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.
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.
Yeah you're right.
TANSTAAFL
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)
nice thought
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.
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.
“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.
GOOD BOOK
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.
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
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?
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.
Hahaha.. @milano check this out! :D
haha
On the subject of labels, I still side with Robert. @jeffberwick is quickly turning anarchy into religious dogma -- all of the earmarks are in this post. Stop trying to corner people into your -ism boxes and maybe people won't be so prone to over-reaction. No sovereign entity owes you or anybody else on Steemit an explanation for their thoughts or beliefs on anything, or deserves your condescension for their past life mistakes -- unless maybe you're the self-appointed high-priest of anarchy -- in which case, all hail.
It's weird you've driven me to this guy's defense considering I read and watch your shit all the time and have never read a single word of his or even watched an interview of his. I think you should consider the possibility that he wasn't responding exclusively to you and your line of questioning .
I'm starting to get the sense that if someone walked up to you and said, "hey Jeff, I'd like to introduce you to Lucy, she just buried her mother earlier today," instead of offering your condolences, you'd look at her and say, "so Lucy, are YOU an anarchist?"
LOL. Upvoted and folowed
I dig the bant.
Rich Dad Poor Dad is a good and easy read though, I rec it, could be good for your kid too, there's even a cashflow game online, strangely my kid really liked playing that when she was about 10 - I plan on eventually getting around to writing a review of that book and it's goodness and including it in my Home School Series.
What a ridiculous, arrogant, and naive post. I'm no fan of Robert's, I think his ideas are, at best, trivial and simplistic, and at worst, misleading and could potentially ruin some people. But whatever, he's probably on balance, helped more people than others in his self help field. But I think it's ridiculous for you to try to latch onto people and try to "recruit" them into your form of anarchy. The concept of an anarchist society has never made rational sense, and what Robert has said doesn't make him an anarchist.
This post, and what you're doing just comes off as desperate and pathetic.
I am an anarchist, and I agree with you. This post is desperate. And to ingratiatingly talk about things that can "help you deal with what you did in Vietnam, Robert" is disgusting. I also thought it was pretty silly that Berwick had to include a video clip verifying that he is "at the center of the anarcho-capitalist movement."
This is better than TV
Well, I have to say Robert Kiyosaki and the Book Rich Dad Poor Dad, changed my life. Jeff is so cool, but I also took a look into this video Here....and his talk makes sense.
Thanks for sharing! This video is from moments after Jeff left the room. :P
Robert's said:
"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."
What a moron, people kill not labels.
Spot on! Love your comment.
thanks @thedanzel
He may be a closeted anarcho-capitalist. :D
So this caught my attention because the name is always thrown around by Multi Level Marketers, as if his book was the manifesto that proved their system worked. Respect for what he has made, but not for what he has become. B.T.W. I know this is a openminded community but can we all just agree that slavery SUCKS and is a generaly bad thing.
Voted, re-steemed. Great correlations you put together there, and gotta love the ignorance is bliss mentality.
Baaaaaa
Congratulations ! This post has received $0.13 upvote from @cryptokraze for participating in My 2nd Giveaway
Thank You
Good post, Jeff, but I think you left out the one quote from Robert's post which helped explain his current position:
If he believes anarchy is a system because it's an ideology, then his desire to avoid ideological labels makes sense, from a certain point of view. If, for example, he embraced the tribal label of "anarchist", could he lose business or influence? Would that help him in his goals?
While I ultimately agree with your ideology, I'm trying to respect his perspective also. Maybe he can spend his life living by voluntaryist principles without joining a tribal label you and I agree with to "show you stand for what is right." In my opinion, tribalism is our shared enemy. I agree his response seemed ridiculous and probably has something to do with PTSD, as you said, but I also think we could all benefit from throwing off labels which divide us, even within the voluntaryist/anarchist/freedom community.
There is a disturbing trend that I've noted in the world of ideas, and it has to do with the part of our brain where religion lives.
Spirituality involves you and the world, you and reality, you coming to some sort of understanding about the nature of a system that is much greater than yourself. Religion is the formalization of this understanding, of turning what was a subjective thing into an objective thing, with dogma and doctrine and liturgy.
Spirituality has no rules. I can use totally different vocabulary than you do to describe something, but if we are both interested in this greater reality, we can both agree that what we are describing is similar even though the conceptions may be completely different. A spiritual person will see in the Hindu description of an expanding and contracting world, that lives and dies as it expands and contracts, todays scientific description of the big bang.
But a religious person will follow the rules and will try to impose these rules on others. A religious Hindu will insist that the big bang is a perversion of the "real" truth, which is that the forces described by scientists are really misconceptions about the greater truth, which is a cycle of Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva. And a devout scientist, a believer in the religion of naturalism, will insist that the personification the Hindus apply to the big bang is nothing more than quaint animism. The two will be at complete odds because they are not seeking greater truth but instead focused on religious adherence and getting converts.
Similarly, capitalists, who really just believe in economic freedom, are the natural partners of anarchists. They seek roughly the same thing. And if they approach it in a spiritual way, they can find much in common. But if they approach it from a religious perspective, a perspective of correcting others who are "wrong" and converting people to your specific religion, then they will always find themselves at odds with each other.
Anarchist "leaders" are a somewhat oxymoronic idea, are they not? ;-)
Very well said.
I'm okay with leadership and leaders as long as they are voluntary. I will regularly choose a leader to improve myself and those around me. What I'm not okay with is an involuntary ruler.
Yup -- essentially a variant of the monopoly idea. Earned monopolies that continue because they offer a better deal than anyone else are fine -- even though there is no barrier to entry they continue to earn monopoly status because of good performance. That's a win - win for everyone. It's the monopolies that are imposed with no possibility of getting around them that are toxic to society.
For sure. I use the term "natural monopolies" but I like "earned monopolies" even better.
I find the saccharine nature of Berwick's attempt to "help" him with "what you did in Vietnam, Robert" to be disgusting. This is extremely puerile and insensitive. I lose more and more respect for this Berwick character every day, and am tempted to flag this post for overpayment.
Man, you got some big words there. I had to look up "saccharine" and "puerile."
I think Jeff's heart is in the right place in that he genuinely wants to help people. If Kiyosaki is dealing with PTSD, Jeff's advice is accurate, even if it might be insensitive. That said, to truly help people, addressing differences head-on isn't always the best approach. I don't know Jeff personally, but I've gotten to know people who do and vouch for him. That's what I have to go on. I hope to get to know him more in the future to get a better understanding myself.
Voluntaryism and mutual consent are the answers though. Rulers are not needed. Robert is a smart guy, obviously, so what is the cause of his confusion? Perhaps he benefits from the rulers, or he doesn't want the danger that goes along with liberty.
Very interesting post. Thank you @dollarvigilante. I am very surprised by the comments from Robert.
Good one as usual, the interview is interesting and educative. Weldon
I work for intangible cash flow producing assets ;)
Any revenue stream is better than no revenue stream, right? haha Oh, and... Wealthy people own things. Crypto is included! :)
What a thought provoking interchange! A clash of ideology and experiences unfolding between two unique individuals. Both in search of answers to life's challenges. Forged in different times and pressures. Opposed yet similar.
Would you speak out against the state if you might disappear over night for the wrong words? Or be True to your beliefs? Are you right or wrong going along with the system. Somewhere in the middle is perception.
Don't be so rigid you cannot flow.
I have this book at my home.. rich dad poor dad
I read both book, rich dad poor dad and chashflow quadrant..I think it's so interesting based on his own life..I really motivated and inspired by him
Seriously, Mr. Kiyosaki has helped millions getting them started in financial education. His books are a light, fun read. And did he ever take heat for writing, "Your house is not an asset".
But, I do understand that Robert is stuck in an old paradigm. In the next few years he will have to completely remake all of his businesses as property values plummet and cheap money dries up. Basically, all of his specific advice has an expiration date. All of his general advice is still good.
I am sorry to see him get triggered by "That guy" :-p , Jeff Berwick. I hope that its just him getting old and not taking criticism well anymore.
yea I hope so..thank you for the information..!!
People can try to justify it any way they want but taxation is a form of slavery. Cryptocurrency can solve so many problems.
MMuahhhh Love this !! lmao!
Anarchy is not a “system”. Anarchy is a belief that humans should not be enslaved.
Love this! Have confidence in yourself and you'll always be free, have confidence in a system to take care of you and you're screwed.
thank you for all the info
Robert Kiyosaki is my greatest mentor. I am highly inspired by his writings. He just target a simple fact, how to be become something which can never be put down. His philosophy towards life is not an imagination, he lived all of them himself that's why he is where he is now.
I wonder why is it so important, maybe he is, or maybe he isn't, what difference does the label make?
I am not into this stuff, so I might not know much, so you guys can enlighten me.
I think he meant Guy Fawkes.
It's all great info, but can we all get along?
Ah Haaaaa! Now You said it in a nutsheell, girls! Aloha Al
😂😂😂
Robert proved himself to see only money and he is not willing to do anything that can disturb any system he is profiting from.
Dont waste time with him Jeff! it seems that he has no other value that money.
U are complete opposite, u believe in something greater, u believe in freedom for all, not just freedom to yourself.
U have new supporter here. Thanks what you are doing for us, for all.
@dollarvigilante I have a suggestion for the next article. Can you go into detail on cashless society plan and how that will benefit the elite? I've been listening a lot about how that's going to happen but I don't understand (as I guess many of us) how that is going to be worse that the current state we are in.
Destroy statism with one question: Do you own yourself?"
Just another guy who doesn't know what anarchy/anarchism really is. I love it (actually it upsets me but it happens all too often) when they say it's 'chaos' and a 'system'. Just lets me know they haven't done any research and are parroting their flavor of media indoctrination. Great post Jeff! Hope to meet you at Anarchapulco next year!
Robert doesn't understand that you cant truly prosper under any form of government. The root word and etymology breakdown of government is mind control. How are you going to prosper under a parasitic system that is run by demons who vow to keep you dumbed down and in the dark? No matter what form of mind control you submit to, you will by default be handing over your basic reasoning and common sense to a group of people that claim moral authority over you.
Well, from my understanding it means to govern the mental. I feel that government is simply symbolic of structure which is necessary for anyone to achieve anything in this life. However, I'll be the first to say that the government's role has gotten completely out of hand and is more about control than liberation. It is necessary for people to govern their own mind, body, household and communities before they attempt to criticize the efforts of outside forces. Prosperity is subjective and too many, Robert is very well living a prosperous life.
Robert basically said -- I won't call myself anything because I could end up dead, if I identify with something "they" don't agree with. He also said, I know the system is jacked up, but I just learn the loopholes and make money off it. Basically, he just wants to make his money. He does not care if other people are hurting, suffering or dying as long as he can profit from whatever he's doing -- it doesn't matter to him. That is most peoples position in corporate america. They see things that are "wrong", "unfair" and even "inhumane" happening right in their own community and don't do anything but shake their heads. There are not many 'brave' people in this home of the 'brave'..
I love this angle. Both Jeff and Robert have valid points. But when taken to extreme are bad news.
The impression I get is Robert is protecting his book and playing nice with the IRS. He doesn't want the danger with the liberty. He can't have both though.
It's not about not caring, it's about sticking around to fulfill your obligation of looking after your own family. It was not so safe to go up against the system. Still not very safe, BUT THE TIDE HAS SHIFTED fam. What have you personally been doing about it? Want to live up to your own standards and join me in weaponizing some pen and paper against the wicked? It's going to be fun ;)
I've always liked Robert Kiyosaki. I've read his books years ago and still use his 4 quadrants from time to time when evaluating myself. I also agree with him, that sometimes pushing the point can be do more harm than good. If he wasn't ready to admit that he's an anarchist, that's his perspective. I might be an anarchist myself, but I'm not sure I want to admit it. I would say there are many terms still around today that control us in more ways than we want to admit. It's like language and its connotations stay really deeply imprinted with us. Most of us are not really "free" enough in ourselves to truly rebel against them.
Indeed. I find many of the younger generations, me being part of them, constantly adopting a victim frame of mind towards authorities. Yes, we're oppressed, that's nothing new. It's something that has been part of our history since well, shit, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, and forever! But no one can ever be "free" if they continually think evil is on the outside of themselves. You work with the forces, discover how much you are like them, transmute the energy and use it for the greater good without succumbing to the corruption and darkness of your enemy. This is insanely difficult which is why many would rather just point the finger any chance they get and try to force others to change instead.
In the end it is all be about the people, the individuals of society. They just act in a given system. So you cannot judge about capitalism, socialism as fair/unfair systems. They just build the framework for human interaction.
So assuming that people generally are good, anarchism would be the best system, as the people would freely strive for maximal wealth of everyone without restrictions.
If you assume, that people tend to be bad, systems with more control, like democracy, communism would be your favor.
Well, respect to Robert Kiyosaki ,
Thx for sharing the post @dollarvigilante
nice analysis
It is crazy that he cant even answer a legit question, it is not even offensive in any way.
@dollarvigilante Robert is a libertarian and he believes that you can work within the system in order to improve it. You may not agree with that stance and that is okay. You will hear a libertarian using a lot of similar words as an anarchist but they consider themselves to be a separate political group and will not go as far down the political spectrum as an anarchist would. I understand why he was upset as libertarians are largely against violence and that is what many anarchists have been pushing for the last 40 years or so. So, you are not going to change his mind and he is not going to change yours. Live and let live.
I humbling suggest that you writing this:
I understand why he was upset as libertarians are largely against violence and that is what many anarchists have been pushing for the last 40 years or so.
Means you don't understand anarchism. Please Google Voluntaryism. Anarchists are not for unjustified violence. You're thinking of a falsehood repeated by Hollywood and the media.
Voluntarism is incompatible with anarchy. Your post is a red herring argument.
Bwah? You clearly do not understand one or both definitions.
So does he support slavery or not?
He is against slavery.
If he's for government, he's for slavery.
Personnaly, I love this book of Robert Kiyosaki. I download it as an audio book & really learned a lot from it 😉🖒
I believe that saying something like "that's exactly what an anarchist would say" is too cut and dry to assume such notions. I think that someone like Robert is going to appeal to any rhetoric that furthers his credibility as a good business man. Therefore, keeping taxes and large government out of the equation is part of good business but is applicable to an anarchist as well. There is validity in the demonization of such terms because there is still a large consensus that believes that distrust of government and order is somehow not American or patriotic. Surely, that is a bunch of nonsense and not grounded in logic but as you are aware, biased belief systems reign supreme over common sense. I'm not sure if Robert would do anything or everything for monetary gain but I don't know him personally nor his history with Vietnam. I wouldn't be surprised if he's like many of the wealthy entities that sacrifice morality in the name of maximizing the bottom line, but who knows? You might have put some things into perspective for Robert despite pissing him off a bit.
Robert Kiyosaki is the one I listened to when I was young, I realized which quadrant I have...
The best read of the week 👍
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. @dollarvigilante
meep
meep meep there you are meep! Been lookin for you , lol !!
meep
lol
meep
If it isn't voluntary and consensual though, it is not moral. As soon as you force your will upon another or hire someone else to do it, you are being immoral. There are some black and white issues in life. There are not many, but that is one of them.
I prefer the term unethical to immoral, but I agree with your point.
But who is the supreme authority over what is Moral? @finnian
Why does there have to be a supreme authority? Did you steal or buy it? Did you have sex or rape? The ethics behind such things are pretty clear.
So if i steal an apple and im starving and no one will help....is that immoral?
Yes, it is. The word steal indicates immorality. Without the morality, the word would just be take. Basic morality is baked right into our language.
That's a lot of assumptions and quite the hypothetical situation. Food is all around people in temperate locations. It's there for the picking and doesn't belong to anyone.
Was the apple picked by a laborer from a tree on private property and placed in a bin at a private business that has profits and losses? If you took it from the bin without paying for it, you are a thief. It is unethical.
Food is given away free in many places on this planet for those without the knowledge to forage it for themselves. The key is that it is given away voluntarily.
No one owes you their labor, their time, or their lives spent performing it. No one is your slave either. Let me guess. You're against private property too? Should no apple be "owned?"
awesome