War in Venezuela, Protests in Iran, Individual Rights, and More!
Main Discussion Topics
Trump's Military Invasion of Venezuela
Trump ordered military strikes and invasion of Venezuela, unseating Maduro and his wife
Approximately 40 casualties reported from the strikes
US troops now in harm's way in Venezuela
Trump stated US will "run Venezuela for as long as it takes" and is "not afraid of boots on the ground"
Libertarian community strongly opposing the action as unconstitutional
No congressional declaration of war obtained
Trump hinting at potential action against Colombia, Cuba, and Greenland
Mark acknowledged the constitutional violation: "Even though there's been a precedent set with respect to his intervention in Venezuela, certainly extra Constitutional and libertarians are harping on what they should be harping on. The fact that the constitution is being bent and pushed out of all meaning, and allowing the executive to have more power than he is constitutionally allowed to have."
Mark on Maduro's illegitimacy: "Whether or not you like the fact that Maduro has been booted, he's a bad guy. He's a dictator. He deserves to be booted. No dictator has a legitimate claim to power, especially this one who was not really democratically elected, but stole the election. For real. So you completely illegitimate on every level. But the question is, should America go in and intervene, especially bypassing the checks and balances of the constitution?"
Trump's False Justifications
Trump claimed Venezuela was shipping fentanyl to US, killing millions
Trump claimed Venezuela was sending gang members and terrorists to attack Americans
25-page indictment against Maduro contained no mention of fentanyl or terrorism
Indictment only mentioned cocaine shipment and possession of machine guns outside US jurisdiction
Michael emphasized Trump deliberately lied about fentanyl because it has higher overdose rates and would generate more public support
Michael on the deliberate deception: "He kept saying fentanyl, because fentanyl, first of all, it's inserted into other drugs and mixed with them, and it has a pretty high level of overdose... He said this because he wanted people to think that the Venezuelans were purposely sending drugs to America to kill Americans. That's not what it was. It was cocaine for money."
Constitutional and Practical Objections
Michael argued action violated Constitution's requirement for congressional declaration of war
Comparisons to Panama (where legislature declared war on US) and bin Laden raid (direct response to attack on America) don't apply
Michael invoked Objectivist principle: cannot sever virtue from value, so benefits obtained through non-virtuous means can never be of value
Concerns about regime change track record: Czar Nicholas II, Kaiser, Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein all led to worse outcomes
Maduro's power apparatus still largely intact despite his removal
Risk of guerrilla warfare from Colombia and elsewhere
Michael on constitutional requirements: "Under the Constitution, you need a declaration of war from Congress to engage in this sort of thing, which they clearly did not have."
Mark on historical precedent: "We've seen where it leads in other countries where regime change goes wrong. In the Arab Spring, in Egypt, in Libya where things just go wrong. Americans don't have a good track record for being able to control who gets in and how well that sits with the native population. It usually tends to cause greater unrest."
Strategic Considerations and Oil
Venezuela owes approximately $10 billion in stolen assets to American companies like ExxonMobil and Phillips
Mark raised possibility of US controlling Venezuelan oil to deprive China and Russia of resources
Michael countered that government control of oil would be socialism
Questions about who protects American companies operating in Venezuela and at what cost
Skepticism about Trump returning oil operations to original private owners
Michael on government oil control: "Who's gonna have the oil? The American government, what's the American government gonna do with the oil? Are they gonna control it? Well, that's socialism, I think."
Dave Smith Agreement
Michael agreed with Dave Smith's X post criticizing prominent right-wingers supporting Trump's attack on Venezuela
Smith's post predicted supporters would make documentaries in 20 years about being right while supporting the next terrible thing
Iran Protests and Potential Regime Change
Protests spreading across Iran against Ayatollah Khomeini regime
Started as economic protests (40-70% inflation, Iranian rial worth $1.4 million per dollar)
Merchants closed shops in protest
Movement evolving into political, pro-monarchical protests wanting Shah's son to return from Egypt
Protesters taking cities, running out security forces in some places
Pitched battles in streets between protesters and security forces
Shah's son sending messages via social media urging security forces to drop weapons or join protesters
Ayatollah allegedly planning escape route to Russia
Mark on the scope of protests: "This looks like it may happen. This seems like a movement that's going far further than the green movement before. This is a real political movement, a monarchist push."
On the Ayatollah's hypocrisy: "The ayatollah issues all these fatwas against people and he encourages Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas to go martyr themselves for the cause. And yet this old smelly creep wants to run away to Russia where he will be safe to live out the rest of his life."
Strategic Implications of Iranian Freedom
Arab world would welcome regime change as Iran has been regional threat
Mark emphasized distinction between Iranian people (yearning for freedom) and places like Gaza (engaged in toxic atmosphere)
Persian people shown as welcoming in Anthony Bourdain's Iran episode
Iranian freedom would significantly impact Russian and Chinese strategic positions
China would lose major oil source, hobbling its imperial ambitions including potential Taiwan invasion
Mark on Iran's importance: "Since they control so many oil assets, China has fewer people to go to. That means it is hobbled as an imperialistic power. It cannot go and invade, say, Taiwan, with the potential for oil reserves being so reduced. It really, really puts the kibosh on them."
UN's International Covenant Discussion
Discussion of UN Universal Declaration of Rights 50th anniversary
Distinction between negative rights (freedom from interference) and positive rights (entitlements requiring others' labor)
Declaration went south around Article 22 with introduction of positive rights
Analysis of how positive rights violate property rights and require forced labor
Michael explained negative vs. positive rights: Negative rights prohibit actions (like murder), requiring no one's labor. Positive rights like healthcare or housing require forcing others to provide services, violating their rights.
Key Constitutional and Philosophical Issues Raised
Presidential war powers and congressional authority
Constitutional requirement for declaration of war
Executive overreach and imperial presidency
Regime change track record and unintended consequences
Objectivist principle of not severing virtue from value
Government's legitimate use of military force
Negative rights vs. positive rights
Property rights and economic freedom
Government ownership of resources as socialism
Notable Quotes
Michael on Constitutional Violations: "The Constitution doesn't exist for when it's convenient or for when it's going to produce only the best results. That's there to limit our government. The reason being is that we operate on the principle that a government should be limited. You cannot violate principles with impunity."
Mark on Regime Change Risks: "We've seen where it leads in other countries where regime change goes wrong. Americans don't have a good track record for being able to control who gets in and how well that sits with the native population. It usually tends to cause greater unrest."
Michael on Purpose of American Military: "The purpose of the American military is to not go make other countries better for them."
Michael on Trump's Venezuela Action: "I care about the American constitution. I care about individual rights. I care about law and order, and we have none of these things."
Mark on Iranian People: "So many people in Iran are not that way, and they are yearning for freedom and they do want something else, and they have protested multiple times to attempt to get it."
Mark on Iran's Strategic Importance: "Think about how much that fucks up Russia's plans for the future. Think about how much that fucks up China. Since they control so many oil assets, China has fewer people to go to. That means it is hobbled as an imperialistic power."
Michael on Objectivist Principle: "We don't hold that you can sever virtue from value. So if you get something from non-virtuous means it can never be of value."
Michael on Government Oil Control: "Who's gonna have the oil? The American government, what's the American government gonna do with the oil? Are they gonna control it? Well, that's socialism, I think."
Referenced Media/Interviews
Upcoming interview with epidemiologist on COVID lockdowns
Economist Vance Ginn interview scheduled
Interview with daughter of Alabama rights violation victim
Self-Made Soul episodes on Aristotle and Plato psychology
Anthony Bourdain's Iran episode
Dave Smith's X posts on Venezuela
The Daily Economy article: "The UN's International Covenant at 50: When Desires Become Rights"
25-page indictment against Maduro
UN Universal Declaration of Rights
Key Themes
Constitutional limitations on executive war powers
Presidential overreach and imperial presidency
Regime change failures and unintended consequences
Objectivist ethics: virtue and value cannot be severed
Iranian people's yearning for freedom vs. authoritarian regime
Strategic implications of Middle East regime changes
Government ownership of resources as socialism
Negative rights vs. positive rights
Property rights as foundation of freedom
American military's proper purpose
Capitalist Thought of the Day
"It seems like as New York City is embracing socialism as an ideology, the rest of the world seems to be rejecting socialism and authoritarianism. We stand with the world that is rejecting authoritarianism because we believe that a benevolent society is one in which individual rights and inviolable right to your property are respected. And the government's sole purpose is to protect those things. It's not to become the policemen of the world. It's not to make everybody's lives equal. It's not to redistribute wealth so as to make equal wealth throughout the world. Its purpose is to make us all equal before the law, which enables our inequalities, our natural inequalities, to flourish and enables you and me to benefit from those who are far better than us. Yes, it's okay to admit that there are people in the world who are far better than you. In fact, you can use them as inspiration. Don't be mad at them. Don't be envious. Don't try to tear them down. Love the fact that they are there because they make your life easier. They make your life better. So I say yes, American capitalism, capitalism in general is the way to go. It's a free society. It promotes choice across every aspect of human action. And that is the only kind of world that is benevolent and good for all of us." - Mark