"That Guy's" Response to Robert Kiyosaki of Rich Dad/Poor Dad on Anarcho-Capitalism

in #politics7 years ago (edited)

I recently ran into Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad, and had heard him say many anarchist sounding things so thought I would ask him if he was an anarchist.

I detailed what happened next here, “Is Robert Kiyosaki of Rich Dad/Poor Dad MK Ultra Mind Controlled or Just Having a Nervous Breakdown?

Yesterday, he responded to what happened with, “Why I Flipped Out on the Guy Who Called Me an Anarchist.

He never actually referred to me by name. Only calling me “that guy” who is a “semi-celebrity”.

But, his response begins,

"During the event, I was approached by a stranger who asked me if I was an anarchist. I informed him I wasn’t, but he kept pressing the issue, eventually pushing me to the point of extreme irritation.

Turns out the man is a semi-celebrity in the anarchy circles and a self-described anarcho-capitalist. Not taking my answers at face value, he continued to try and fit me into a label, and I did not appreciate it. Nor did he appreciate my getting angry with him.

In all honesty, it’s not worth responding but I did consider this a good opportunity to clarify further my beliefs about government and politics."

He then states, “I’m not political at all.” Which is what an anarchist would say.

And said, “In the end, the only person that can save you is you.” Which is what an anarchist would say.

He then went on to say that smart people find ways to not pay taxes. Which is what an anarchist would say.

Given this and many of his other anti-government statements anyone can see why the question needed to be asked, “Are you an anarchist?”

I asked if he was an anarchist and he said no. I then asked if he believed in government and he said no. So, I said that if he doesn’t believe in government it makes him an anarchist.

That is, after all, the definition of anarchy. No rulers. No government.

According to him, these three questions meant I was “pressing the issue” which eventually pushed him to the point of “extreme irritation.”

In his response he said, “I don’t believe that government can solve our problems, but I don’t believe that anarchy can either. I don’t believe that any system can.”

And this, I believe, is where we have the confusion.

Anarchy is not a “system”. Anarchy is a belief that humans should not be enslaved.

I asked him if he was an anarchist but I could have also asked, “Do you believe humans should be enslaved?”

It is the same question. This is the point I believe he is missing.

If you are not an anarchist you believe humans should be enslaved.

So, my question was no small one. It is perhaps one of the most important questions that can be asked about the beliefs of another.

He avoided that question and said he does not like to be “labelled”. But, at the same time, he constantly labels himself as a capitalist. So, he obviously doesn’t mind some labels.

So, then, let me ask you this one question, Robert. Do you believe humans should be enslaved or do you not?

You can answer that question without putting any labels on yourself if you so choose.

Do you believe a child born in a certain geographic region where a criminal entity has a monopoly on violence should be deemed subservient to this criminal entity, should take on their debts, which is over $250,000 today in the US and have to pay a certain percentage of all their earnings to this entity for life with or without their consent?

If you believe that is just and good then you are a statist and believe in slavery. If you believe that is unjust and immoral then you are against slavery… and are an anarchist.

If you don’t like the word anarchist, for whatever reason, there are other words that have effectively the same meaning. One is “voluntaryist”.

A voluntaryist believes that all interaction between humans should be voluntary. They should not be forced, or coerced, with violence or threats of violence.

You can again avoid the label if you so choose, Robert, but do you believe interaction between humans should be voluntary? Or do you think using violence against others to get your way is fine?

Robert concludes in his response:

"I have spent my life learning the rules of money and putting them to use to get rich, and I have done so under both Republicans and Democrats.

And this brings to sharp view how you are the only one that can save you. Take for instance the tax system. You can spend all your time and energy moaning and complaining about the tax system and how unfair it is—like many anarchists (and others) do—or you can learn how to put it to use for your financial well-being. As a capitalist, that is what I have done. I am not lobbying, complaining, or even trying to change the system. I am learning it and how to use it to my advantage."

He’s made it clear that what is most important to him is money. He doesn’t care nor want to change a system no matter how immoral it is.

I’m an anarcho-capitalist so I don’t denounce his desire to produce wealth. But it sounds a bit like if Robert were living in Cambodia during Pol Pot’s regime he’d be happy cutting deals to bury the bodies at a pretty penny.

Perhaps this is what angered Robert so much. Maybe he knows that he is profiting in many respects from an immoral system and has decided to turn a blind eye to it and just focus on making profits.

Perhaps after decades this is really taking a toll on his conscience. Not to mention how he had murdered people in Vietnam decades ago while not questioning or trying to change the system.

If this is the case I’d recommend Robert look seriously into some therapies. Ayahuasca is just one that works very well for PTSD. That may help you come to terms with what you did in Vietnam.

As for the rest, Robert, you will only really find peace if you balance creating wealth with standing up against human slavery. It’s all fine and well to make profits… but doing so and knowing you are not standing up, at all, to an immoral system of slavery will always leave you unfulfilled and remembered as a pretty good capitalist… but a morally unsound individual who didn’t use his audience and connections to help end human slavery.

It’s not too late to change that. Nearly everything you say is anarchist. All you have to do now, if you truly believe in freedom, is to own it.

Robert finished by saying:

"At the end of the day, far too many people put their faith in systems rather than in themselves. They attach labels to themselves—labels that can get them killed. Wars are started as these people of one label begin fighting people of another label."

He appears to think that labels can get people killed. And, yes, holding a belief that human slavery is immoral when much of the world doesn’t believe that to be the case, can be dangerous.

You can’t take your money with you when you leave here, Robert. And you will be remembered as having avoided standing up for what is right in order to make some money and live a comfortable life. Or, alternatively, having stood up to evil even in the face of grave danger.

Keep teaching people how to create wealth. This does great things to improve the world and humanity’s destiny. Keep being a great capitalist.

Just throw the word “anarcho” in front of it and show you stand for what is right and not for the immoral subjugation of humanity.

Sort:  

I dont even think it needs to have a complex wording to it. I dont believe humans should be enslaved is not even a question i would further care to delve into. In my spirits and all sense of right and wrong, the answer would be no! My question is why do we involve so much of ourselves in these debates or back and forth, or "size you uppers" if you will? The fact of the matter is we are smart and intellgient enough to tackle the answers to what we "know" and "agree" on that we can do to better peoples life. i.e, place complex conversations on solutions of healthy "free" food distributions.

Exactly, it's not about complex definitions. I've seen Kiyosaki speak live. He's a no BS kinda dude. When you say "anarchist" he isn't thinking "Well, let's check the dictionary."
Like most people, he's thinking of gun-toting, black mask wearing rioters. Of course, he's not gonna agree to that image of himself.

  1. It's not an accurate image of him
  2. Most people don't use the dictionary - they use Google (if anything). And Google image search turns up images of people in a black masks throwing molotov cocktails.

Yeah you're right.

YAY ANARCHISTSSS! RED PILLS ONLY BABYYY!


Loving your channel now my guy. Can't wait to watch the rest of your vids and whatever nice place that is you live!

well if the guy gets mad about that he's nuts... hahaha

Kiyusaki may still be bearing some feeling so guilt for shooting at those Vietnamese...
i get his reaction, so to say.
Nevertheless i also get why you think he is being ridiculous - because he is 8)

True Flip {ICO} - Already running a transparent blockchain lottery! Bomb! Bonus 20%! Hurry! :)
The platform is already working and making a profit :)
https://steemit.com/ico/@happycoin/true-flip-ico-already-running-a-transparent-blockchain-lottery-bomb-bonus-20-hurry

Interesting to hear that from him. Not the safest thing in the world to admit.

Anarchism has an ideology whether you choose to admit it or not. Anarchists follow trendy beliefs. Also anarchist does not necessarily mean "anti-government" as there have been anarchist governments. Anarchism also has many different varieties so when people refer to anarcho-capitalism they typically refer to a very distinct variety of anarchism which has a distinct set of beliefs, schools of thoughts, and yes dogma. Just as crypto-anarchism also has dogma such as "code is law" there is dogma in anarcho-capitalism such as "taxation is theft", but then other left anarchists could have a different dogma "property is theft" and have a need to have some kind of commune style of resource distribution.

The point being that it in my opinion was and continues to be a bad idea to put labels on people who didn't choose them. It's better to let people define themselves as individuals without the need for ideology, labels, or camps. If Robert Kiyosaki claims to be a capitalist and wishes to be defined in that way then who are we to disagree with him?

Well written, just one question: "as there have been anarchist governments"
Could you please provide some example?

Yes! Spot on.
Good article Jeff. Enjoyed it.

“I don’t believe that government can solve our problems, but I don’t believe that anarchy can either. I don’t believe that any system can.”

As you pointed out, we are not trying to replace one tyrannical system with another. We are walking away from the tyrannical system and making it obsolete through voluntary interaction instead.

He has probably been well programmed to hate the term "anarchist." This is one reason I use the label "voluntaryist." It doesn't seem to have the immediate visceral response when seen or heard. @consentualist uses another label for similar reasons.

Is it voluntary? Has everyone consented? Those are not difficult questions to answer, yet sadly so many people fail to understand the serious moral implications involved.

Another friend of mine, who is not on Steemit yet, came up with a simple flow chart:

I hadn't thought about Roberts position in this way but I do agree. But my thing is....is he wrong? I think he's come to understand, because he's uttered on several occasions how "STUPID" people are and i agree to an extent but he say's it with such conviction that it can get annoying, that you can't change people for the better, people are going to do what they want and you can either use that to your advantage or not. He's a CAPITALIST at heart which means he's only concerned with CAPITALIZING off of opportunities.
Have you read "How to win friends and influence people"?

Well in reading that I constantly contemplated the idea of what it means to persuade someone to do something and at the end of the day Persuasion is a form of Manipulation. Most people DESPISE criticism but LOVE to be praised, well how can an individual become a better person if they are already so great that they don't need criticism? You can't, and for this reason many people will always be pawns because they hate people who actually tell them the truth cuz its hard to face but love those who constantly lie to them long as they say something nice.

Now if one understands this, you are faced with two questions: Be noble and become hated, ostracized and poor or give the people what they want (not what they need) and you'll enjoy the luxuries this world as to offer. He doesn't hide the fact that he's a pure capitalist but he probably understands very well, as you stated, how labels can be dangerous so why shouldn't he play the game in the way that would best serve him?

I believe the underlying question or idea that is being contemplated is of Morality but the thing about morality is...there is no supreme being who decide what's moral and what's not, nor is there any punishment for not being moral. Social Darwinism is a very much real aspect of our society that won't being changing anytime soon, so Robert can spend his one life trying to do what's morally right and die a martyr or be "immoral" and enjoy the only life he has.
I myself don't want to be limited to one school of thought, I see myself as at Stoic Libertarian.

Jeff, relax a bit.
Why are you stressing yourself out.
Deep breaths.

Thanks for the mention @finnian. I have friends who are dead set on "taking back" the term anarchist, but I don't really see the value. While I do describe myself as an anarchist, it's only on of many appropriate terms. I really like consentualist (hence the handle) or voluntaryist as both describe my beliefs very well. Ethical human interactions require consent, and all human action should be voluntary.

That reminds me of some who are trying to take back the term libertarian too. The Gadsden Flag comes to mind as well. Most people flying it today think of it as a symbol of nationalism thanks to the "Tea Party." It is a symbol of rebellion instead.

I like my own flag (based on the Gadsden) better than the Gadsden.
Image

And, I call myself an anarchist, voluntaryist, abolitionist, and/or libertarian depending on how I feel.

I need to buy one of those!

I like that.

Love it!

There is a certain stigma that does goes along with the term Anarchist. It's been associated with terrorist and questionable revolutionist for decades. People associate the term Anarchist with nut jobs or psychco etc. Personally, I don't care for Government either but I would never associate or consider myself as an anarchist due to that stigma. I think people should consider a different term and consider this one dead. But that is just my $.02 for what ever it's worth.

It just means without rulers, and there's nothing wrong with that idea. I don't need or want a ruler. The problem we have though is that it seems a majority of people do want a ruler. How do we coexist with them?

I couldn't tell you that. Maybe absolute freedom is a myth, it's the carrot on the stick waving it in front of us. We're probably plugged into some super computer as we type just like the Matrix.

Anarchists have governance too which means there is a system. The system is different in how it operates, perhaps more decentralized, but it does exist. Even in Bitcoin there is a system in place. You know those mining fees right? You know those Core Developers? It's a technocratic oligarchy.

Reference

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Those two things are not the same of course. If I ignore it, will it leave me alone? If yes, it is not a government.

You can have governance without government. Government means, by definition, that it is not voluntary. I can easily voluntarily join a community and live by their standards. If I don't like them, I leave.

I voluntarily agree to do no harm to others or their property too. Most people do that, and no government is needed. Take any largely populated event. Are laws and the government keeping those people peaceful and their interactions voluntary, or are they doing it simply because that's what is ethical?

In a society where people are opressed by their own government, being an anarchist might be considered a way to fight the system. But a country without a ruler, without a system, without a law is no country at all. So even the anarchist's would get lost in their utopian dream where a person doesn't obey to anyone or anything.

I don't see what you mean in your conclusion: "But a country without a ruler, without a system, without a law is no country at all. So even the anarchist's would get lost in their utopian dream where a person doesn't obey to anyone or anything." I'll try to explain what the truth appears to be so you can see how you came to your false and improperly grammatically structured conclusion. Here is my take on the matter: A country (geographical region) without a ruler, without a system based on a monopoly of violence (both aggressive and in some cases defensive) with respect for Natural Law and Spontaneous Order isn't Utopian by any means, but it is much more preferable to more centralized dictates, as it allows for competition between free market providers of defense for their voluntarily contracted customers, and their justly acquired property. The market, or Agora, is what makes civilization possible where as, the believe in giving a group of people special rights to rule over others causes most of the chaos and poverty in the world. A real anarchist believes in giving every individual their inalienable right to freedom so long as they don't violate others natural rights. Anarchy has different meanings to different people, but true anarchy means that there are no governments, including other types of coercive entities such as war lords, as people have come to rely on themselves and their voluntary interactions within markets free of manipulation from physically aggressive institutions.

Your "Natural law" and "Spontanious order" should have an origine, or if you prefere more the Author who will write those law's and orders.
They cannot produce themself based on a spontanious behaviour of the people. Considering the fact that "Spontanious" order of some rapist or a pedophile is to rape, then this rapist is led by his " Natural law" which for him is just a freedom of acting and living his way. If you want to create a healthy society where the freedom, justice, morality and ethics wouldn't cause No harm to Anyone, then you need a system that is written by people with real virtues. And again, maybe grammaticaly incorrect but i think moraly very correct.

I don't think any anarchists are against punishing evil-doers - in fact, private security agencies would do a better job than police.

You need to understand: Anarchy means 'no rulers', not 'no rules'.

This idea that we're safer because of government is sillier than believing in Santa Claus.

Natural Law just means that humans have rights and morals inherent to their humanity that can be found through human reasoning. Spontaneous Order just means order that comes about without planning and enforcement from governments. You should look these terms up online and learn about them before suggesting anything about them or the nature of human morality. Then you can form a better opinion to offer on how to improve the human condition.

38de8790c335cfcd94b126b8655507c92a9bb15a4f86bffe52a7812c91bc6560.jpg

So good post, Thanks for sharing this info

This comment has received a 0.14 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @hamzaoui.

Great post! Thanks for sharing Jeff!

"Anarchy is not a “system”.
Anarchy is a belief that humans should not be enslaved."
-- love that...

DAMN. Did he just... eject the Flashdrive without.. waiting? FUUUU-

fahaha he do not care ! usb's out everything !
i have to click the button b4 i do mine ! lol

If that's what Anarchy means I rather stay in slavery system

It is of course a "thug life" parody, not one about anarchism.