In this episode of the Awakening Wonders podcast, Gareth and Ross are joined by one of their good friends, Dr. John Campbell, to discuss the smear campaign against the anti-vaccination campaigner, RFK. Is he a real threat to Biden? Is he being smeared by the mainstream media? And why won t Biden debate him on the show next week? And who's going to stand up to him in the Democratic primary debate? All that and much more on this week's episode of Awakening Wonders. Subscribe, Like, and Share to stay up to date on all things Awakening Wonders and all things political and current affairs. This episode is brought to you by RUMBLE, the world's leading free speech platform, and hosted by Rachit Vellian. If you like what you hear here, please HIT SUBSCRIBE and become a supporter of the show wherever you get your news and information. You'll get 10% off your first month with discount code: AWAKeningWonders and get 20% off for the rest of the year if you sign up for a year! We're giving you access to all the latest shows and special offers, plus we'll be giving you the chance to win a FREE FIVE PIECE Spring Cleaning Set from Amazon Prime! and Vimeo! Subscribe to the show and get access to the full archive of all the shows mentioned in the show, plus a FREE Training and access to our social media tools, including the latest in our new video series, The Awakening Wonders Podcasts, and all the best vids, and more! FREE Training courses, courses and training opportunities! We'll send you'll get a discount code, and a chance to access all kinds of goodies, including T-shirts, T-shirt, hoodies, and hoodies! You get a whole bunch of goodies! Just paypalmed, swag, and so much more. to help spread the word out there about all the things you need to know about what's going on in this amazing show. . Subscribe and learn more about the show! - The Awakening Podcast, including how to be a little bit more like it. - And don't miss it! Get in on the next episode, learn how to get your chance to be part of the Scooby-coast, and how to connect with us, learn about it all, and get the show?
00:00:58.000I think the mainstream media are trying to smear RFK.
00:01:02.000Did you see that spate of headlines on screen, Assistant Gareth?
00:01:05.000Where every single newspaper from across the political spectrum all introduced RFK as anti-vaxxer.
00:01:12.000Well, no mention of all of his pro-environmental work that they claim to care so much about.
00:01:18.000Is he a real threat to Biden and why won't Biden debate him?
00:01:21.000He's going to be on the show next week, RFK, but today we're just sort of preparing for him, I suppose, by, you know, excitedly embracing, if I may say, a potential new political voice.
00:01:33.000Then, if you're watching us on YouTube, I mean, can I even say the words?
00:02:39.000They tend to have their congressional or parliamentary debates late, late, late, late at night, so you can't participate, right?
00:02:46.000But we bring the debate right to you, and here it is.
00:02:49.000Also, One of my friends is coming on the show, Daniel Chandler has written a fantastic book, here it is, Free and Equal, What Would a Fair Society Look Like?
00:02:57.000This is a brilliant attempt to revivify some liberal principles but in a way that's right, in a way that works and isn't co-opted by corporate and financial forces using the philosophy of John Rawls.
00:03:09.000We'll be learning more about that and how we can get bloody money Out of politics.
00:03:13.000We're only going to be on YouTube for a minute because, you know, we've got to get to Dr. John Campbell.
00:03:34.000John, you're on your own, just sort of like talking to her.
00:03:36.000If you see here, this is why I actually don't have to do the washing up, because you can see here, look, I've done my fair share of the chores.
00:03:43.000Come and have dinner with me for once.
00:03:45.000I won't, I don't have to have dinner because I'm surviving on crushed up tablets, you see?
00:03:49.000Like that, I crush them up and get all my nutrients from the crushed up tablets.
00:03:52.000But before we get into all that wonder, have you ever wondered if there are any icebergs out there that were discovered Disgusting fallacies because I know I have have a look at this Dickie Burke This is a it's a it's a slowly melting iceberg.
00:04:07.000I'm glad it's milling very intimidating.
00:04:09.000Look at that Dickie Burke saucy devils as well as a a melting ice cap that's giving some people cause for concern consternation and giving us all a giggle and Facebook have reached an out-of-court settlement.
00:04:25.000Meta has set out to settle Cambridge Analytica scandal case for $725 million.
00:04:29.000That's too close to the Fox settlement for the claims about the Dominion voting machines to not receive, I think, more coverage and to be more widely understood.
00:05:35.000There's a sort of people that are... Because we're sued by an insurance company and you don't want that added to your list of problems.
00:05:41.000Ireland could pass laws making it illegal to read non-mainstream news sources.
00:05:45.000Now, when you look into this, in part what they're saying is they're making it illegal to have material that incites hatred based on gender and race.
00:05:56.000Let me know in the comments in the chat.
00:05:58.000No one should be hating anybody on the basis of gender or race, or hating anybody at all, actually.
00:06:03.000I mean, if you have even good reason to hate someone, your job is to get over it in order to free yourself from the manacles of hatred that will ultimately destroy you.
00:06:12.000But hating people because of characteristics that are just part of who they are, absolutely bloody ridiculous.
00:06:18.000But what will happen, I believe, and you know more about this stuff than I do, you do a lot of the heavy lifting, darling, I'm up the front.
00:06:25.000The problem with this I guess is who gets to decide you know when something is the issue that they're trying to get to is this idea of like thought crimes and what people are like saying about it is if now you're starting to police people over thought crimes and lock people up over thought crimes what is that the way that we want to go as in somebody's done something wrong before they even do it and As in, if there's material on your computer, are you guilty by the fact of there's just material on your computer or not?
00:06:54.000And I guess the issue is, as exactly as you say, no one wants to see hatred, no one wants to see all those kind of things, but who gets to decide and do the parameters for these kind of laws change according to whatever government's in, whatever the situation is at the time?
00:07:09.000It's a fascinating point from a handsome man.
00:07:11.000What's interesting, also, is to look at these simultaneous online bills and how they align.
00:07:18.000Now, we're going to stay on YouTube and Twitter, and on Twitter, we're going to stay on Twitter, but after that... Careful!
00:08:31.000We know they're communicating, but this is one of the revelations of Edward Snowden, that these countries were sharing one another's data and spying on other countries' populations as a sort of loophole, because it's illegal for Americans to spy on American citizens, but it's not illegal for Australian secret services to spy on American citizens, and they all exchange data.
00:08:48.000It's some sort of, I call it, cyber wife swap.
00:08:51.000Oops, sci-fi wife swap in, like, why don't you spy on mine and I'll spy on yours?
00:08:56.000I don't mind if I do, buddy, that's a hell of a, oh, look at those five eyes, oh my.
00:09:02.000So there's the online safety bill, enforced through fines of up to 18 million quid, or 10% of annual global turnover, right, so that's, like, if you are deemed, now look at, like, take the case of Dr. John Campbell.
00:09:14.000These community guidelines are often opaque and difficult to understand, aren't they?
00:09:19.000Like, we're all the time, And evolving.
00:09:49.000Right, so what is Kafka's trial really about?
00:09:52.000The trial is a novel written by Franz Kafka but not published until 25 after... No, I'm just going to read my one.
00:09:58.000Joseph K is a bank worker accused of a crime but he is never told the nature of his crime and he must navigate a seemingly impossible legal system to save himself.
00:10:08.000It starts, I think, with a famous line, someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K because without warning he was arrested.
00:10:15.000What Kafkaesque has come to mean, the same way as Orwellian means you're being spied on and all that, Kafkaesque means that bureaucracies are untenable and mysterious and you don't know what it is you're supposed to do and not supposed to do.
00:10:30.000It's certainly happening with YouTube.
00:10:31.000I mean, that's one of the things that wherever you are on YouTube in terms of politically, I think everyone can admit that the YouTube guidelines are so difficult to work your way around.
00:10:40.000to know what you're meant to say, what you're not meant to say, what you're meant to monetize,
00:11:04.000You already know that YouTube used the WHO's guidelines.
00:11:07.000Now that needn't be nefarious, but it is opaque and it is difficult to understand and it did lead to, as you know, in the case of Twitter, true information being censored and it's still impossible to talk about stuff that's empirically true.
00:11:19.000On YouTube, and dear Dr. John Campbell, don't even know why he's banned.
00:11:22.000Have a quick glance at these various laws before going to that tweet.
00:11:26.000There's some EU thing, like, that's going to basically mean that Rumble, you know, Rumble already can't broadcast in France.
00:11:32.000And you'll see that the French people are very happy right now with the way they're being governed.
00:11:35.000France's democracy is working absolutely fine.
00:11:40.000It's like a big jubilee, but made out of fire, burnt out cars and tipped over bins.
00:11:45.000Yeah, there's the Online Streaming Act in Canada, I think that's already been passed.
00:11:49.000The Restrict Act in the US, which obviously they used the young lad there, buddy boy Texera, and his revelations too.
00:11:56.000I mean, this is why people, because obviously Elon Musk has got involved in this, like saying that it's a bad idea, because I guess people are worried this is a kind of pilot scheme.
00:12:05.000And when you look at what people are saying about this thing that's happening in Ireland and what's just been passed in Canada, is that, as you say, that this will just become ubiquitous.
00:12:14.000And if you look at something like, I mean, we literally can compare it to the Patriot Act.
00:12:36.000Oh, by the way, we're spying on everyone now, and we decide what the word terrorist means.
00:12:40.000The Restrict Act is, well, you don't want people being hateful to people because of protected characteristics or characteristics that are just part of who they are, and they shouldn't receive bias, prejudice, bigotry, or hatred.
00:13:02.000The video platform says that the law would force it to recommend Canadian content on its homepage rather than videos tailored to a user's specific interest.
00:13:10.000This is literally tailoring what you should be... What you should be... Censorship!
00:13:24.000It was about individual content creators, independent media, people with specific interests from Mr Beast to PewDiePie to people doing makeup tutorials.
00:13:34.000Suddenly, we were competing in an open market space.
00:13:36.000And what do they talk about all the time?
00:13:52.000But it's literally Kafkaesque, because the laws are opaque and difficult to understand.
00:13:57.000Let's have a look at Dr. John Campbell's tweet, where he announced that he'd been given a strike for speaking to British MP Andrew Bridgen.
00:14:55.000I've been assigned all sorts of jobs around the house and digging the allotment and cleaning the car and all sorts of things that I've been putting off for ages.
00:15:27.000It doesn't actually tell you what medical information there was.
00:15:31.000Of course, on my channel, I'm very careful to go back to the original sources and try and look at the evidence as much as I can.
00:15:38.000So there'll be an article in the Telegraph or the Guardian, and I'll go back and look at the original papers or the original publications and try and get it right as far as I can.
00:15:48.000But when you're talking to people like politicians, in a sense, they are the authority.
00:15:54.000So if Mr Bridgen says something or Rishi Sunak says something, then that is their opinion.
00:16:00.000And, you know, you would like to think that that was valid.
00:16:03.000But that's what I got the strike for, an interview with Mr Andrew Bridgen, Member of Parliament for North West Leicestershire on Saturday, the 29th of April.
00:16:15.000Dr. John, Andrew Bridgen, like he got was in the news because he stood up in Parliament
00:16:19.000and started talking about vaccine injury and the way that people had lent into that particular
00:16:25.000policy in ways that in retrospect was not as watertight as was initially suggested,
00:16:31.000that lockdown policies were unreliable and he's made some headway but I think he's since
00:16:36.000been booted out of the Conservative Party, which is our equivalent of the Republican
00:16:39.000Party here in the UK, and there's an attempt to censor and shut down him. Now me as a person
00:16:44.000that's more, I wouldn't really align myself with the Conservative Party in Great Britain,
00:16:48.000God no, but I'm very interested of course in freedom of speech and I'm particularly
00:16:52.000interested in this subject. What in particular did you find interesting? What is the, is
00:16:58.000there a particular substance or medication that you mentioned, and remember you're on
00:17:00.000Rumble now John so you're safe to talk freely, that you think may have led to the ban and
00:17:07.000I'm presuming it was something that Andrew said because we have things like that often
00:17:11.000They come in here, shatting their mouths off, and we have to pay the bill.
00:17:13.000Yeah, I mean, I've looked through what he said really quite carefully and everything that he has said, we've said on previous videos, he did mention hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin really only in passing.
00:17:29.000You sort of kind of get the impression that because it was Andrew Bridgen, it was looked through perhaps more carefully than it would have been normally.
00:17:37.000But whether you agree with Andrew Bridgen or not, really, Russell, I don't think that's the issue.
00:17:41.000The point is he's giving counter-argument.
00:17:43.000And the whole point of our democracy is we have the Houses of Commons, which is supposed to be a debating chamber.
00:17:50.000So if Andrew Bridgen wants to come on and say, well, I believe there's a Loch Ness monster or I believe we've been visited by aliens, then as a member of Parliament, he's allowed to do that.
00:17:59.000And the other members of Parliament should give counter-argument.
00:18:17.000So rather than giving counter-argument, he just seems to have been cold-shouldered, ignored, sent to Coventry, whatever you want to call it.
00:18:27.000Where is people saying, well, you've given that evidence, but let's look at this evidence, or you've cited that guideline, let's look at that guideline.
00:18:36.000Why is a sitting Member of Parliament been effectively silenced by his colleagues?
00:18:40.000I find that really quite concerning, Russell.
00:18:42.000I feel like one of the reasons that the parliamentary distancing was required is because he rhetorically referred to the Holocaust which is broadly understood to be in bad taste but I think generally speaking that's how people use it that the Holocaust is a great stain on humanity and a disgusting act of genocide and racism and a reminder of the dangers of fascism and tyranny.
00:19:05.000So Even when he was speaking just about vaccines, it was an empty chamber.
00:19:10.000That's the reaction of the party in booting him out.
00:19:13.000But as Dr. Jones says, even when he was speaking about vaccines from a scientific point of view, it was to no one.
00:19:18.000It's a weird political system that we have.
00:19:20.000They're either in there shouting like children, waving pieces of paper around, or they're in there on their own.
00:19:26.000Or in one case, one person was caught masturbating And that is the best system of government we could possibly come up with.
00:19:32.000What troubles me, Dr. John, in the case of your YouTube strike is I know how meticulous you are.
00:19:38.000I know that you are rigorous in the way that you research your content.
00:19:43.000I know that, you know, throughout the pandemic, the reason you attracted such a large audience on your YouTube channel is because you are trustworthy and authentic and honest.
00:19:51.000And there's a Medic, you recognise the significance and importance of all medicines, including and in some cases, especially vaccines.
00:19:58.000But that has to be underwritten by clinical trials, honest debate, transparency around the data.
00:20:05.000And throughout this, I think you've just walked a tightrope of authenticity, rigour and honesty.
00:20:12.000I think it's incredible how you've done it.
00:20:15.000It doesn't appall me that you've been booted off for a week, but it informs me There does seem to be a worldwide movement at the moment, Russell.
00:20:22.000And of course, we've got this new World Health Organization treaty, which there's been a debate in Parliament about.
00:20:27.000even through the EU, over in Ireland, Canada, the five highest countries.
00:20:33.000There does seem to be a worldwide movement at the moment, Russell, and of course,
00:20:36.000we've got this new World Health Organization treaty, which there's been a debate in Parliament about.
00:20:41.000But the only reason there was a debate in Parliament about that was because
00:20:45.000there was 156,000 signatures from concerned members of the public,
00:20:49.000and that triggered this parliamentary debate because it reached 100,000 signatures.
00:20:54.000And it's not just Andrew Bridge and we've had quite a few other MPs expressing really quite significant concern about this.
00:21:00.000The idea that information can be controlled and the idea that unelected bureaucrats, who happen to be in Geneva in this case, can pass laws or pass edicts which would be binding in the United Kingdom.
00:21:14.000And it does seem to be happening all around the world.
00:21:16.000So this seems to be like what you might call an international zeitgeist at the moment, an international movement.
00:21:23.000It's Canada, it's Canada and New Zealand are probably the worst.
00:21:28.000Ireland, as you've said, issues going on there, the United States, the United Kingdom, all seem to be moving in the same direction.
00:21:34.000It's almost like some sort of mass virus that's affecting people in different parts of the world.
00:21:40.000But the question in my mind is, Why is this affecting people in different parts of the world all at the same time?
00:21:53.000Because otherwise it just seems like one heck of a big coincidence to me.
00:21:57.000Conspiracy theorists would say that they're perhaps acting in concert because of the communication that takes place through organisations like the WFWHO because of their shared commercial interests and the evident necessity to crush counter-narratives as you seek to increase centralised authoritarianism at a time that it is plain that the opposite is what's required.
00:22:18.000Open debate, independent media, new political movements.
00:22:21.000We'll be talking to RFK, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
00:22:26.000Next week and our investigation in the show where we have a deeper look at one story from the news centers around RFK.
00:22:33.000Do you have any optimism, John, that this time of universal censorship, Kafkaist judiciary smearing and the crushing of dissent will lead to oppositional independent political movements as well as independent media voices of which you are now notably and plainly one?
00:22:51.000The independent media voice is yes for the time being, although as we both know, we're being controlled in that respect, Russell.
00:22:59.000I did talk to Andrew Bridgen about this, and it's interesting because we've got these people making decisions externally to us.
00:23:06.000And I said, have you not got any doctors in North West Leicestershire that you can ask about things because they're much more likely to know.
00:23:12.000What the requirement is locally rather than someone externally, this principle of subsidiarity, which we're making decisions more locally, whether there's going to be any coordinated international opposition to this is really quite hard to see.
00:23:31.000So people aren't realizing the dramatic shift that there's been.
00:23:34.000But it's so concerning because you were talking about hate before, Russell, and we know that in totalitarian regimes which have arrived on the far right and the far left, we don't need to give examples.
00:23:45.000But hate has been defined by what the next door neighbour doesn't like about you.
00:23:50.000They use this as a way of reporting you.
00:23:52.000They use this as a way of getting at you.
00:23:56.000Who's going to define that as the key issue?
00:23:59.000me do in anyone's media. But they're not offensive. But if people, if someone is interpreting
00:24:05.000that as being offensive, and at the moment the key word is hate, that we're hating if
00:24:12.000we breach these guidelines, in the past it's been loyalty to the party. Who's going to
00:24:17.000define that as the key issue? That's what frightens me.
00:24:21.000There is no worthy authority to whom we can yield with such matters.
00:24:26.000That's increasingly what we find because there is so much high profile collusion.
00:24:30.000You can't say in all honesty, well, we will trust you to be the body or institution or individual that decides what information should be censored or what constitutes hatred.
00:24:41.000And we know that we can trust you to use that judiciously.
00:24:44.000And not as a way to leverage your own financial interests and your own dominion.
00:24:50.000John, I can see you've got another thought forming because I can tell from your face.
00:24:57.000The other problem in the United Kingdom is that it's very hard to have independent voices of opposition because of the political party system that we have in this country.
00:25:06.000So basically, it's impossible, virtually impossible to become a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom unless you're in a particular party.
00:25:15.000So the Conservative Party have got maybe half a dozen MPs that have spoke out against the Covid narrative, and they've been largely silenced by the party.
00:25:24.000Labour, Scottish Nationalists, Lib Dems, hard to think of any MPs there that have really spoken out against it.
00:25:32.000Now, if I wanted to stand for Parliament, which I don't particularly, or you wanted to stand for Parliament, and we stood as an independent, then in a particular constituency with our first past the post system, you would be going up against the party system.
00:25:46.000And this has a lot of power, it's got a lot of history and a lot of strength.
00:25:50.000So our democracy is only mediated through the political party system, and it's virtually impossible for independent voices to be heard, at least in government.
00:26:00.000The House of Lords is an exception to that to some degree, but even there, the party system holds an awful lot of sway.
00:26:06.000So I am somewhat pessimistic about independent voices pointing out this international trend to collectivisation, to data control.
00:26:16.000Our in-studio guest in a moment, Daniel Chandler, has written a book, Free and Equal.
00:26:20.000He'll be talking a lot about how the systems and institutions of democracy are prohibitive.
00:26:26.000He talks a lot about the first-past-the-post system rather than proportional representation that we have in this country.
00:26:32.000And you scarcely need look at the systemic abuses within American politics to understand that
00:26:38.000it's always a result of expenditure, donations, lobbying. When I say it's always
00:26:44.000a result of, I mean the sort of the movements of power and what gets legislated,
00:26:48.000what gets maligned and what gets ignored. There are so many ways of shutting
00:26:52.000Just anecdotally, Dr. John, we very much enjoyed the bit of footage where Anthony Fauci spoke to an African-American family and tried to tell them, like, these are the reasons why you should be taking these medications.
00:27:10.000They really understood the issues Well, they really understood the challenges.
00:27:15.000They really understood the anomalies that were likely in place and subsequently revealed to be problems like the lack of clinical trials around transmission.
00:27:25.000And of course, it's conversationally and statistically understood that certain communities, i.e.
00:27:29.000the economically poor, Uh the people of color were uh vaccine hesitant as the term was then and we learned the other day from our guest who was it was it Schellenberger told us this or was it uh that told us that they spent a lot of money infiltrating civil rights movements in order to persuade people to take medication to take those medications that Pfizer directly I think it was Li Fang the the journalist Li Fang told us that Pfizer
00:27:56.000Invested in promoting their product in all sorts of peculiar and extraordinary ways.
00:28:03.000It's just been so lovely to walk this path with you.
00:28:07.000You're going to have to be careful about who you have on as a guest in future, Dr. John, because when we had Jimmy Dore on, it was Jimmy Dore got us in trouble, wasn't it?
00:28:15.000I mean, we're on Rumble now, so we can repeat it.
00:28:17.000There was again something about the vaccine.
00:28:19.000Was it bloody vaccines or ivermectin or something?
00:28:21.000And it's always sort of, it's usually things that are kind of reasonable or marginal or worse.
00:28:26.000When you think of the kind of egregious propaganda that's been allowed to endure when it comes to the other side of that, and particularly when you start to couple it with the evident and obvious attempt to legitimize control at a time when control is breaking down.
00:28:41.000Because his point was about the profiteering of the pharmaceutical companies.
00:28:47.000They reduce it to, oh, well, you said this and therefore you're off.
00:28:51.000People are asking here, Firegirl 2020, I missed the Jimmy Dore segment.
00:28:54.000It wasn't on this show, but it's obviously accessible to Rumble, our whole library, as well as much of Dr. Jon's content is available on Rumble for fun and for free right now.
00:29:03.000I think we have to move forward because we've got a Beautiful.
00:29:06.000Like we've got a beautiful investigation and presentation on RFK and his recent success in the American polls.
00:29:13.000Got any thoughts on RFK and these kind of independent political voices, Dr. John?
00:29:18.000Well, independent political voices are always good.
00:29:20.000I don't have to claim to have any great knowledge about Robert Kennedy's political position.
00:29:37.000And your job is to obey and say thank you.
00:29:40.000Anything that is a counterbalance to that, I would welcome and certainly welcome the open debate.
00:29:45.000And let's hope it is open debate and that we're not curtailed by outside influences.
00:29:50.000On genuine cross-party alliances, I'd like people from the left, people from the right, that are interested in independence, standing up to centralised authority.
00:30:00.000And as you say, people should have the right to be wrong.
00:30:03.000Like all this misinformation, disinformation stuff, all of this hate speech stuff, no one should be indulging in hateful rhetoric, but we should be trusted to discern for ourselves what is misinformation, what is hateful rhetoric, which authority are you going to yield to.
00:30:17.000Which corrupted big tech or governmental body do you trust to decide on how your moral compass should be set?
00:30:39.000That's some information that you're going to have to contend with.
00:30:41.000Could RFK be a necessary voice in the political landscape, coming as he does from the Democrat left?
00:30:48.000Could he align with other independent voices?
00:30:51.000Is this the challenge that Joe Biden needs?
00:30:53.000Certainly what we require It's a solution-oriented conversation about politics at a time when we're left with little but despair.
00:31:00.000That's why I'm excited to introduce our next guest, my friend Daniel Chandler, talking about his book Free and Equal, which is based on the philosophy of John Rawls.
00:31:13.000Daniel, mate, one of the areas where I know that we have a lot in common and one of the areas that I think that we should focus in order to begin our conversation is the problem of money in politics.
00:31:23.000In your book, you cover this subject and potential solutions both in the UK and in the US.
00:31:29.000We talk continually on our show, stay free.
00:31:31.000About the influence of money, this sort of overwhelming influence through donations in American politics, through the lobbying system, through people in Congress owning stocks and shares in companies that they're supposed to regulate as an economist and as an author.
00:31:45.000What do you think the role of finance is in politics, both in our country, the UK?
00:31:59.000So, you know, I think money in politics is a huge problem, both in the UK and in the USA.
00:32:03.000And I think tackling that is really the first place I would start, because, you know, reforming the political system is a precondition for almost anything else.
00:32:11.000You know, my book Free and Equal is trying to set out, I guess, a much broader vision for how we could change our society, not just about reforming the political system, but also ideas for how we can You know, transform capitalism, as we know, create an economy that's not only more equal, but more humane.
00:32:26.000So there's like a whole big agenda that we need, I think, to sort of take on and think about.
00:32:32.000But the starting place before you can do any of that is to get money out of politics.
00:32:37.000I think, you know, in America, the problem is at its most epic.
00:32:40.000So I think in the last election, Something like $14 billion were spent across all the different campaigns, which was twice as much as the previous biggest spending election, which was the previous one and is like more than the total GDP of Rwanda.
00:32:54.000I mean, it's a completely insane scale of money that's involved.
00:32:58.000And I think the real problem is that inevitably, because the numbers are so big, most of that money is coming from an incredibly rich and seriously unrepresentative donor class.
00:33:09.000So I think in that 2020 election, More than just over $2 billion of that money.
00:33:16.000So about one in six of every dollar that was spent across that election came from just 20 billionaires.
00:33:21.000So 20 individuals controlling just such a huge proportion of the overall spending.
00:33:26.000And that, you know, just distorts the political system in such an obvious way.
00:33:30.000I think if the principle that underpins democracy is one of political equality, And if you allow the rich to have influence, you know, to buy influence over politics with their money, then that just goes against that principle in a really obvious way.
00:33:45.000But I think, you know, what I sort of try to do in my book with all of these problems is to move as, you know, almost as quickly as I can towards solutions, because I think particularly in a moment when People are so angry and dissatisfied and rightly so with politics as we know it.
00:34:00.000It's really important to harness that energy behind something constructive and I can see you want to... Do you want to come in or should I jump straight to my solution which I'm taking too long to get to?
00:34:12.000The problem, of course, with money in politics is it bypasses that primary democratic principle that is a representative system where all of us have a voice to some degree or another.
00:34:20.000Because this book centers on the philosophy and ideas of John Rawls, would you explain, perhaps even using the sort of simple allegory that Rawls is somewhat famous for, what It is Rawls' philosophy about like, once you told me when we were chatting about how it's like, oh, if you didn't know what role you were going to have in a society, you would be cool with it.
00:34:52.000Both in the UK and the US, Dan, by the way.
00:34:55.000So Rawls is really the towering figure of 20th century political philosophy.
00:35:00.000The place to start is that this is someone who's routinely compared to the greatest thinkers in the history of Western thought.
00:35:06.000Thinkers like Plato, Hobbes, Kant, John Stuart Mill.
00:35:09.000He's kind of up there with At the heart of his philosophy is a strikingly simple idea that society should be fair, but Rawls recognises that different people have different ideas about what fairness means.
00:35:23.000He has this thought experiment to help us think through that question.
00:35:28.000His idea is that if we want to know what a fair society would look like, we should imagine How we would choose to organise it if we didn't know which person we would be within that society.
00:35:38.000So whether we would be rich or poor, gay or straight, Christian, Muslim, you know, whatever.
00:35:44.000And that's, you know, I think an incredibly intuitive and compelling thought experiment.
00:35:50.000I think it's obvious that if we were to think about society that way, we wouldn't organise it how it is today.
00:35:56.000We wouldn't have a society where some people have to rely on food banks in order to feed themselves or where Your class, race or gender continue to shape people's life chances in such a big way.
00:36:06.000But what Rawls does with that thought experiment is sort of not just point to the problems with our society, but give us a way of thinking about what a better, fairer society would actually look like.
00:36:17.000And in particular, he uses that thought experiment.
00:36:20.000He says that we would choose three principles that we could use to help us think through how to organize our society.
00:36:26.000A principle of freedom that there are certain fundamental personal and political freedoms that we need and that the first priority of the state is to protect those freedoms.
00:36:35.000Second, a principle of equality that's there to help us think through how much equality we should tolerate as a society.
00:36:43.000One is basically a commitment to genuine equality of opportunity, which I think is Not what we have today.
00:36:50.000And then a principle called the difference principle, which is the idea that we should organize our economy in a way that's as good as possible for the least well off.
00:36:59.000And then there's a final principle of sustainability.
00:37:01.000And basically those three principles together, I think what's exciting is that they give sort of each of us a kind of toolkit for thinking through for ourselves all of the kinds of problems that you know, that you're discussing day after day on this program, and that all of us are reading about in the news, whether it's Culture wars or money in politics, but also how to think about the climate crisis or how we might achieve more equality.
00:37:25.000It's also an invitation to put yourself in the perspective of other individuals and to recognise that there isn't something that definitively separates us from one another.
00:37:35.000This, to me, seems like a very good faith idea, even of itself.
00:37:44.000I think it's a thing that can help each of us step out of our own Sort of blinkered perspective and look at things from other people's point of view.
00:37:52.000And I think that to me, what's so exciting about Rawls's philosophy is it I think it offers a genuinely unifying political vision.
00:37:59.000It's an alternative to the divisiveness of some identity politics.
00:38:03.000And also, I think a way through, you know, through the culture wars.
00:38:07.000It's a sort of genuinely unifying alternative to those ways of thinking about politics.
00:38:11.000It's exciting to hear those ideas outlined because I feel that one of the things that comes up again and again on our show, Gareth, and let me know if you in the chat agree with us, is there's this loss of hope and optimism.
00:38:24.000There's a lack of trust in our institutions, whether that's government or media.
00:38:28.000And I would say that this lack of trust is legitimate.
00:38:31.000For a long time, beginning in the '90s, perhaps there was this idea of apathy among voters,
00:38:36.000which the philosopher Mark Fisher offered us was not really apathy, but a kind of deduction
00:38:42.000that we were not represented, that democracy didn't function,
00:38:46.000precisely because, as you just outlined, it's being co-opted by corporatized interests.
00:38:52.000Daniel, before I interrupted you or at least invited you to give us a sort of a simple perspective on the philosophy of Rawls, about to talk us through how money could be taken out of politics.
00:39:02.000Would you mind talking us through some of that now, mate?
00:39:05.000And I mean, I should say that's the aim of the book is not just to take sort of set out Rawls's ideas, but to use them to bring together practical solutions to lots of problems, starting with money in politics.
00:39:15.000So I think You know, I think the solution, the ideal solution is pretty straightforward.
00:39:20.000The starting point would be to limit private donations to a very low level, a level that would be affordable to everyone in society.
00:39:27.000And then to replace private donations with what I call a democracy voucher system.
00:39:33.000So the idea would be that every citizen would get an equal amount per year or per election cycle.
00:39:42.000And they could choose to give that money to the party of their choice.
00:39:47.000And that would just, in a stroke, completely transform the incentives of our political system.
00:39:52.000It would mean that politicians, rather than having to go cap in hand to a tiny group of super-rich donors, would have to appeal to everyone equally.
00:40:01.000And it's also something that already exists in one place.
00:40:05.000So in Seattle in 2017, for local elections, they adopted this system.
00:40:10.000And so in Seattle, citizens get $100 per election cycle.
00:40:15.000It's had all the consequences that you would expect, like more people getting involved in politics, those people being from groups that are often underrepresented.
00:40:26.000More competitive elections, incumbents being more likely to lose.
00:40:29.000It sort of generally reinvigorated the health of democracy in Seattle and I think we should extend that to a national level.
00:40:36.000It excites me because one of the problems that we're facing in media spaces is that many of the old models are collapsing.
00:40:43.000There has been so much centralisation of resources and power.
00:40:48.000If all of the resources and the donations are coming from one class of person, it's
00:40:51.000plain that they're doing that for a reason.
00:40:53.000It's plain that the regulation and legislature that comes from organizations funded in that
00:40:58.000manner are going to be a reflection of that funding.
00:41:00.000So you're essentially saying no super PACs, no large donations, that'll be the end of
00:41:32.000So that's a lovely idea and it has already been used.
00:41:36.000If you're ready to move on, mate, because I like you, you're my mate and everything, so I want to look after you, make sure you feel taken care of.
00:41:40.000I love, we'll do this on locals, because I love that example of that place in Brazil, somewhere in Brazil, where they give the budget for the community and the people in the community vote for it.
00:41:49.000Because one of the things we seem to be talking about, you know, on the platform of rolls, as espoused by you and extemporized on by you, of course, we're not giving rolls all the credit.
00:42:00.000Like, we're talking a lot about decentralisation, localisation and empowerment for existing systems.
00:42:05.000Sometimes I think, you know, when people are saying, oh, there are no ideas.
00:42:07.000Of course the ideas and the institutions and the potential are already among us, but these ideas are foreclosed, continually censored against, smeared, so of course they don't become popularised and emerge.
00:42:17.000Me, Daniel and Gareth, and I'm going to expect you to participate, young man, are going to continue our conversation exclusively on Locals.
00:42:24.000Join the conversation over there with Illuminated Soul now and Zashex3133, where people sometimes, by the way, they start talking about other stuff.
00:42:31.000We're going to talk about political lobbying.
00:42:32.000We're going to talk about the $263 million that the pharmaceutical industry spent in 2021.
00:42:36.000We're going to talk about money in politics and we're going to talk about solutions.
00:42:44.000So if you're not a member of our Locals community yet, join us now, as well as gaining access to the weekly guided meditations that I do there.
00:42:51.000And of course, you can come and join us live at Community in mid-July.
00:45:39.000So, yeah, that they have a system called participatory budgeting, where basically local budgets are determined through a system of open assemblies that citizens can take part in.
00:45:50.000And it's been running, I think, since the nineteen I think that's just the first thing that we ought to do to reform the democratic system.
00:45:55.000system for really engaging people directly in the political process, which loads and loads of other
00:46:01.000countries have started to copy. And I think, you know, we were talking about democracy vouchers,
00:46:07.000I think that's just the first thing that we ought to do to reform the democratic system. And I think,
00:46:12.000you know, alongside that engaging citizens more directly is really so important, because no matter
00:46:17.000how much we whatever, you know, whatever we do to improve the electoral system, there are some
00:46:22.000inherent limitations, I think, to an electoral model.
00:46:25.000And, you know, I think elected representatives, there's always going to be a tendency, I think, for them to grow slightly detached from their constituents.
00:46:34.000I think we have to do everything that we can to design a voting system that will help keep that link tight to keep money out of politics.
00:46:40.000But I think engaging citizens directly in the political process provides a kind of counterbalance to some of the natural limitations of the electoral model.
00:47:05.000I think in Porto Alegre, it's dead to policies that benefit the least well off more in those communities.
00:47:12.000And I think on other dimensions, it I mean, I think it focuses policy on things that local people care about.
00:47:19.000And, you know, I think the reason these kinds of ideas haven't been adopted is, I mean, I think it's, I think there's been a feeling that the only The only feasible way to run a democracy in a big society is representative democracy and that these kinds of forms of direct participation are just just not suited to the modern world.
00:47:40.000And I think, you know, there's a degree of truth to that.
00:47:43.000I think elections have to be the centrepiece for a large scale democracy, but that we can combine them with these other things.
00:47:50.000So I think the Porto Alegre model is a brilliant model for the local level.
00:47:54.000But there's a limit to the scale at which you could involve people directly in that way.
00:47:59.000And in any kind of direct forum, you know, once it gets to a certain size, again, you have a tendency for the people who have the loudest voices, the most confidence to dominate.
00:48:11.000And so I think, you know, there's a scale that that can't go beyond.
00:48:14.000I think another idea that would work better at the national level is to make more use of citizens' assemblies where people are selected at random.
00:48:23.000And that's another democratic idea that actually has an incredibly long democratic pedigree that was actually the central method for making democratic decisions in Greece, exactly in ancient Athens.
00:48:35.000One thing I was thinking, Daniel, when you were saying that is that it also One of the crises that I feel that we're experiencing existentially is a kind of lack of meaning, purpose and connection.
00:48:45.000While the only place that we kind of generate vigour is in this sort of space of cultural conflagration, turning against other people that ultimately share our interests if they do not share our culture and identity, perhaps if there were more of a sense of purpose, community engagement, Actually, conditions that we are evolved to live within, where we do have a shared interest along with the members of our community and tribe, it would not only perhaps be administratively more apposite, it would be almost ontologically more rewarding.
00:49:17.000Like, if you feel like, I mean something, I have a voice in my community, people care about what I say, even though it is probably really time-consuming and boring to have to listen to everybody.
00:49:27.000I think it would be good for democracy and it would just be good for individuals.
00:49:31.000Some people would get involved, some people wouldn't.
00:49:34.000And for the people who want to get involved, I think it could be an incredibly meaningful activity.
00:49:40.000You balance this sort of necessity for popular assembly where, as in say, juries or whatever, you respect that everyone has something to offer with the kind of aristocratic or technocratic principles that there are areas where expertise is absolutely vital, obviously, as long as they don't become corrupted.
00:49:55.000Areas such as medicine, obviously, technology, areas where expertise is valuable.
00:50:00.000And where is it, do you think, necessary to centralise institutions and democracy?
00:50:06.000And while you're answering that, I'm going to find some questions from our community.
00:50:09.000Okay, so yeah, I think, I mean, I think one thing is that you can make these citizens assemblies work well, I think you have to recognise that people will be coming to those forums without the kind of expertise that maybe, well, that you might hope elected politicians have, but often don't.
00:50:23.000So I think one thing is that where these systems have worked well, you've, you know, people have put in, have brought in experts to provide a kind of impartial view of the evidence to facilitate discussion to make sure that everybody has a chance to speak and not just the people with the loudest voices.
00:50:58.000What seems so hopeful about some of the things you've mentioned
00:51:01.000is that it would fundamentally change the type of people that ended up in politics.
00:51:05.000I think that's the place where we need to get to quickly, that the political class needs to change.
00:51:09.000And obviously, like, taking money out of politics on the way in is hugely important, but money out of politics on the way out is also hugely important.
00:51:16.000I mean, well, we had that instance of Janet Yellen today, Treasury Secretary, in that news, which was that she's been taking massive fees from basically financial institutions who, I guess, then have been lobbying the Treasury for favours.
00:51:31.000And it's like, so she's getting money after a position, like, half and so much.
00:52:23.000Just on the assemblies, what you could, I think the furthest that you could go.
00:52:25.000So I think where they've been used at the moment is in quite an ad hoc way.
00:52:28.000Like, so in Ireland, they set up a citizens assembly to think about the issue of abortion and gay marriage and those assemblies put forward proposals that were then approved.
00:52:37.000So they've come up in a kind of issue based way at the moment.
00:52:39.000I think the question now is how to integrate that more into the democratic system.
00:52:43.000So you could, I think, you know, you could think about having a second or third chamber that was selected in this way.
00:52:51.000So you could replace the House of Lords with a randomly selected chamber.
00:52:54.000You could have a third chamber in America, in addition to the House and the Senate that was selected in that way.
00:52:58.000And I think that's, you know, those two, you know, both All these different models, they have their pros and their cons, and I think combining them is the way to sort of get the best system.
00:53:07.000I'm going to pass on Primal Colin 2's question from our community, because he's got bloody rights, hasn't he?
00:53:14.000Yeah, he has, because I've actually met him in person.
00:53:31.000But I want to say, why is it, Daniel, that you propose reform, like an additional chamber in Congress, or finding ways to further incrementally How can we institutionalise or normalise these processes rather than more radical replacement of parliamentary democracy?
00:53:52.000Is there something about that that you think is potentially dangerous or frightening?
00:53:57.000And also Primal Collins' question, how can we get money out of medicine and education as well?
00:54:05.000I do notes during them like a proper academic.
00:54:06.000Yes, I'm a very, I'm a serious person making my notes.
00:54:12.000We should do this in swimwear to keep it light.
00:54:15.000Because if you're going to take notes, I think I should be in a bikini.
00:54:20.000So I think the first thing is, I don't think these proposals are particularly incremental.
00:54:24.000I think that to replace the current system of private funding in politics with a democracy system is radical.
00:54:31.000To replace the House of Lords with a randomly selected second chamber, I also think is a pretty radical proposition.
00:54:37.000So I'm not sure what more radical change would look like.
00:54:40.000And the reason In the book I've tried to set out what I think the best that a democratic society could realistically be and by realistic I just mean
00:54:50.000You know, taking into account the facts about the natural world and what we know about human nature and how institutions will operate in practice.
00:54:58.000I've not tried not to be too constrained by short term political realities, not because they're not important in the real world, but because I think, you know, we need to have a clear idea of where it is that we ultimately want to get to.
00:55:09.000Then we can have a pragmatic conversation about how quickly we could move.
00:55:12.000And I think, you know, I think it's important to keep those two things slightly separate.
00:55:16.000So but, you know, the reason I've made these proposals is because I think That would be the best way to organise the system, not because I just think it's what's feasible in the short term.
00:55:25.000Because my concern is if real power currently operates beyond the reach of democracy, primarily as we've identified, and let us know if you agree with this, because of the tremendous influence of money on politics, but perhaps because of deep state institutions that are able to overwrite and undergird institutions that, for instance,
00:55:43.000take the military-industrial complex in America where there's usually unison around
00:55:48.000policy, something that we've covered a lot lately.
00:55:52.000What I would think about, now of course I reckon even the voucher scheme that you're
00:55:55.000proposing Dan, because remember I'm right behind you mate, I'm on your side over here,
00:55:58.000right, that would address the enormous amount of money that Rafie and Lockheed might, etc.
00:56:05.000But I suppose what I'm thinking is, in my mind, I'm thinking how would they subvert that, mitigate that and ensure that their interests were continually For example, there are a significant number of global bodies that seem to me to be dedicated to presenting ideas that are radical but ultimately, when you look at them, will not meaningfully impact the interests of the powerful nor significantly improve the lives of the many.
00:56:32.000This is something that we continually know.
00:56:34.000even around an important issue like climate change, which I know there's a diversity of opinion on that subject,
00:56:39.000because many people think that it ultimately is used to--
00:56:41.000never used to attack centralized energy companies, for example,
00:56:45.000and it usually proposes measures that will impact individuals
00:56:49.000rather than attacking centralized power.
00:56:51.000No one at the WF saying, "What we're going to do is shut down Exxon Mobil."
00:56:54.000That'll sort stuff out, you know, just as an example.
00:56:58.000So, I suppose that-- are you optimistic?
00:57:01.000Like a lot of great thinkers and friends of mine, are that in some form, there are things within democracy
00:57:08.000now that can succeed in meaningfully improving the lives of
00:57:16.000I think I am optimistic about that possibility.
00:57:19.000And I guess I'm optimistic because I think if you look back in history, big changes have happened That have gone against the interests of, you know, the ruling classes at the time, whether that's the extension of universal suffrage and democracy or the introduction of the welfare state and the kinds of taxes that have been needed to pay for it.
00:57:36.000So, you know, I don't think that I think change can happen within a democratic I don't think there's any alternative to operating within the democratic system that we have.
00:57:47.000I think, you know, there's a role for civil disobedience, protest and engaging outside of the party system as well as engaging with parties.
00:57:55.000But I, you know, so I think change has to and can come from within the democratic system.
00:58:00.000And I guess looking back through history, I think we have reason to sort of reason for optimism that that's possible.
00:58:07.000But what we need Or at least the starting point for doing that is having clear ideas about what the alternative would look like and moving beyond just criticising the status quo and harnessing some of the discontent that people feel behind a constructive programme.
00:58:22.000And I feel like that's what's missing and what's needed.
00:58:24.000Because sometimes I think you're right, Daniel, I hope you're right, because sometimes with the example you cited, whether it's suffrage or slavery, the sense I get, and perhaps this is because of my own biases, how could I know if it wasn't?
00:58:35.000Is that it's always like a kind of a tokenistic piecemeal offering at the end of a gun, just like, you know, the welfare state after the Second World War, the end of slavery, when it becomes clear that there will be an emergent model that will replace it, that amounts to the same kind of penury that slavery imposed on people.
00:58:52.000And of course, there's more slavery now than bloody, you know, ever before.
00:58:58.000Because I don't want to shut you down when you're all so alive with ideas.
00:59:01.000No, I guess ultimately, It's that dislocation that the public feel with the political class.
00:59:09.000And I worry about how further disenfranchised with the political system we can get to be able to, I don't know, create some of these ideas that you're talking about.
00:59:22.000I mean, one of the things, again, these seem small, but with the instance of money in politics, you know, one of the things we talk about a lot is Members of Congress owning stocks and shares in the companies that they regulate.
00:59:35.000Now, there were members of the Democrat Party, maybe a couple of Republicans, maybe not, who have proposed legislation that would ban that.
00:59:45.000But it keeps on, every time it's proposed, it gets shut down.
00:59:48.000It gets shut down every single time they find a way of saying it for a bit, and then it gets shut down.
00:59:53.000Every time that happens, not that I'm saying you've got to find a solution to that, but every time that happens and you build up some hope that there could be some change effective and then it doesn't, people get more and more disenfranchised with the possibility of change within the system.
01:00:08.000And I guess that's the thing, isn't it?
01:00:10.000How do you sustain this system and keep people hopeful, like you're saying that you are, that things can change when they're continually When it's continually demonstrated that these things that I think people do care about that a lot I think people do recognize as you've stated how important getting money out of politics is but when they see examples of that just continually being Flattened those ideas like how how are people meant to retain hope in that system?
01:00:37.000Yeah, I think it's a really good difficult question I mean, I don't yeah, I don't think I have a good answer except that I think I The only way to bring about change is to get more involved in politics.
01:00:49.000And maybe that can be an empowering thing in its own right to actually get involved can give people a sense of agency.
01:00:56.000But in the end, you know, politicians are not going to change these things until it's what's being demanded from from voters and from citizens.
01:01:05.000I also think it is important to remember that, you know, that Different parties are not all the same in this respect, you know, is the Democratic Party have repeatedly introduced legislation to try to control money in politics.
01:01:17.000And that's been consistently opposed by the Republicans.
01:01:19.000So I think on this issue, you know, it's not it's not one where the blame falls equally.
01:01:25.000Let's get them things up about the sort of donation expenditure and lobbying the stats that we had earlier.
01:01:31.000Like some people say, a lot of love for you in here, Daniel.
01:01:34.000Lady Pamela Janine, you could start a donation transparency, make them list anyone over a certain amount, you have to include the packs too, that's from Lady Pamela Janine.
01:01:42.000At least 100 members of Congress own fossil fuel stocks, 59 Republicans, 41 Democrats.
01:01:47.000Of the $263 million the pharmaceutical industry spent lobbying in 2021, it gave 61% to Democrat Piper and 9%.
01:01:53.000Here's some sort of stats about American politics.
01:01:55.000You can put them up on the screen that sort of give you an indication of what we're talking about here.
01:02:00.000I'm pretty firm in my belief that sort of the differences between the parties and glorifying those differences can be part of the problem.
01:02:08.000I feel so certain in the possibility of an independent movement that's transcendent of all of them, both of them, whilst recognising, and this was my point actually, that Adam Curtis, I know for example, agrees with you that we needn't be despairing of politics because he pointed out that when in 2008 Barack Obama passed the Quantity of Ease in Bill, he said, look, that is what politics can do.
01:02:30.000Now, we know that that sort of led to the despair and divisiveness that Bannon cites
01:03:03.000Like, I'm not sort of in a priapic frenzy at the possibility of Keir Starmer becoming the Prime Minister of this country, because I don't think it's meaningfully going to change the lives of the people whose lives are Most in need of change and in part, Daniel, what excites me about the ideas in your books is that it would negate the potential for stasis and entropy and systemic fossilization that's been going on for much too long, hey?
01:03:30.000And that's what I hope the book will help to sort of start a more creative and imaginative conversation about how we could organise our societies.
01:03:38.000Yeah, but I think just what the things you talk about the idea that normal people could be involved in politics is It's so refreshing to even to even consider that I mean, I know you have like local councils and things like that But being involved at a kind of higher level than that.
01:03:53.000It's something that at the moment seems so distant but as you say possible through Changes like this.
01:04:00.000Yeah, it would it would affect things so much.
01:04:02.000Yeah Yeah, my local MP and they you know, they we agree on these things We've debated these things and if that was kind of sustained all the way through government It would you would think that the political chess class would change.
01:04:15.000Yeah Yeah, but I'm also just thinking I think it's important not to disparage political parties too much because in the system that we have those are the most likely vehicle for any of these changes to come about and I think you know I think we should also be trying to point to the examples of where politicians are trying to do good things and encouraging people not to abandon those parties but to get involved in them and change them from the inside because I think
01:04:41.000You know, we have to accept that that's the reality of the political system.
01:04:44.000It's not one where we have random selection or lots of local participation to make those changes happen.
01:04:50.000These political parties are ultimately going to have to advocate for and bring about those kinds of changes.
01:04:55.000And so, yeah, I think that's that, you know, right now, the way that people can get involved in politics is to join the Democratic Party, join the Republican Party and try to change them from the inside.
01:05:06.000Yeah, I mean we were talking about recently how one of the consequences of the emergent communication that's now technologically possible means that you can now have counter narratives and new movements emerge, but in government people tend to become stymied.
01:05:26.000Like in the book they talked about how Obama was stymied by the emergence of the Tea Party, how Trump was shackled in government by oppositional movements that were able to sort of organize.
01:05:44.000And even now, you know, throughout the pandemic, there were ongoing counter narratives.
01:05:49.000For me, the thing that we've discussed before as mates is the necessity for, perhaps, and at least possibility of decentralization.
01:05:59.000And it seems to me that when you're talking about the vouchers, that seems like a fundamental, pivotal change that could be in a manifesto.
01:06:06.000The idea of having local elections in which budgets can be allocated and discussed and distributed Literally according to democratic will right, you know and look at the story today a thousand and eight dollars each of you or at least if you're average and none of us This is average, darling.
01:06:22.000Contributed to the military-industrial complex.
01:06:25.000Is that where you want your money going?
01:06:28.000I feel like, in a sense, we are talking about not necessarily the redistribution of wealth, although, of course, that seems to be a necessity to a degree.
01:06:35.000Let me know in the chat if you agree with that.
01:07:13.000While you remember what I was ranting about, if someone in here asks for a love in action, says, can we have a contest to win a trip to Communi?
01:08:50.000Alright, do you want to say anything else, Dan, to wrap us up?
01:08:52.000Well, I was... But maybe it was less of a wrapping up point.
01:08:55.000I was maybe going to open up a whole new topic, so maybe I'll hold back.
01:08:59.000When you talked about the redistribution of power and the redistribution of wealth it was making me think also about how we need to change the distribution of power within the workplace and I think you know we're sort of so used to the idea that the owners of companies that shareholders will make all of the decisions about how companies are run that we Sort of take it for granted and forget that it's actually that's a choice that we've made.
01:09:22.000We've chosen to concentrate almost all of the decision-making power in the hands of a very small group.
01:09:29.000And we know it's a choice because we don't actually have to look very far to see countries that do things completely differently.
01:09:34.000So lots of European companies, in Germany in particular, have a very different system known as co-management where workers and owners share power on a much more equal basis.
01:09:44.000So in companies with more than 500 workers, The workers get a third of the seats on the company board with companies with more than 2,000 workers they have half of the seats on the board and I think that's the model that we should also be looking to explore.
01:09:59.000I think it's important in its own right just because it gives people a sense of control over you know their working lives which after all is where we spend such a huge proportion of our time.
01:10:09.000I also think it's the only Real way to bring about more meaningful and more dignified work.
01:10:15.000I think you hear a lot of people talking about those kinds of things today.
01:10:18.000But like practical ideas for how we could bring it about are very hard to come by.
01:10:21.000There's a lot of sort of wishful thinking.
01:10:23.000If we could just sort of appeal to the enlightened self-interest of companies, maybe this will just all happen.
01:11:22.000It's about how to change politics, but also how to create a more equal economy, to promote opportunity, change power at work, and ultimately all of these things They kind of are part of a mutually reinforcing whole.
01:11:35.000And I think sometimes what's missing is you get people who have their one, you know, they have their one big policy idea about money and politics, and it's detached from everything else.
01:11:44.000And part of what's exciting about having a thinker like Rawls and having these principles that we talked about at the beginning is that it gives us a way not just to have a kind of incoherent shopping list of separate ideas, but to bring everything together into one more coherent whole.
01:12:00.000Yeah, and that's exactly what we've been trying to do here.