their citadel, they get to put up the walls and they get to hide from the peasants.  It makes me think of the film The Day of the Dead.  Was it Ramirez who made the zombie films, the Day of the Dead?

Stephan Livera: A little enclosure against the zombies.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, the great thing with that film is what he did is create two classes, the humans and the zombies.  The zombies were kept out of this citadel, essentially speaking, and it makes me think it's only for the wealthy, or how do you get into the citadel if you don't have Bitcoin wealth?  Are you somebody who's recruited in to come in the day and do jobs, but are you excluded from the citadel?

Stephan Livera: It's an odd question and I would say the way I think about it is, I think Bitcoin is generally just going to change the whole world.  I think it's going to make the whole world richer, more prosperous and it is effectively longer term going to make everyone have better rights and better prosperity. 

But in that, call it short- to medium-term transition, and if you remember this even harkens back to the original citadel's post back in 2013/14, the idea was, "There's these rich bitcoiners and they need to go and live in the citadel because people are after them", and it's like a fan faction thing.  Then they were saying known bitcoiners were hunted down and people were going after them.  So maybe we're in trouble, Pete, but the broader idea was more like a protection idea. 

Now, of course we joke about it, I joke and sign off every podcast with, "I'll see you in the citadels" but I think there's different conceptions of citadel.  Some people think it's virtual reality or it's just your home, and then you have the idea it's more like a group of Bitcoin people who want to band together in defence.  But also, I think of it like there's going to be zones of opportunity.  Maybe an analogy could be like how Hong Kong and Singapore rose up and then, because there was all this economic opportunity there, people wanted to come and work there.  They might start off at "a lower socio-economic station", but you had a chance to rise up.  People could move and work from different countries all around Asia and they went to Hong Kong because there was opportunity there.

Peter McCormack: It's like a virus that builds from a new set of rules, a new form of governance.  A bit like Bitcoin is the best form of money, people when they realise, they want to hold it more, so the citadel might be the best form of governance and social cohesion.

Stephan Livera: To key into that idea, I see it as competitive jurisdictions.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: It's not one citadel, it's many citadels.  Then over time, people can experiment and say, "Ah this rule, when in place at this citadel, but it wasn't here.  This one did way better so that's a bad rule". 

Peter McCormack: It's a bit like the US state system.

Stephan Livera: Yes, it's like competitive federalism; the idea is that if one state is making bad decisions, people will leave.

Peter McCormack: Which they're doing.

Stephan Livera: Exactly.  I think the world is morphing into that.  This is like the sovereign individual and related ideas.

Peter McCormack: We're both thinking about that for different reasons at the moment.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: Why do you think it's never happened?  You might give me some examples.

Stephan Livera: Iceland and Wild West and there's some of these examples that …

Peter McCormack: Sometimes I think, perhaps this is just the natural evolution of human organisation.  We started in caves and we went up through the feudal system and then we went through different ages and we are where we are now; statism is one step towards the next system.  We keep evolving and learning what works and what doesn't.  But why do you think it's not happened?

Stephan Livera: It's a good question.  I would say there's an analogy people make with this concept called GK Chesterton's Fence and it's this idea of, "Oh, this fence, whatever, we didn't see why it's here.  Let's just remove it".  It's no, if you don't know why it was put there, you shouldn't be taking it away, because it might exist for a reason you don't understand that we don't know.

So, I could sort of see an argument where maybe states have formed in certain ways because we couldn't get past them.  But maybe in the future we'll actually have a way to get past them, because we'll have good enough defence and good enough private defence and private law and private examples that allow people to live on past that. 

But to answer your question as to why we don't see anarcho-capitalism today, there's a few answers there.  One is there's no world government, so the countries of the world are effectively in a state of anarchy with each other; that's one example.  But the other example is I think more of a biological one. 

I've seen other leading libertarians, like Walter Block has spoken about his idea and I agree with it.  Maybe there's a biological urge or tendency that we want to be nice.  What works in a family, which I agree with, within your family you're not an anarcho-capitalist charging your son.  You look after your son or your daughter, your mum or your father.  So, what works in the family being nice and a socialist in that context doesn't work at a nation level.

The way I view it is within your family, of course you're looking after them or maybe your close friends.  You just pay or you just look after them.  But at a nation level, I think it doesn't work and that's where I think the breakdown is.  So, for me my issue is not with hierarchy in general.  I believe in meritocracy and people who are competent and good at producing.  But for me, it comes down to what is the correct private property theory, what is the right property theory.  In my view, it's more like private property theory and a libertarian aspect of political philosophy, that's the way we should be thinking about it; that's the just way to do it.  It's justice, that's how I see it.

Peter McCormack: Do you not think that anarcho-capitalists and libertarians should engage more in politics?  I know there are political wings of libertarians and they disagree with those who say you shouldn't.  I've brought this up a few times.  My brother says to me, we're in a constant state of anarchy; you have people on the left, on the right, in the centre.  You have anarcho-capitalists, you have libertarians, you have communists, you have Marxists, and everyone's got their idea of how we should organise ourselves, how we should govern.  He said you get the best you can get by the pull, the push and pull from everyone. 

So, the traditional left and right, if you go too socialist, the right end up tending to come in at the next election and campaign based on the fact that you've been taxed too much, etc, and vice versa.  When there's a big wealth disparity, the left can come in and try and offer social programmes.  Do you not think if the libertarians and the anarcho-capitalists engaged in the political process, actually they would have solid arguments to just reduce the size of government and actually start taking society towards a place that respects property rights?

Stephan Livera: Yeah, it's an interesting way to frame it and even in the libertarian world, there are big debates on this exact topic.  For example, someone like Dave Smith.

Peter McCormack: He's a comedian.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: Did he represent the Libertarian Party or was he the precipitator or something?

Stephan Livera: It's one of those things where he's well known within the Libertarian Party and he's one of the world's top well-known libertarians.  So, someone like him versus the views of, let's say a good example would be Tho Bishop.  Tho Bishop works at Mises Institute and they've had a debate actually on this exact topic. 

It was, "Should libertarians pursue the political strategy of having the Libertarian Party, or should they be trying to work inside the Republican Party?"  Sorry, to be clear, they both believe they should be using some form of political approach, so for example Dave Smith inside the Libertarian Party, or Tho Bishop talking about how they should be libertarians who should just join the Republican Party and just try to pull it in that direction.

Peter McCormack: Because they've already got the weight.

Stephan Livera: Right, to try to do it that way.  Then the other angle is more like, no, agorism, counter-economics.  I think my thought on this is more like Bitcoin is going to make states a lot smaller and it's going to force it.  How?  Because government right now can cheaply print a lot of money.  Fiat credit allows big government. 

In my view, once we move to a Bitcoin standard, and who knows when, it could be 10, 15, 20 years from now, we don't know; but I think as that transition happens, debt becomes so much more expensive and that will force governments to become smaller.  That's really my long-term vision of how this is actually going to play out to give us, in my view, a society closer to a libertarian idea, even if it's not anarcho-capitalist, fine; it's an improvement over what we have today.

Peter McCormack: Bitcoin's a tool to take you towards that, that allows you to avoid engaging in the political process?

Stephan Livera: Somewhat.  But I see it like you might as well -- and a good example is this whole recent Infrastructure Bill.  You would have seen fighting on different sides where people are, "No, I'm not even bothering engaging with the state, screw that".  Then the other side was more like, "Look guys, you can make a call to your congressman or your senator and you can try to influence this discussion". 

I see Bitcoin as the main tool, stack Bitcoin and bring about the Bitcoin standard; but if you can stave off the worst of the government regulation by making a call, if I was an American citizen, I would have made a call.  I viewed it like it would have been a low-hanging fruit, even though I don't like politics.  There's always that saying, "Just because you're not interested in politics doesn't mean politics isn't interested in you".

Peter McCormack: Okay.

Stephan Livera: I would view it as a defensive measure to stave off the worst of it, while Bitcoin's network effect continues to grow.

Peter McCormack: How did you end up in this position that you are?  What is the background that led you, because I think everybody's position usually is based on their background, where they grew up, what their parents are like, etc, there's different backgrounds.  But how did you end up being …

Stephan Livera: A libertarian?

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: For me, I was on IRC, Internet Relay Chat, for people who aren't familiar with that.

Peter McCormack: Old school.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, I was 14 years old and I was on IRC.  I went on some Oz politics channel and Sky kept linking to Mises Daily Articles, and it was so different to what I was learning at school because it was Mises Institute, all this Austrian economic stuff and then at school they're teaching all this Keynesian stuff.  I'm, "This stuff makes way more sense".  So, I wasn't reading the 1,000-page textbooks then at that age, but then later on, I read Mises Daily and that puts it into an article format.  Slowly, I just laddered up and up and just thought, "Yeah, look I think the Austrians are correct on this" as in the Austrian economy. 

Peter McCormack: Yes.

Stephan Livera: That was my journey into becoming a libertarian.  This is before Bitcoin and then later I saw Bitcoin and had it explained to me in the right way.  It was, "Yeah, how I could not be?"  That for me, and perhaps it's an unusual journey because a lot of people come the other way around; they would have come into Bitcoin and then they would have heard of me or Saifedean or read Vijay or Pierre and people and then they would have learned a little bit about Austrian economics because of getting into Bitcoin.

Peter McCormack: That's essentially my journey.  I'd never heard of it before Bitcoin and now I'm learning in public and asking these questions.  I'm asking the questions in public and getting yelled at rather than doing it privately.  Did you have similar questions like I had; I'm assuming you did.

Stephan Livera: As in?

Peter McCormack: You didn't just go straightaway; did you have similar questions like I have?

Stephan Livera: Yes, because here's the other thing.  So, I guess broader libertarian questions, I would be challenging them back being, "Hang on, if we had no government wouldn't there be gangs roaming the streets?"  When I was 15 and 16 and 17, yeah, I was going through all these same questions.  By the time I was about 18 or 19, that was when I was, "Yeah, I think anarcho-capitalism is the correct political philosophy" if you will.  Even, as I said, it may never happen but that's the ideal that we should be striving for. 

So, it takes a lot of reading and work; Rothbard talks about private defence agencies or Bob Murphy has done a lot of talks about the market for security.  What would the market for private security look like and various concepts in that way and Hans-Hermann Hoppe's book The Myth of National Defence?  It's a mix of all of these things that you read these and you start to think,  and sometimes the logic clicks in because it's the same kind of logic, the same idea.  I don't want the government to make food; I want the free market to make food.  It's the same sort of idea.  I want the free market to provide defence and law and all of these things.

Peter McCormack: Even with all these writings, and I've read one you sent me recently about COVID where I was, wow, it made me rethink a lot of things and I appreciate all the stuff you send me, because I always read it.  I do also say this is still theory; these are writings that are theory.  There are people out there who will explain to you that Marxism is the best way to govern society, because in theory for them it works, but in practice, any form of Marxism or communism is a complete failure and leads to the deaths of millions of people. 

Isn't there a part of this that you have to accept that this is still theory and it might not play out how Rothbard writes?

Stephan Livera: Think of it this way: it's the same logic though, it's the same kind of logic that you wouldn't want the government to be the baker; you want a free-market baker, you want a private baker.  It's the same idea; government, security and let's break it down into different problems.  You've got what is the law and then what's the security situation?  You might have different free-market courts, judges and so on who are helping codify and help apply the law when they make a ruling in a case. 

Then the police aspect could be replaced with, say, private security or other means of defence and even basic things like security cameras and monitoring technology or guard dogs or whatever, drone defence, who knows in the future.  But I think to me, it just comes back to that same idea of we want to privatise as many things as we possibly can; that would be the general idea from my point of view.

I know politically a lot of those ideas are not feasible today in 2021, but over time, as Bitcoin forces governments to be smaller, then I think the political parties will find more juice, they will be more able to do that kind of thing, because government will have to tighten its belt.

Peter McCormack: Maybe the fact that Bitcoin is a creeping force, it becomes like an AB test; what are we going to get rid of first, what are the things that we don't need because last is going to be defence and security probably.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: It's what are the things we don't need, what are these ridiculous departments we're creating, ridiculous regulations?

Stephan Livera: Exactly.

Peter McCormack: I think when I was up in Wyoming, I think it was Tyler Lindholm was telling me you had to get a licence to be a hairdresser or something; this is ridiculous. 

So, let me talk you through the ones I've struggled with the most, because I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.  It's that, "How does the theory play out in reality?"  So, I really do struggle with the idea of a non-centralised security and the reason I struggle with it is when -- I understand the idea of private security forces because we have them now.  We have a National Health Service in the UK, but I still have private health, so I understand it. 

But the interview Bret Weinstein did with his brother, what Eric did with his brother, he talked about one of the best things we did was allow the police to have a monopoly on violence because, and I'm not going to get it exactly right what he said and I know people listening are going to be, "What the fuck are you talking about, Pete?" I'm doing this for the sake of the debate.  But he said that essentially, a centralised police force is responsible to the public, and therefore they have to follow a consistent set of rules.  I've probably got this completely wrong.  My worry is that why would a market for police or a market for security be better than a centralised police?

Stephan Livera: Yeah, good question.  I would come back at Mr Weinstein's argument or just generally.

Peter McCormack: Because I can't remember, yeah.

Stephan Livera: Think of it like this: the same control -- and actually I've heard Bob Murphy make this argument.  Bob Murphy is the best guy to speak to on this, but I'll give you my interpretation of it.  It would be like imagine you went to a mall, and we were just teenagers playing in the mall, whatever, mallrats and whatever.  Then maybe you stole a chocolate bar and then the security guy comes up and breaks your arm and breaks your leg and goes too hard. 

Guess what happens?  There's a market check against that.  The mall's going to be, "Come on, mate.  He's a kid and he stole a chocolate bar.  You don't just go break his arm and his leg".  You would rightly say, "You were too harsh there".  That security company and maybe that security guard would lose their job and they would choose another security agency or another security guard.  It's a similar idea there.

I would see it like there should be a competitive pressure between security forces.  Don't forget, they could go too hard or too soft, because it can go the other way too.  So, in San Francisco, they've got that, which you might be aware or maybe listeners …

Peter McCormack: $1,000 limit?

Stephan Livera: They're only going to police people who steal over $1,000 worth of stuff.

Peter McCormack: They go into the shops and they're walking out with … yeah.

Stephan Livera: Literally, you've got people just going in there, and so that's going too soft.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: I view it like you can have a problem either way, too hard or too soft and so the market over time selects, based on the combination of the different preferences of people and the consumers of the shop owner versus the people who go into that shop, versus the people in that area, it selects for what is overall best on balance based on people's individual demands.

Peter McCormack: That does make sense.  We still have that and in the UK, we have the Independent Police Complaints Commission who investigate situations with police which are questionable, whether someone died in custody, and people do lose their jobs; so we do have that check and balance.  What you're saying is we don't have that competition, who can be the better police force. 

Stephan Livera: Right.

Peter McCormack: The switch side to that is we have services provided by centralised police, so I wonder would they be provided by private police forces or private security?  Private security is great for things that you want yourself.  So, I can have a police service that I can call, but I can have a private security on my house.  What about things that the police or investigation agencies do?  Where's the incentive to investigate murders, if there was a serial killer?  Where's the incentive to clamp down on internet paedophiles or terrorism, those things where it's something the whole nation needs.  How does that work into this?

Stephan Livera: Yes.  A couple of things there: think of it like you might have an insurance agency and these different insurance agencies might be contracted to protect you.  The way I would think of it and the way I would explain it as well is, if you can think of a situation where enough humans want something, the market is going to find a way to provide that defence.  It doesn't necessarily have to be protection only for the rich; I actually think it might be more like different areas might come up with ways of, "Oh, hey let's all chip in". 

It might be an HOA in the same way that an HOA might all chip in for rates, and I know that can look superficially similar to what we have now, but the difference is you can fire them or you can get a different police force or a security force.  I see it a little bit more like that.  Like I was saying, this is in the context of a society and a world that is going to become so much richer, so we're all going to become a lot richer and can afford these things.

Peter McCormack: Sorry to interrupt, because there's trade-offs and sometimes you have to look at the net benefit; is there a net benefit to society and you might have somethings you lose and somethings you gain, but I do look at different situations and say we've got things we can compare to the real world. 

You say can poor people afford the security?  But people can be greedy.  If we have different neighbourhoods, say we have the rich neighbourhoods, the middle class, we might also have the poor neighbours.  Can the poor neighbourhoods afford a private police force?  Probably not.  They might give it up, they might have to self-police.  So, do we create this divide in society where there's certain things that everyone needs and they can't get? 

The NHS is a great example.  A lot of people externally to the UK don't like the NHS.  The great thing about the NHS in the UK is everybody has healthcare cover and, yes, we have to steal, we have to steal the tax from other people to pay for it.  But it doesn't matter who you are, if you have a problem, you have access to a national health service.  I myself as somebody with a bit more money, I have private healthcare, so when I bust my back, I'm in surgery. 

We know here in the US where not everybody has private healthcare, because they can't afford it, there are people in situations I know that have had certain operations which have financially ruined them for the rest of their life or can't afford to get treatments they need.  So, this is why I think I like the idea of minarchism, because I feel like there's certain things that are the benefit to being centralised.  I'm still not convinced on police force.  I'm convinced on private security; you get it in South Africa.  People have private security and people live in gated neighbourhoods, but that is a separation of rich and poor.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.  Let me answer a few of those points.  Firstly, we have to remember the government doesn't necessarily do a good job today for the poor people.  There are examples where there's big wait lists, it depends on which country.

Peter McCormack: The bad and the --

Stephan Livera: There's wait lists in the NHS or in Canada for their system, and so we have to remember that the government doesn't actually provide a great service even as it is today.  So, that's one point.  I also think it's fair to point out the government has inhibited the creation of a private market.  So, because of all the regulation, all the licensing requirements that are there, it actually drives up the cost and so probably here in the US there's another good example. 

Because of various tax compliances or tax laws, they made the insurance happen through employers.  Now here in America it's all about, "Who's your employer, because they need to be providing you with the health insurance?".  Well, guess what?  If we had a fully free market in insurance and a fully free market, the costs for health would have been far cheaper.  That would have made it accessible in that way.

Another example as well, I was just recently in Colombia and we met a bitcoiner who came from a poorer area of Colombia and he was saying there are some areas there where the police literally do not even go and that is a state already; they're already paying tax and they aren't getting protection right now.  So, it's hard for me to believe this idea that somehow the government is going to provide for all when already the government is here today in many countries around the world, 200 of them, and there are a lot of people who don't get protection and who don't get healthcare, or they've got a huge wait time for healthcare, or the cost of the healthcare is raised dramatically even for the private people.

Peter McCormack: But what I wonder is are those places, like you were in Colombia, are they gradually as the wealth increases in the nation going more towards, directionally towards what we have in the UK and you have in Australia; they are getting better?  Could we potentially, under libertarian ideas, see places like the UK get gradually worse because we created this divide? 

Health is a tricky one, because that isn't as black and white for me as, say, security.  Security to me, I do struggle with that idea, I do think we create the haves and have nots too much in terms of private security and I think certain places can end up just becoming violent ghettoes without a standardised police force, because if it comes down to who can afford it, some people will have to forego certain services.  So, I think for me security and health are slightly different.  There's no question there.

Stephan Livera: Okay, but think of it like this: remember, already a lot of these people are paying right now.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, a lot of tax.

Stephan Livera: We're paying a lot of tax and the government is not necessarily providing a great service.  I think the important thing is always to think about what would the alternative be?  Imagine if there were no government, would we just put our hands up and say, "Oh well, I guess we'll all die now"?  No, we would have private security, we would put in some effort into that. 

Here's the other thing: it doesn't necessarily have to be a full profit venture; it could be under anarcho-capitalism, it is totally reasonable that you might have neighbourhood security, there might be a, "We're living in the town together and we all voluntarily do a neighbourhood watch thing".  There's all sorts of different ways it could be done.  So, the way I'm thinking about libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism is more this idea that people can try things in different areas and then once you see it works, "Ah, it works there.  Let's replicate that here and we're just going to do that all over the world".  So, even with whatever, even with COVID or whatever, like you see, "Oh, this treatment worked there, let's try it here" whether it's whatever other things.

Peter McCormack: How much of this is you thinking that this is a more efficient system and how much of you of this is based more on the morality of nobody having --

Stephan Livera: Yeah, good question.  There are different approaches in the libertarian world on this.  So, some people are more what we would say deontological.  They're saying, even if it caused a worse world, I would still believe in it because that's just.

Peter McCormack: I don't agree with that one.

Stephan Livera: But that's one where you could frame it.

Peter McCormack: Sorry, the reason I don't agree with that one is because I think humans organise themselves.  So, whilst that person thinks that, other humans are going to organise themselves to say, "Well, that's not better, so we're not going to have that".

Stephan Livera: Yeah, to be fair that's a steel man of a position.

Peter McCormack: I know.

Stephan Livera: But I think most of those deontological libertarians happen to also believe it would be more efficient.

Peter McCormack: Right.

Stephan Livera: They believe that it is actually a just and efficient way.  Then there are others, someone like a David Friedman, he might be more in the consequentialist camp where he might not necessarily be making a moral argument like the deontological guys would, but he might argue it more like, just even on a utilitarian basis we would be better off and that's why we should pursue that approach. 

Then perhaps the third bucket is someone like a Michael Huemer, who might make an argument more like it's common sense, it's the same way that you or I would treat each other is the way the state should be treated by us; it should have no special rights, it should not have the ability to compel us to pay it taxes or to obey its rules, just like you and I don't have to obey each other's rules above and beyond, say, the private property aspect of it; if I'm on your house, I need to obey your rules kind of thing.

Peter McCormack: What if people don't want this?  That's the tricky thing.  You've explained to me and like I say, I agree with you and I know I'm a fairly decent person, I'm not a violent person, I'm honest and if I have an arrangement with you, I'm going to pay you, etc, I know I'm like that.  There's a lot of shitty people in the world as well who aren't like that, and this kind of society would be an opportunity for them to exploit people.  Is there a way or are there any discussions in your communities that you can co-exist between those who want statism and those who want anarcho-capitalism?

Stephan Livera: So, think of it like this: the whole world, if it were anarcho-capitalist, there's nothing stopping everyone opting in to a socialist commune or something like that.  But we aren't allowed to have what we want living in a broader socialist world.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, yeah.

Stephan Livera: There's actually an imbalance there, but I think this almost brings us back to the citadels thing, because it almost is like a lot of bitcoiners and libertarian people, often bitcoiners are libertarian-minded, though not all of them are, but many of them are of this mindset that the world is not going to give us what we want, so we're going to go gold, we're going to go off and create our own.  So, that's where some of this idea of the citadel comes from a little bit because they think, "You know what?  This government is not giving us a good deal; we're going to go over and create our own little thing or at least try to opt out along little ways that we can".

Now, there's different ideas around this.  I think the broader idea is more like the broader world is going to change, because the political environment, landscape is going to change because of Bitcoin.

Peter McCormack: Have you had any new questions today or is this the stuff you get asked every time?

Stephan Livera: No, I think it's an interesting mix of Bitcoin and liberty, how do these things mix and what is it going to look like in 5, 10, 15 years down the line.

Peter McCormack: I feel like I'm just figuring it out as I go over time and different things click.  I've had a couple of people write to me and say, "I think you're minarchist, Pete.  You need that little bit of state stuff".  Okay, let's talk about Australia.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, it's crazy.

Peter McCormack: That is the "I told you so" moment, because Australia's just fucking weird, man.  I grew up thinking Australia was this really cool relaxed country where people just surf and play sports and everyone's cool with each other.  Then, the more I've learned over the last three or four years, it's certainly more authoritarian than the UK; the controls over the press, what's happened during COVID, the brutality of the police, the rules, some of the mental things that you're seeing in politicians.  Did I see today something in Queensland, they're creating a quarantine camp?

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, these things and you look at them going, "This looks like a Nazi concentration camp".  It does.  I know it isn't the same and we shouldn't compare anything to the Nazis, but has Australia always been like this, I'm not sure how long you lived there, or is this a recent five-, ten-year thing?

Stephan Livera: I went to Australia as a 2-year-old.

Peter McCormack: 2-year-old.

Stephan Livera: I was there for over 30 years, so I grew up there.

Peter McCormack: For your whole life.

Stephan Livera: Basically, my whole life I was there.  Now, I've recently left Australia and I'm basically not planning to go back anytime soon, but absolutely the culture was on the down.  So, if you ask people outside Australia, "What's your conception of Australia?" they would have said, "Oh, Paul Hogan and Crocodile Dundee and this kind of alpha charismatic guy".  Think of the big Australian exports, Hugh Jackman, Chris Hemsworth, these jovial easy-going characters, they don't take themselves too seriously.  That was the perception of Australia and I think the culture was on a serious downtrend.

Peter McCormack: Do you know why?

Stephan Livera: I think it's a few things, but if I had to guess, Australia has gone complacent; that's the short answer.  So, Australia was the lucky country.  They had no recession for 27 or 28 years, something ridiculous.  I think what happened is they got complacent and they gave up the guns in 1996 and that --

Peter McCormack: That was after a mass shooting, right?

Stephan Livera: Yeah, so there was the Port Arthur mass shooting, and basically the right wing or central right politician at that time or Prime Minister, John Howard, took away the guns.  Because he was from the right-wing party, and obviously all the left-wing side were going with it, that was essentially what happened.  I think from there, it was coasting off inertia. 

Growing up, people lived more brutal lives; they just did, that was just a fact.  We have created, maybe the world has created, this super safe society and now, because everyone's looking for a reason to be offended, everyone's looking for a reason they're not safe.  Now, they're starting to impose things that just would have been completely unheard of.  This notion that you stop people from seeing their own family when they're dying, people stopping their weddings, funerals, all kinds of things and all of these things have been going on in Australia.  Because Australians have been so coddled, they just became complacent.  That, in my view, is what's happened; that's the short answer.

Think of it this way: if COVID happened 15 years ago, no chance this would have happened in Australia, but the constant degradation and a few factors that go into that; some of it's global, some of it's Australia.  I would say part of it is the news; so the news, maybe they've lost their budgets and lost their revenues that they normally had.  Now they get a lot of clickbait from driving fear and because they drove a lot of fear at the start, most of the population believes, "Oh, see we locked down and, etc, look how good we are".  If anything happened, it's because they didn't lock down hard enough or early enough.  That's the conversation we've had.

Peter McCormack: You've had how many deaths in Australia?

Stephan Livera: I haven't even checked.

Peter McCormack: I'm assuming it's tens or hundreds.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, it's pretty low.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, whereas the UK is 140,000, we say.

Stephan Livera: With or from, but that's a grey area.

Peter McCormack: We're saying 4 to 5 million globally.  Australia can say, "Look, we're a success here" and there are people who defend that.  I've seen it this week on Time.  I've seen people defend it and say, "Look, I'm still fairly free.  I'm locked down occasionally, but we have saved many, many lives in Australia".  They have a point, whether you agree with it or not they have a point, which is a point you can debate on.  But you, obviously it's not going to work for you because you're a libertarian, but the weird thing for me about Australia is what's the end game here? 

Stephan Livera: They seem to think, "Oh, just get the vaccine up".

Peter McCormack: We know that doesn't work.

Stephan Livera: But it doesn't even work.  If you look at Israel.

Peter McCormack: Sorry, let me just be clear.  The vaccine works, but you have to have the nuance.  It reduces deaths and it reduces sickness, okay.  I'm saying that from the data I've read, that's factual.  But at the same time, you can still get sick, and you can still get COVID if you are vaccinated.

Stephan Livera: And you can still pass it on.

Peter McCormack: And you can still pass it on.  So, if the vaccines were 100% effective, if there was a genuine immunity from it, then you could see the logic of the argument.

Stephan Livera: But that makes no sense.

Peter McCormack: It doesn't make any sense, so I'm, "What's the end game here?"

Stephan Livera: Politicians made an error; they should never have locked down.  But Ron DeSantis put it well.  He's saying, "They're making you cover your face so they can cover their arse".  They screwed up, they made a big mistake and they don't want to walk it back, because they've scared the population, put them into hysteria and that's why I call it hysteria 19. 

I'm not a COVID denier in that sense; I believe it is a real virus, I believe it's something like two or three times what a flu season is.  So, society should have done two or three times what they do for a flu; they should not have done 100 or 1,000 times what they've done for a flu season, and that's the problem.  But they don't want to admit that and even if I look back at the media in Australia, the way they talk about it is, "Oh, see, you just didn't contact trace hard enough".  And then because there are some people who have been so pushed into this state of fear and they've been shilled the vaccine harder and harder, they think the way out is, "Oh see, you just need to mandate the vaccine and then we're all going to be out of this".  But it's not, it's not going to do it. 

Peter McCormack: They're going to have to mandate it in Australia.

Stephan Livera: They basically are, because if you look at what's going on, especially in New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian has said, "Oh, if you're fully vaccinated, now you're going to have a little more freedom than the non-vaccinated".

Peter McCormack: You tweeted that out, right?

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: That was unbelievable.

Stephan Livera: History will not judge Gladys well for that.

Peter McCormack: No.

Stephan Livera: They are really going down a bad pathway and that's why I left and I'm probably not going back, but I really feel for family and friends back there in Australia and in Sydney and everywhere else.

Peter McCormack: That statement was very much like, you only have the freedoms that we give you.

Stephan Livera: 100% and so as a libertarian, my view of rights is they are inalienable and that's maybe more of an American conception of rights; they are inalienable.  The government does not give you rights, it's on the government not to impinge on your rights.

Peter McCormack: This is what Zuby was talking about with Rogan the other day. 

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: Negative rights.

Stephan Livera: That's a common libertarian framing of rights; it's a freedom from not a freedom to.  So, that's another way to put it.  Ultimately, the problem is in Australia, they don't have a principled base on these things.  They were lucky, they were the lucky country.  They got lucky and they were broadminded, egalitarian-minded and now when something hit, they didn't have the right principle about them and they didn't have that same level of fight back or resistance that now a lot of them are docile. 

So, I don't know the latest numbers but when I saw some numbers back in May or like that, it was something like 20% of the population wanted more restrictions, 60% were okay with that level, before going back into lockdown, and then only 20% wanted less restrictions.  In other words …

Peter McCormack: 80%.

Stephan Livera: 80% of the population were okay with it or wanted more restrictions.

Peter McCormack: I think you would say that's because of fear, but do you not also think there are other people who are just, "Look, I like being part of the society, I like being part of a society that agrees, that will function together, will make decisions together for the best of everyone"?  That's not me defending it; I'm just saying do you not think that --

Stephan Livera: I understand why people can think it's like that, but here's the thing, and again this goes to similar to that idea of why are so many people socialist is because of that biological urge.  They think, "I've got to protect" or, "It's my family, I've got to look after them" but they don't understand by doing this they're causing more unseen deaths, and you actually have to think that through; because without wealth, at the extreme level people starve; but without wealth as well, people might be losing jobs, families might be breaking down, people might lose their businesses that they spent decades building up.  So, it's going to cause future deaths, but they won't necessarily be COVID ones and there'll be other deaths; there'll be deaths from things like undiagnosed cancer.

Peter McCormack: They're happening, we know they're happening, suicides.

Stephan Livera: The suicides, the last interesting stat I heard with the suicide hotline, I'm not sure if it was New South Wales or Australia, hit a 57-year high.  That's how many people are dialling into the lifeline suicide hotlines.

Peter McCormack: Because the people creating the rules are not affected, they're still paid.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, and here's the other factor to bring in.  Over time, the growth of the state, there are a lot more people getting paid by the state, so they're getting a cheque either way.  So, they either work directly for the government, they're getting some kind of job keeper, job seeker welfare payment and so a lot of them have been placated with that. 

Fiat money has allowed governments of the world to disregard the consequences or to act like there are no consequences for not working, whereas if you look at the poorer countries or the countries reliant on tourism, they are more open.  Why?  Because they know where their bread is buttered.  They know they have to stay open because, yes, there might be some COVID deaths, but you're causing more deaths elsewhere in other ways, just in unseen ways. 

So, because of the massive panic and hysteria, it became COVID monomania.  It's like the only thing that matters is COVID, nothing else; no other health outcomes, no other life outcomes matter now in the COVID hysteria age.

Peter McCormack: I think people struggle to change their mind on things.

Stephan Livera: Totally.  It's hard to flip back.

Peter McCormack: It's a really poor human quality.  You know what I did?  We literally had the Twitter debate the other day where somebody brought up something I'd said and I said, "No, I've changed my mind on that, I got it wrong".  It's almost like politicians can't ever change their minds.

Stephan Livera: Sometimes that means they get voted out or their party will oust them because, "Oh, you were wrong there".  You can understand in that sense, obviously I don't agree with them, but you can understand from their point of view why they're bullishly trying to charge on through and now, they're trying to slowly keep pushing the goalposts; there's been constant goalpost shifting.  Obviously 2 weeks to stop the spread and where are we now, 16 months, 18 months in to 2 weeks to stop the spread.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, but also we're part of that.  I think sometimes you have to say it was like an evolving situation.  When I put out that tweet that pissed a lot of people off, the reality was we were seeing those videos of people dropping dead in China, which we know is bullshit.  We don't know where that came from, but that makes you think that something else is going on here, because nobody else has had people dropping dead.  But also, Italy got hit bad early on and the hospitals were overrun.  So at the point where the UK was, there were things that weren't looking great and trying to figure these things out, as somebody who works for the government, it must be hard. 

Okay, you're a libertarian and so you don't give a fuck, but people who do work in government, who believe in the state, who believe in looking after their constituents, some of them, and not everyone will agree, but there are people who do want to do their best for their constituents.  I don't believe every politician is an evil person who wants control of power.  I believe there are people out there who understand their duty as a politician and want to do good.  I think they've had to make some tough decisions and then sometimes they've had to change their mind.  They're doing it at a time where people are disagreeing with them.  It's almost like you get yelled at on Twitter sometimes, right?

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: I get it.  It's because people disagree.  If you're in power in government, you've got a lot of people disagreeing with you; you've got people on different political spectrums.  So, I think they have a tough job.

Stephan Livera: Here's the thing: I think a lot of them are hiding.  You know why?  They're doing the cover your arse.  They are basically just saying, "Oh look, this is the best health advice".  No, politicians are not meant to just look at one thing.

Peter McCormack: No, I agree.

Stephan Livera: They're not balancing across all of society and so think of it this way; they are trading off their long-term for a short-term gain.  Think of it this way --

Peter McCormack: Fiat decisions.

Stephan Livera: Exactly, because if you're an Australian politician, particularly, or a New Zealand politician, guess what?  Less people are going to move to Australia, the talent is going to move out of Australia.  Who's going to go and set up a business in Australia now when you can get locked down at the drop of a hat?  People can't plan their weddings, can't even have a funeral if their mum dies or whatever, they just can't plan events.  What kind of a life is that?  There are people stuck in their homes who have no idea, they have no light at the end of that tunnel.

They literally just feel like I'm stuck here, I don't have a pathway out.  Or my overlords gave me one hour of freedom to go and buy my groceries for the day; wow!  And I've got to wear a mask which doesn't work.  Oh, and they're forcing the vaccine onto us and I won't get my freedoms back unless 80% of us take the vaccine.  That is coercion, that is vaccine blackmail.

Peter McCormack: That coercion one's a really tricky one, because I've been very public.  I'm vaccinated and I support the idea of vaccinations for certain demographics and I don't like too much of the -- there are certain people I believe should just get vaccinated absolutely.

Stephan Livera: Maybe older people, maybe unhealthy people, people with comorbidities.  But young healthy, no.

Peter McCormack: There are stats out there, there are stats and there are stats we don't know, there are knowns and there are unknowns, but I support that idea.  But I fundamentally disagree with vaccine passports; I fundamentally disagree with any coercion around this.  Is it today in the US they announced that you cannot get on a plane if you've not been …?

Stephan Livera: They're looking at a law to do that, yeah, which would be horrible. 

Peter McCormack: People will get vaccinated that don't want to.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.  A lot of people are getting vaccinated not because they're worried about COVID, but because of the government rules.  I'm sure you're familiar with the example of thalidomide, right?

Peter McCormack: Yeah, of course.

Stephan Livera: Which is the famous example on this.  It was a drug they gave to pregnant women and those children turned out with malformed arms and legs and things and they only found out years later.  Who are we to know, how do we even know with some of these vaccines?  Maybe you won't die straightaway, but maybe they'll harm your immune system.

Peter McCormack: I get a lot of emails about this.  I've had some quite supportive emails because I've been pro and I've taken a lot of flak.  I've had doctors and virologists get in touch and I'm not going to give the answers because I don't have it, but they've said there is a lot of nonsense around this.  Firstly, it's not a gene therapy like people say it is.  Actually, these technologies have been tested quite a bit and actually the long-term risk, yes, we don't have long-term testing, but the long-term risk is very low; these haven't been extensively tested.  I almost feel like I wish I had someone who could answer.

I think the bigger point is whether or not you and I can relay the right information about the risk; it's actually about personal choice.  I was reading today about a radio presenter in the UK and she got vaccinated.  After the first dose she got blood clots and she died.  They said, I think it was 419 cases and 73 people have died.  Now, there is a trade-off, there will be people who haven't got vaccinated who have got COVID and died.  So, it's worth knowing the numbers of both and being able to make a decision.  But the point being is if you're forced to take a vaccine and you die --

Stephan Livera: Yeah, that's totally wrong.

Peter McCormack: -- you've died because you've been coerced.  If you've chosen not to and you get COVID and you die, at least you had to make that choice and that was your choice to make.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, you should have the choice either way.

Peter McCormack: That's the point, the choice should exist.

Stephan Livera: That's the weirdest thing.  There's been so much abuse and media thrown at it, like the way the media portrayed this, "I'm an anti-vaxxer or whatever because I believe in pro-choice" right.  I've had every vaccine, I've had every other vaccine, but because I believe that you should have a choice on this one, now all of a sudden I'm an anti-vaxxer.  Whether I took it or not, I believe you should have the choice.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: That's the important thing for me, so that's been so frustrating as well.  If you look at the media portrayal of these things, in Australia they're, "Oh this guy, he was positive on COVID tests" and they're doing a manhunt for this guy.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: He was in an elevator or something, I don't know.  The media are helping drive this whole thing and it's like the people in the media have no self-awareness.

Peter McCormack: Is there a certain situation where you would say, okay, something central like -- no, I'm going to say it and I know what your answer's going to be; people will make their own decisions based on this.  But for example, we're in Texas right now and Texas have been pretty open with regards to removing the mandates for masks and it's pretty much opened up.  The only people who seem to be wearing masks are the people that work. 

But the hospitals are filling up, we know ICUs are full, we know they're running out of beds.  I know this again because doctors are writing to me saying, "People need to see what's going on in these hospitals, we're dealing with this".  They're building extensions into car parks, etc.  Is there ever a scenario where you think a centralised response is required?  I know, for example, when we have Ebola outbreaks in Africa, there is a centralised response and they literally lock areas down.  Is there ever a scenario like that?

Stephan Livera: I don't know.  I think even in the Texas example or even in other examples around the world, I've heard of examples where literally some staff are quitting because of the vaccine requirement and then that's causing the shortage in staff which in turn causes the shortage in the hospital because they don't have --

Peter McCormack: It doesn't cause the shortage in the beds.  The beds are the number of beds.

Stephan Livera: Broadly speaking, to the broader question that you're asking, I see it like the, let's say, the citadel manager or someone would be the one to make that decision.  Again, it would be more like a competitive jurisdiction, so you'd see some that --

Peter McCormack: We're not there yet though.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, right.  But even now, you would say different governments and you'd look and compare.  But I guess in an ideal world, we would see a more honest media who would talk about, "Oh, look how bad these lockdowns have been" or, "Look how this country, these different counties in the same state, one had a mask mandate, the other didn't and they had the same curve".  No one, very few people are raising those kinds of questions and talking about those kinds of things.

Peter McCormack: Do you know what, the worst thing is trying to get accurate data because whatever your bias is, you can find the data that suits you.  That's what I found; I've literally done it.  I've gone and looked at certain issues and I've googled based on whether I'm pro or whether I'm con and I can find data that supports me and it's really tricky.

Stephan Livera: Think of it this way: here's how I think of it.  There should be a presumption in favour of private property and liberty.

Peter McCormack: Agreed.

Stephan Livera: In order for somebody to justify a lockdown or a mask mandate or any of these restrictions, they need to be the one to prove the evidence.  They can't just be like, "Oh, it might help" or, "It sounds like a good idea".  No, you need to prove it.

Peter McCormack: Hold on, hold on.  When they do prove it and say, "Well, you can't trust government data"?

Stephan Livera: Okay, so some people are like that, but I'm saying even taking government data, like there are people like ianmSC on Twitter, if you look him up, he's got all these charts showing different states or counties or whatever or different countries showing that curve.  Oftentimes, people deny, there's a whole bunch of things they deny.  They deny seasonality, they deny natural immunity, they push this idea that asymptomatic spread is a thing, when really if they had just said, "Hey, if you have symptoms, stay home", that probably would have done most of the work.  They just don't allow for this. 

They think the only way it got better is because of vaccines and masks and restrictions; they never say, "Oh, what about natural immunity?" and then the conversation about natural immunity versus vaccine immunity comes in too, because there are people and some of the work, some of the studies coming out of Israel now are saying that natural immunity is way better than vaccine immunity.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, if you survive and get natural immunity.

Stephan Livera: Well, here's the other thing and again, we have to zoom out, right.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: Just like in Bitcoin, we have to zoom out.  Do you know how many people die every year, just on average?

Peter McCormack: In the world?

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: About 65 million?

Stephan Livera: Yes, correct.

Peter McCormack: Do you want to know how I know that?

Stephan Livera: Don't know.

Peter McCormack: Isn't it weird that I can answer it?

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: Could you have answered that?  Zuby did it on Rogan's show literally the other day.  I was, "Oh, 65 million".

Stephan Livera: Yeah, because I was tweeting this out a while back.  I was saying, "Look, we have to look at the broader numbers".  About 0.75% of the population, so 60 million out of 8 billion die every year, just normal causes.  It's all out of proportion, because if you look at how many people are dying of non-COVID causes, it's way higher.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: So, the world shouldn't be mono-maniacally focused on COVID.

Peter McCormack: Again, it's slightly different.  It's like when you hear people say, "Oh well, heart disease is a big killer, we should…"  Yeah, but the thing is we are talking about something that can kill you that you can spread to other people.  I think we at least need to accept that.  You don't have to agree with the points, but you at least need to accept that in the debate, that if it was Ebola right now, that kind of level, people would be very scared and keeping away from each other.  So, we do have something whereby being in the same room as somebody; if I had COVID, you could get it today, you could leave and have COVID because of me.  That is a slight difference than, say, heart disease.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, I get you, but even the broad numbers, so many more die of heart disease than of COVID or the 60 million who die every year, just globally.  The other factor as well is even if you look at things from a QALYs point of view, Quality Adjusted Life Years, every 20-year-old who suicides because they couldn't go to their event or have a wedding or whatever, they had 60 years left to live.

Peter McCormack: Listen, I agree with you, I totally agree with you on that point.

Stephan Livera: Whereas the lives you're saving, the lives who are dying of COVID, it's people who are over 80.  Their life expectancy is 81 or whatever, right.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, again I struggle with that one as well, because sometimes I think my dad's 73 and I don't want him to die.

Stephan Livera: Of course, life is precious.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, I know.

Stephan Livera: I think there's a concept of a good innings.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: Someone who is 15 or 20, they should have their chance.

Peter McCormack: Do you know what number you would take, if you were offered the chance?  What number would you take, what age?  I'll give you that now.

Stephan Livera: The average life expectancy is 81.

Peter McCormack: If you were offered 81, would you take it or do you think you'd say, "No, I think I can beat it"?

Stephan Livera: As in personally do I think I will?

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera:  Yes.

Peter McCormack: I would take 81 in a heartbeat.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, but 81 is a good innings as far as I'm concerned.  That's like, you had your chance.  But all these other people, the rest of the world are struggling because we want to give another 4 months to the 81-year-old and destroy the lives of the 20-year-olds?

Peter McCormack: I think it's a bit more nuanced than that.  I don't think people are there saying, "Let's just save the 80-year-olds".  I think they're thinking, "Let's save the teenagers who die in a very small number" and then they begin with the 20 and slightly bigger numbers, and the 30s.  It's a scaling number.  I don't think they're saying, "Let's just save the 80-year-olds".  I don't think people are saying that.

Stephan Livera: But I'm saying that most of the people who are dying are older.  Yeah, there's some younger people.

Peter McCormack: The numbers are changing though.

Stephan Livera: Here's the other thing, this is another thing the media won't talk about, is the obesity rates.  Obesity is a massively bigger risk factor.  Here's a crazy counter example: imagine I said, "Hey, you know what, Peter, we're going to do fat camps.  Anyone who's obese, mandatory fat camp.  You're only allowed to eat the carnivore diet and you can lift weights.  We've got a gym there and cardio and you can eat as much meat and you can lift weights until you're slim again or until you're a healthy weight".  I bet you that intervention, although I still in principle disagree with it, that would save more lives than all the COVID stuff.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, but again I think it's a poor analogy in that that person, their weight and their food choices is an individual choice that doesn't affect others.  We are talking about something where individual choices can affect a lot of people and change the economy. 

For example, people talk about waiting lists; the waiting lists were going to be huge again in the UK because we've stopped doing operations, etc.  There was a flip to that also.  Here in Texas at the moment, ICU beds are filling, hospitals are filling with people coming in who have got breathing problems, have got COVID.  Also, operations are still being delayed because of that as well.  There is a flip.  I always think if you are going to look at one, you've got to look at the other.

Stephan Livera: Here's my answer then.  I would say the world is doing it out of proportion.

Peter McCormack: I don't disagree with you.

Stephan Livera: Ultimately that's my point.

Peter McCormack: It should be fair.

Stephan Livera: Because we've had bad flu seasons in other years gone by.  Did we shut down the world for those?  No.  So, I think the world is just not set up to operate on this idea that you might be an asymptomatic spreader, so you've got to take a test before you fly and you've got to …

Peter McCormack: Have we had a global flu season which has affected almost every country in the world with millions of deaths and hospitals filling up like COVID?  I don't think we have. 

Stephan Livera: We've had hospitals overfill though in years gone by.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, but it's pockets, but it's not a global situation where you can go to Brazil and hospitals are full, you go to Ecuador and hospitals are full, you go to Dallas.

Stephan Livera: I wouldn't know the numbers to be fair.

Peter McCormack: I've seen it brought up before and I've seen this flu thing.  Yes, we have had it, we've had it in the UK, but they're pockets; it's not a global issue.

Stephan Livera: I wouldn't know the specific numbers, so I couldn't really say.  I think the broader point to me is that the world has never operated on this idea that just by us talking, that we should put controls on our infectious disease.  I'm sorry, we have immune systems and we have to just live with it; that's always been the way.  Also, I guess bringing it back to the libertarian idea, it's more like it should be the private property owner's choice.

Peter McCormack: I'm vaccinated, I don't know if you are, I assume you're not, but we've made the decision to have this conversation.  Alex here has made the decision.  You know even though I'm vaccinated, I can have it and carry it and pass it to you?  We've made those personal choices.  I went to a florist recently with my daughter, she was getting some flowers for her mum for her birthday.  We got there, she said, "Have you got a mask?"  I said, "No".  She said, "My 87-year-old mother's working inside.  Can we serve you at the door?"  Fine. 

I agree with everyone making these choices, I totally agree with that.  I do though think there are certain things that we have to consider or just think about, just have to have the discussion.

Stephan Livera: For me it's more like if it was serious enough, you wouldn't need the government to tell us about it.

Peter McCormack: Again, I've heard that.  I have heard that argument, but Florida's opened up pretty much, Texas has opened up pretty much.  Right now, they're both quite serious situations in terms of ICUs filling.

Stephan Livera: Big decision.  My answer would be seasonality.  I think if you're going to see a season come and then it will go and then …

Peter McCormack: Maybe and time will prove that, but if the whole of the US was open like that and all ICU beds across the country were filled up, maybe they are, maybe they wouldn't, I think we would know.  I am not saying we should have -- you see, my issue is where's the middle ground?

Stephan Livera: The middle ground is not necessarily going to be the right answer.

Peter McCormack: Not necessarily, but what I'm saying is, and this is where I'm agreeing with you, the politicisation of this is the problem.  New York's gone totally one way; you have to be mandated.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, it's crazy.

Peter McCormack: You're mandated to come in, if you want to go restaurants.  So basically, if you've not double-jabbed, there's no point going to New York.  You come to Texas, completely open, ICUs are failing.  Dallas, here where we are in Dallas, maybe there's some middle ground where if you are trying to prove a political point, you would deal with things rationally in a different way.  So, maybe -- is it DeSantis here?

Stephan Livera: Where?

Peter McCormack: Here in Texas?

Stephan Livera: No, Abbott

Peter McCormack: Abbot's the Governor?

Stephan Livera: Governor of Texas.

Peter McCormack: Of Texas, but DeSantis?

Stephan Livera: DeSantis is Florida.

Peter McCormack: DeSantis is Florida, that's it.  DeSantis or Abbott, whoever it is, sorry to American listeners I don't know these, maybe they would make decisions slightly differently.  So, maybe Abbott would be completely open, maybe they'll make just slightly different decisions.  Maybe if de Blasio wasn't trying to make a virtue signal for what New York should have, they'd make slightly different decisions.  I feel like the politicisation is why we're seeing --

Stephan Livera: Makes it worse, yeah.

Peter McCormack: We've seen those two extremes.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: We've seen those two extremes and I accept the reality of the state, and therefore I want to try and have an opinion about what they should do better rather than just solve it from a libertarian angle which doesn't exist.

Stephan Livera: So, here's how I would say it: even with the Fabian socialists and that, they didn't get what they wanted by just asking for a little bit.  They asked for all the little bit and conceded a little and just kept conceding and conceding and just kept creeping up.  I think because of that underlying biological tendency we mentioned earlier, they managed to get a lot of what they wanted.  Governments today are massive compared to 100 years ago.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: It's almost seen like a crazy right-wing position now, but that might be what your grandad believed.  It's crazy that it's gone that way, but governments have become so powerful and it's just hard to explain to people, because it's like they're all saying about there's two fish swimming in the water and one of them is asking the other, "What's water?"  He doesn't understand and that's the water we're swimming in; we're just living in this world where governments are so extremely powerful compared to before.  Their power of surveillance, their power of all these things is so much more advanced compared to what people could have dreamed about 100 years ago.

Peter McCormack: Do you have any doubts yourself; do you ever still question parts of libertarianism where you think, "I'm just not sure if I've got this right"?

Stephan Livera: There are some areas where you're okay, maybe the treatment of children.  That's probably one of the common ones that comes up.

Peter McCormack: Social services to protect children.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, or let's say this idea that you should be looking after your children, but if people were to abuse children, how would you protect them from an outside perspective?  There's little things in there.

Peter McCormack: Where does age of consent come on the libertarian side?

Stephan Livera: Yeah, I guess depending on the conception of that law, it could be the law of that citadel, if you will, or it could be like the custom or it could be more like a …

Peter McCormack: What if you're not in that citadel?

Stephan Livera: Yeah, so these are some of the harder questions.

Peter McCormack: These are tricky, yeah.

Stephan Livera: That's what I'm saying.  These are the harder ones.

Peter McCormack: I don't want it to be a gotcha, by the way.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, of course.  I think I openly say these are potentially some of the areas where maybe it's not as clean and precise an answer as just non-aggression principle, your property versus my property; those are very clean-cut answers.  That's some of the areas where I'd say libertarianism in general, that's probably one of the areas where we're not as precise as I would like to be; but I still think on that, it makes the most sense.  That's how I view it.

Peter McCormack: It's probably come back to the net good, the net of the whole system.  Just because of one thing -- but how do you get to that?  There's an ethical age of consent but some places in the US it's 18, in the UK it's 16, other countries it's 14.

Stephan Livera: Or even drinking age, another example, similar kind of thing.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.  Or there would be no drinking age.

Stephan Livera: Maybe, yeah.

Peter McCormack: It just wouldn't exist, would it?

Stephan Livera: Well, not by a government, but maybe your insurance agency says, "Oh, we're not going to give you health insurance unless you make sure your child doesn't…"  There could be other forms of that.  There could be private mechanisms, so people think in the libertarian world there'll be no seatbelt rules or no driver's licence or no insurance requirements.  But no, remember the road is privately-owned, so that road owner is going to say, "You're not allowed to go on my road unless you have insurance for if you hit some other guy", or whatever, seatbelts, or different rules. 

It's a similar kind of thing where over time, I think the market or people will come up with norms and rules and customs and say, "Okay, age of consent is whatever" or, "Age that you can drink is this".

Peter McCormack: Yeah, I think that's why I come back to the minarchism thing, because I like the idea in a minarchist world we can solve it and go, okay, age of consent is 18, we have that rule and go fuck yourselves, you can't mess with that.  We can have agencies that protect children and we can have maybe a centralised police force.  I'd feel a lot more comfortable in that world.

Stephan Livera: From my point of view, that would be less bad than what we have now.

Peter McCormack: That would be a massive win.

Stephan Livera: I would take it, I would take that, that would be a massive win. It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be better than what we have now, so I can take that.  For me, my approach is more just like what we have now, just push in a better direction.  I know we're not going to have anarcho-capitalism tomorrow, but if we can push it in that direction, privatise things, make the state smaller, I'll take it.

Peter McCormack: It's like Erik Voorhees said to me years ago, he said if we could be just 1% smaller every year, 5% smaller every year.

Stephan Livera: Similar idea, right.  Basically, you should be out there trying to deregulate things and trying to lower the taxes.  I think in reality, the practical way this happens is more the competitive jurisdictions thing, so this idea of going overseas to get a better tax rate or all that sort of stuff.

Peter McCormack: Which is all happening right now; you're travelling, I'm travelling.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, I'm going more nomad now and I think this is the way.  Here's the thing: this is for anyone who's earning enough money, it starts to make a lot of senses to think about these things; because if your income and depending on the tax rules of your country, whatever, depending on that, it could be a huge saving.  So, an interesting start from The Sovereign Individual, I can't remember the exact numbers, but they were saying if you could get a 10% rate of return and compounding for 40 years, it was like for every $5,000 of income or something, it's millions of dollars.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: Money's not everything in this world, but let's say you did this at 20 or 30 and you compare back to when you're 60 or 70, boom; that's millions of dollars you could pass on to your family.  That's millions of dollars you could put into a charity that you believe, a cause, whatever cause you believe in, you can put money into that.  It really starts to weigh on your mind the cost of sitting in the high-tax nation, and especially if you're like me and you were in Australia, a high-hysteria and a high-tax nation, it's the worst of both worlds.  I could understand if it's high-tax but I'm getting something high quality of service, high quality of living; but in Australia, it's not a high quality of living now; they aren't living a good life but they're paying for it, they're paying through the nose for it.

So, as this option, and I think Bitcoin obviously plays in here, it's the likes of Katie with Plan B Passports, people like Andrew Henderson, Nomad Capitalist, those kinds of people are going to show people, "Hey guys, you can…"

Peter McCormack: You can do this.

Stephan Livera: You can just go overseas and pay less tax.  Now, it's harder for an American, I understand that.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, they're fucked.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, basically you have to renounce.  Or you can do the Puerto Rico thing for Americans.  I think they can set up a business and get 4% tax or something low or whatever, but for most, if you're not American, or Eritrea is the one other nation that does that, most other people can, if they're committed enough, take the steps, take their family, get them out overseas into a low-tax or a zero-tax jurisdiction and significantly save that money and put it into causes they believe in instead of letting the government -- and here's the most screwed up thing.  People in Australia are paying their jailors.  We are funding the police who imprison us in our homes; that's literally what's going on.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, you pay them for security.

Stephan Livera: It's for your safety, Peter; it's public health, you know!

Peter McCormack: Cheaper security.  All right, man, love talking this shit with you even though I'm the opposite end.  This is why I like talking to you, because you don't give me shit and you talk it through with me, you send me stuff to read.

Stephan Livera: Well, I try to answer, you know.

Peter McCormack: You're not a prick about it, basically.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, you can disagree with people in a more polite way or whatever, but sometimes you catch more flies with honey; even if I violently disagree with statism, I have to try to engage with people.  I think it's the same story with Bitcoin; it's about education, there might be someone who, they come in from a fiat mindset and you have to try to put it in a way for them that they can understand; and these are things that we do as educators and now at Swan as well.

Peter McCormack: Tell me about Swan.  What's going on there because that came out of the blue, I was surprised by it, but then I thought about it.  I thought, "That makes sense".  Tell people what you're doing.

Stephan Livera: Yeah, sure.  I've taken on a role Manging Director Swan International, and so we are essentially providing education and one-on-one guidance as well as service for people, and this is generally for people who are high net worth, business, corporate, IRA, those kinds of services.  We can help onboard them and give them tips and help, because if someone is coming in, they're a newcoiner, they might have a little bit of coin or zero and they want a bit of learning.  So, I think that's part of the value with Swan and that was part of why I joined; they were a lead sponsor of my show for a while and so it just made sense to take on the role and actually be part of the team.

Peter McCormack: I think it's so impressive what Swan's done.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: I think the recruitment of the team is smart as fuck.  I went in the Swan tent in Miami, it was all my internet friends; I think what they've done is super smart.  I really like Corey, I really like the team and it's really, really cool to see you part of it.  It's a really cool company who's definitely Bitcoin-only.

Stephan Livera: Exactly.  I think that's part of it, is sometimes people need education to then know why they should be getting Bitcoin.  I think it's something people can easily recommend to their friends or to their family to say, "Oh look, go here and we know they won't lead you astray".  They'll teach you how to hold your own keys, they'll encourage you to do these things. 

So, it just is a natural fit there and so I'm part of the Swan private team and we're out here trying to help people who are looking to buy a serious amount of coin and of course there's Swan DCA autostacking, Bitcoin Savings Plan, I think that's also an important thing.  I like that on the platform, there's no sell button; maybe eventually that will come.  Before now, it's all about regular buying, regular accumulating which is, I think, what we should go for.

Peter McCormack: I didn't know there's no sell button.

Stephan Livera: On the platform.  Now, technically you can ask, but in terms of on the website, there's not a sell button right now.

Peter McCormack: I did not know that.  It's a hodl company!

Stephan Livera: Yeah, basically.  So, I see this, as you probably do as well, it's if we can help drive Bitcoin adoption, we're going to make the world a better place.

Peter McCormack: Hold on, haven't you given up revenue then, because they make on the sell as well as the buy?

Stephan Livera: True, true.  So, for private customers who ask and even if you're a Swan customer and you put in a customer support ticket, but basically the numbers are crazy; 100 or 200 sells and a million buys or something crazy like that.  But I think that's also why it's good that people will send their friends and family to us, because they know they're going to get taught regular stacking is the way and hodl.  That can be difficult for a new person, because they might think, "Oh yeah, I'm going to play this market, I'm going to buy here and sell there".  No, you just buy and hold.  The way I explain it to people is the minimum holding period is four years and really, ten years if you can.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.

Stephan Livera: That's how I teach people.

Peter McCormack: I think I'm exactly the same; 4-year minimum, ideally 10, if you're young enough, maybe 20 and then you're going to crush it.  My kids do it now; they'll be crushing it by the time --

Stephan Livera: Yeah, they will have had an incredible opportunity to build wealth and people don't understand just how early we are in this.  If we were to compare to the internet, we're probably in 1997.  We haven't even hit 1999 or 2000 yet.

Peter McCormack: Do you know what my son said?  He said, "Dad, I don't need to stack and hodl Bitcoin, because I'll just get yours when you die"; smart kid!

Stephan Livera: Yeah, you've got to be, "Hey, you've got to work for it".

Peter McCormack: I tried that.  I said, "You're not getting my Bitcoin".  He's, "Yeah, I am".  Listen man, loved talking to you.  Congratulations with Swan.

Stephan Livera: Thank you.

Peter McCormack: I'm glad you're a nomad now.  I think I'm going to see you more, because I didn't see you for 18 months.

Stephan Livera: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: Appreciate everything you do, even though I'm a statist and I'm a cuck and all that stuff, sending me stuff and helping me learn, you've given me so much time.  Yeah, appreciate it man.

Stephan Livera: Thank you.

Peter McCormack: Cheers.