Oca says two things there. I mean, one is aas probably just a personal point, which we don't have to touch on. But because i am a huge man of his writings, i would, i would enjoy maybe a brief comment on your opinion of joseph de mest

i. I would have to go back, and it's been long enough since i've re read him, or since i have read him in the first place, and generally, i would have to go back and do a lot of rereading on the of the continental conservative tradition. I may have misunderstood it. Most of what i see is its echoes in in much later writers. For example, the the capital t traditionalists who have had some reason to study of late,

aon about ganon

and te fingeganon and evela and an fret shuen and so on. In in my i the other side of my work, in thein the soteric and occult side of my work, there there's a steady drum beat of people who are very interested in the traditionalists. And so i'm constantly afing being asked questions, what do you think about about whatever was said about this? What do you think about what ganon said about that? And so, you know, you can't reall unless unless you just want to roll your eyes and walk away, which which isn't really constructive. If you're in my you have tove to be conversant

with their ideas. I'll go. I'l o. Maybe they'll come back in somehow. E'll see. But jumping back to the free market. So the the fact that certain limitations allowed us do not descend into, as you say, a sort of dicensian a split of wealth so verete there r slums, and there is a sort of aristocracy, et cetera. What would you make of those people who say that? You know, we have, on one side we have those who say, real communism has never been tried. And i would, of course, argue, absolutely it has. But on the other side, we also have those who say, real capitalism hasn't been tried. You knonow. Freemar hasn't been truly freed. Is dulus anything any truth to no

i. Adam smith explained why that's not true in the pages of the wealth of the wealth of nations. He pointed out that whenever people in the same business get together, even for a social event, am you can be absolutely sure they are going to plot some way to rip off the public. There is no such thing as a free marketbecause there cannot be uch such a thing as a free market. Because you could do it. I suppose, if there is an economy in heaven staffed entirely by angels a you might have an actually free market. But the first job of any capitalist in any market system whatsoever is to replace the free market with an oligopoly or a monopoly, at which point it stops being free. It becomes a situation where producers control the economy and jack up prices as far as they want. So the free market is like anarchist politics. It's this ideal condition which simply doesn't work in practice, because there's no way to prevent it from being abused. It's subject precisely to a garrethardena tragedy of the commons and so tha, that's exactly the problem m in the sort of the sort of dekenzian, nineteenth century eversion of capitalism, where there were very, very few controls over the power of of the rich, the capitalists, to abuse the working classes and so on. Am you hadyouyou had that, a abuse of power as a constant feature. You did not have a situation where individual laborers could bargain on it on an equal basis with the people who offered them jobs, because the people who offered them jobs could leave them to starve, or call in government troops or strike breakers from private corporations to beat them up and kill them if they got out of line. So so so you immediately go from this, the fantasy fo free market, to a reality of coercion and violence and an exploitation done work a. Any time anybody says x has not been tried, you can basically assume that they're shovelling smoke, because almost certainly what happens is that x has been tried and it failed repeatedly. And so they're trying to say, well, what they're trying to say is, well, these policies have never achieved the goal they trying to the freemarket, capitalist society of our dreams, the communist society of our dreams, pure democracy. There are many different things, and that's because these are unattainable, utopian fantasies. And so they may have fa so you can't try them. In a sense that would the people think they want these things.

So anarcha capitalists are doubly silly.

Anarch everywhere. In anarcho capitalist i've ever met desperately wanted to be one of the very, very rich people wriding rough shot over e everyone else. Now, they may not have admitted publicismt if you get share a few beers in and get them talking, and pretty soon it's very clear that their idea is that narco capitalism is their way to become insanely rich, do whatever they want and saer and stomp everyone else into the mud.

O oka,

that's been my experience. Ig, you know, your mil very but that's been my experin oican sympathise.