All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 16, 2005 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:30
17 Dealing with Non-Libertarians Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, to continue from where we left off this morning, it is now two minutes before five on a Friday afternoon, and I'm heading home.
So, this issue of differentiating between these three types of people is, I think, quite important.
So, just to reiterate, the people who know that they don't know are going to be open to new information, and I think that's well worth exploring with them.
And the people who Those who don't know that they don't know fall into two categories.
Those who know when you point it out and those who just will never know and take offense at even being questioned.
These are the people with what I would consider an extraordinary amount of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.
To me, they are ripe fodder for some significant criticism and attack.
The emotional content of attacking people for beliefs which are just plain falsehood, it is excruciating to do it.
I mean, I know I'm British and I know that I was raised, you know, that you get along and you're pleasant and you're nice and all that.
However, I, you know, sort of have been handed this lance or this desire and hopefully ability to communicate the ideas of freedom in a way that is compelling for people.
So even though my nature is to be conciliatory and to be pleasant, And to not ruffle feathers.
Unfortunately, the truth demands a lot more from me in regards to that.
So that's why I say that it's perfectly acceptable to lose your temper.
In fact, I think it's required to lose your temper if people are abusive in the pursuit of truth.
Because abuse obviously has absolutely no place.
uh... in the pursuit of truth and you know it's one of the self-defense principles wherein you treat people as well as uh... you can the first time you you interact with them or the for in the first content of your interaction and after that you treat them as they treat you
So, to continue along these lines of how we deal with people, I suggest, of course, dealing with them very pleasantly and then trying to figure out whether they simply are confused or startled or had no idea that such ideas existed and then attempt to penetrate their level of discomfort, is it?
Is it, well, it's just new?
Do they consider it immoral what you're saying?
Are they afraid of the social consequences of believing in something which is not believed in by the general population?
And then trying to figure out what that means to them emotionally.
It is my belief that the passions, the emotions, give us an enormous amount of information about the truth.
People feel depressed because they're not living right.
People feel happy when they are living right.
Deep down, everybody knows that society is doomed in its current state, that it's a cataclysm that is going to happen sooner or later.
We really do need to try and help people to understand the facts of the matter, about the truth.
To help that, the best thing to do is to help them understand their own feelings.
I'm not asking you to psychoanalyze people, because that's a pretty complex topic.
You do need to gauge to some degree or another the degree to which their emotional discomfort is interfering with their rational clarity.
So, for the last set of people, the people who are open and sworn enemies, who you have been chatting reasonably with, and who simply get more and more aggressive, or more and more hostile, I sort of have two suggestions.
I mean, you're not going to change these people's minds, because there is in fact no mind to change.
You're trying to become A basketball coach to somebody who has no legs, right?
I mean, it really is a futile endeavor.
So for me, there are two approaches to this.
The first approach is if you are in public, you simply condemn them in sort of peaceful terms and just say, look, you know, you are comfortable with violence and you are comfortable advocating violence against me.
And so, you know, I simply can't have a conversation with you because I don't, you know, converse with those who threaten the use of force.
Advocate the use of force to threatening would be a step up for these people.
So, you know, just disengage, right?
Now, the second approach, though, is I think kind of important.
And that is, if you are in public with these people, if you are in some sort of social situation, a dinner party and so on, you face a very, very difficult situation.
I think that if you have something to gain from socializing with these people, then it may be worth to simply state it in those terms and say, look, we have to drop the topic because this is neither the time nor the place.
Just so you know, I'm fully aware that you're advocating violence against me and against those who hold my beliefs, and I consider that morally reprehensible, but this is not the forum to discuss it.
If you want to keep those relationships, right?
I mean, if you're at some party with a bunch of jerks, then I see no particular problem.
And in fact, I think it may be a positive thing.
To simply leave the party, right?
To say, you know, this is, you know, I consider this a grave evil, what you are suggesting, you know, this level of violence and power, and therefore I must, you know, I can't stay here and so on, and leave, right?
I mean, you got nothing to gain from these people anyway, you know, if this is their particular beliefs.
So, you know, I'd hightail it out.
So, and why is it important to do this, particularly if you're in a social situation?
Well, if you believe something strongly, then you don't really want the worst of both worlds.
That's sort of what I'm trying to say as I stumble my way through traffic.
You don't want the worst of both worlds.
If you are a libertarian, then you believe in, let's say, to be somewhat friendly.
At best, a minimal state.
I think the only logically defensible argument is no state, but let's just say a minimal state is your preferred mode of behavior.
And the reason that you are a libertarian is because you You don't like violence, right?
You don't like violence, whether it's personal or institutional, and therefore you want to limit the power of the state, which is the power of violence.
So, if you believe that, then you are obviously by far in the minority.
If you also communicate that to people and, you know, bring it up even when it's not comfortable and, you know, not screaming at people but, you know, being firm in your convictions, then you're even more in the minority, right?
Because a lot of libertarians, let's face it, will, you know, go to libertarian conferences and talk to people who agree with them and, you know, won't necessarily take up arms against anybody who's ever really going to fight back.
So, if you really are out there on the front lines trying to convince people of the righteousness of your cause, then you really are in a significant minority.
You know, we've all faced those awkward dinner parties where we bring up our ideas and people just get uncomfortable or hostile or freaked out or, you know, scornful or contemptuous or eye-rolling or, you know, all of these sort of sad little social tricks that people use in order to silence anybody who speaks the truth, right?
I mean, the truth threatens an enormous number of people.
You know, from parents to teachers to politicians and administrators and public sector workers and unionists and, you know, the capitalists who take state welfare or corporate welfare.
It threatens lawyers and accountants.
I mean, just about everybody except maybe you and me and my wife are threatened by truth.
And therefore, you know, you'll... And of course, because it's truth, they can't have any decent arguments against it.
And so they're just gonna give you all these social cues like, oh, yeah, he's kind of crazy.
Oh, yeah, this is his thing.
This is his obsession.
He's just really into this.
I don't know why.
Maybe, you know, he had a bad teacher who, you know, was too authoritarian with him.
So now he just knee-jerk reacts against authority and, you know, he likes to be different and he likes to preach things that aren't, you know, out of the mold.
He likes to portray himself as a rebel and to act all, you know, I'm a freedom lover and, you know, he's like, you know, whatever people say about you.
That has nothing to do with the actual validity of your beliefs.
I mean, that's what people will throw at you because they're enormously threatened by anything that is true.
I mean, this is not even to say things like, you know, Judaism or Christianity or Muslimism or patriotism or, you know, I've got a second cousin who's serving in Iraq.
I mean, all of these people enormously threatened by truth at a very fundamental level.
So you're going to get an enormous amount of negative social conditioning to, you know, shut up, sit down, stop talking about these things, get in line, get back in the box, don't say anything that makes us uncomfortable, don't say anything that makes us think, just shut the hell up and sit down.
And you get a lot of that stuff.
Not, you know, explicitly always and generally it's rather implicit.
You know, ranges from awkward silences to people storming out.
And so, my particular perspective is, well, you know, if you're going to take these beliefs seriously and live with them in the world and attempt to communicate them, then don't go halfway.
Then you get the worst of both worlds.
You neither get the satisfaction of being noble and proud and standing up for truth and not taking any crap, You don't get that satisfaction, but neither do you get the not inconsequential satisfactions of actually getting along with people because you're parroting back everything that they already believe.
If you're a smart and linguistically able fellow, then things await you if you parrot the party line.
You get nice tenures in university.
You get op-ed pieces in your newspaper.
You get a lot of social comfort.
You don't ruffle anybody's feathers.
You can have genial discussions with everyone, even if you disagree with them.
You can say, you know, well, let's agree to disagree.
Everyone has a right to their opinion or, you know, you say potato, I say potato.
I mean, you get all of those social comforts and professional successes and access to, you know, the media and power structures and academia and so on.
And so, you know, if you want to get along with people, then You know, get along with people.
You know, sort of swallow what they say, what is the general socially acceptable thing to say, and just parrot it back.
And then, you know, use it to get ahead and make money and, you know, all that kind of stuff.
I don't think that's the right way to live.
But, you know, I mean, I'm not you.
I'm not going to make that.
I'm not even going to pretend I can make that decision for you.
So, go for it, you know, and more power to you!
I hope that the swimming pools and the tennis courts and the, you know, whatever, make up for the sort of lack of soul that generally happens when people, you know, don't stand up for the right thing and what is true.
Or, if you're going to be a libertarian, then, by God, be a libertarian.
By God, stand up for what is true.
By God, fight the evil that is enveloping the world.
Fight for what is right.
Don't compromise.
Don't take mealy-mouthed ignoring for an answer.
Fight!
Fight.
Get angry.
Be passionate.
Be excited.
Be thrilled.
Take a stand.
That way you may not make a lot of false friends and who wants those people anyway, but you're going to go to sleep proud of what you did during the day, and surely that is worth some social discomfort.
Stand up for what is right, as they sometimes quaintly put it in the army.
Grow a pair.
And, of course, this applies to my female listeners as well.
So, you know, my particular approach to these sorts of issues is don't be solicitous of other people's feelings.
If they want to mix it up, then mix it up.
If they start getting hostile, then get hostile back.
Because if you don't believe in this stuff to the point where you're willing to take a stand, I'd suggest just drop it all together and fit in with everyone else.
To get stuck in this halfway world where you're kind of disagreeing with everyone but You know discontentedly just kind of gazing down at your turkey dinner and wishing that people were different and that they just would listen to you But not fighting with them for real because you don't want to upset them or you want to keep the peace I mean that to me is a nightmare existence.
That is a complete hellhole where you neither get the the satisfaction of an open fight and you know the excitement of real intellectual passion And you also don't get all of the material and socially short-run, happy-feeling successes of getting along with everyone and agreeing with everyone.
So, that's sort of my particular take on it.
If you're going to draw your sword, then draw your sword!
And if you're not going to draw your sword, then don't bother wearing it!
That's sort of my particular approach.
I mean, obviously, everyone has their own perspective.
But for me, the sort of go big or go home sort of makes sense in this realm.
Don't, you know, temerity in the defense of truth and valor and honesty and integrity.
Is actually joining with the enemy, you know, you don't you don't defend truth a little bit, you know If you're gonna defend truth and and stand up for what is it was right then, you know by God do it And don't don't take any half measures And, you know, it's going to cost you.
Of course it's going to cost you.
I mean, if it was easy, everybody would be doing it and the world would be a paradise.
It is going to cost you, right?
Friends are going to roll their eyes.
Friends are going to cut you out.
Friends are going to get, quote, sick and tired of you lecturing and philosophizing.
And, you know, I mean, I can tell you from my own personal experience that when I finally decided, I guess about seven or eight years ago, to really start living these beliefs rather than just reading them, and to really not take any crap from these people who, you know, are pretending that they're right and using ad hominem attacks and so on, then when that began to happen, I mean, my whole life changed.
Everything!
I can't even tell you, in the space of my drive home, how much everything changed in the course of my life.
I broke up with my 7-year-long girlfriend.
I stopped seeing my brother.
I was in business with him for 6 or 7 years.
We ran a company together.
You know, I had to break that relationship off.
I had friends for 20 years that I simply stopped seeing because I stopped backing down when they would say things that were just nonsense.
And I stopped backing down when they insulted me.
And I stopped backing down when they would put down the cause of truth, and when they would be illogical, and when they would insult things that I really value.
I just simply stopped backing down And the incredible thing is that those relationships ended, like, in about 12 minutes.
I mean, you had to be there.
I'll write about it someday in a novel, but, you know, a few people will have the stomach to read this kind of stuff.
Not only did those relationships end in about 12 minutes, but they've never restarted.
Not once since then.
I have kept one friend, one friend, and formerly I had many friends that I'd kept around for a long time who viewed my commitment to libertarianism as, you know, it's kind of like a personal quirk.
We know the guy had a bad childhood and this is obviously how he's doing it.
He grew up in a violent environment so now he mistakes the government for his parents.
Everybody had their own little pet theory as to why I was attracted to the truth.
Nobody even remotely considered the possibility that it might actually be true, what I think and believe.
So they substituted psychoanalytical nonsense for any sort of philosophical or rational examination of propositions.
And so I've kept one friend who is a brilliant guy named John.
And he is not afraid to look at questions.
And he, you know, for a long time he was way further out than I was in terms of examining the truth about society and so on.
And he's the, you know, the one, you know, the...
The one person who has joined me on this journey, and I love him dearly, and I'm very glad he's with me.
And the other, of course, is my wife, my beautiful, beautiful wife, who I can also tell you has gone through exactly the same thing.
Now, it's not something that I imposed upon her.
She is naturally drawn to truth and integrity, partly due to her training, but mostly due to her nature, because Lord knows there's a lot of psychologists who are You know, not exactly drawn to truth, shall we say.
But she's gone through exactly the same thing.
Her friends, her cousins, her family, they simply tossed her out the moment she began to attempt to express her viewpoint.
And she is not, natively, a political type person or an economics type person.
She has some real facility.
Obviously, she's brilliant with psychology and she has a real facility with philosophy.
But her particular approach to truth was not, this is an abstract truth about society, but more, this is my take on the perspective.
I'll give you a minor example, see if it helps explain what this means.
I'm not doing a very good job myself, so I'll give you an example and hope that helps.
So, one day, my wife and I were sitting with her parents, and her mother was talking about this Greek woman who, and of course, you know, this is a whole Greek community, so, right?
Greeks are best, and everybody else should get out of the way and serve us.
And so my mother-in-law was saying, well, so-and-so, this woman, she was married to a guy who was a compulsive gambler.
And now, you know, she dumped him and she remarried another guy, you know, within a year or so.
And she's very happy and everything's going great for her.
Now, you know, it doesn't take a psychological genius to recognize that somebody who gets married and stays married for quite some time to somebody who's got a mental illness like compulsive gambling and a moral illness like compulsive gambling is probably not too healthy themselves.
So all my mother did was, you know, somewhat innocuously said, well Ma, I don't think that's really the case.
You know, my experience has been, based on sort of my profession and my training, my experience has been that, you know, people who have really dysfunctional relationships, like, you know, I'm married to a gambler, unless they do a lot of work on themselves, they just tend to repeat that process.
So it seems unlikely to me that she is now married to some guy and everything's happy and hunky-dory and everything's wonderful.
Boy, oh boy, oh boy!
I mean, my nipples went ping as the air temperature dropped in that room, right?
I mean, it was just unthinkable on so many levels for my mother-in-law to hear my wife, her daughter, say something back to her.
I wasn't hostile or anything, but it contradicted a number of premises, right?
For my mother-in-law.
Like for a lot of people, right?
You know, optimism is considered to be, you know, scrubbing any dark colors in the world until it looks like the inside of a ping-pong ball and you can't see anything, right?
You just turn that whiteness up until you go blind.
And so, you know, to say that there's a little bit more subtlety rather than I believe the best is happening was pretty jarring to my mother-in-law.
Of course, saying that there were problems in the Greek community It was also pretty jarring, right?
But I think this woman's first husband was not Greek, and then she married a Greek, so naturally everything was great.
And saying that, look, the Greek guy she chose is probably as unhealthy as the original guy she was married to, this was also unthinkable.
And even more fundamentally, just her daughter having a different opinion, from her was just, you know, beyond imagination.
So she couldn't, but she couldn't say, you know, don't have an opinion, right?
She couldn't be honest.
My mother-in-law couldn't be honest about what bothered her.
She couldn't say the Greeks are the best because I was sitting in the room.
So I'm not Greek, of course.
And she couldn't say don't have an opinion because that's kind of a stupid thing to say to someone.
And, And she couldn't say, you don't know what you're talking about, because my wife is a very experienced psychologist.
So what did she do?
She just kind of froze up and got hostile and, you know, wouldn't just, oh, let's just drop it and talk about something else.
You know, that kind of stuff.
And, you know, it wasn't like this was it, that's the end of the relationship.
But what happened was, you know, my wife and I talked about this quite a bit afterwards.
And, you know, I sort of pointed out that She and I can give each other opinions that we don't agree with, and it's exciting.
We chat about it.
We love it.
We sit on the couch and talk for six hours straight.
You think you get an earful.
Imagine her life.
Just sort of pointing out that that's by no means the norm of human behavior, that if somebody hears something they don't like, that their immediate reaction has to be to freeze you out and refuse to talk to you.
I mean, that's the actions of a petty and immature and destructive human being.
I didn't quite put it that way the first time that we talked about it, but, you know, I sort of said that you need to explore this.
I suggested, you know, I said, honey, you should explore this and let's try, let's put this in the lab of human relations and say, you know, if you feel like you have a different opinion from your mom or your dad, well, I think you should say it, you know, not in a hostile way, but, you know, just say this is my opinion and see what happens.
And so I think the next time, or the time after that we got together, we were getting together for brunch on Sunday, and my mother-in-law sort of joined us in the lineup, and, you know, bang, bang, bang, three things came out of my mother-in-law's mouth.
The first was, you know, oh, Christina, I can't believe you haven't cut your hair.
What's the matter with you?
It's far too long.
Right?
And then, boom, it's Sunday.
You should wear lipstick on a Sunday.
It shows respect.
And then, boom!
You look cold.
Why are you cold?
Why don't you keep a coat in your car?
I've always told you to do that, and you never do it, and you're always cold, and blah blah blah blah blah, right?
So, you know, I mean, this was, to me, kind of lunatic, you know?
What the hell does it matter to my mother-in-law?
Any of these things about my wife, right?
I mean, this is completely ridiculous to focus your energies on this and to have these boom-boom-boom criticisms coming out of your mouth the moment you see someone.
I mean, it's just kind of silly in my view.
I mean, aren't there more important things to talk about than whether you should be wearing lipstick?
Like, how was your week?
You know, how's your life?
What's new?
What are your thoughts?
What are your feelings?
You know, exchange of information that we, you know, like to call intimacy.
So, you know, my wife gave me a glance and said, Um, you know, I really don't like it when you come up and start criticizing, right?
It doesn't feel nice.
And she's like, Oh, I'm not criticizing you at all.
I'm just making suggestions.
What?
You can't take any constructive suggestions?
You know, so basically there was a little bit more back and forth.
I'm sure you all get the idea.
And we had a pretty, not exactly uncomfortable lunch, but the conversation wasn't flowing too well because basically my wife said, no, I really just feel like a criticism.
Oh, don't be silly, right?
And then, oh, let's not talk about it.
Let's just go in and have a nice meal.
I know that this isn't exactly the bedrock of political science and philosophical debates, but these sorts of things are very, very important.
This is the level of reaction that you get from a lot of people when you simply talk about an emotional preference, let alone the right morality for living.
So, you know, if you're going to take the leap and not live in this half-world, this sort of half-world of shadows where you kind of defend freedom then kind of give way, you know, just be aware that the moment you start expressing anything as simple as, you know, I really feel that my beliefs are treated with disrespect in this conversation.
If you say something like that, You know, something honest, right?
I don't like it when you just roll your eyes when I start talking about things that are important to me.
You know, why is it not okay for me to talk about the things that are important to me in this relationship?
Well, you know, boy oh boy, I tell you, this nonsense, these relationships that you're involved with, they're going to unravel so fast, you know, your head will literally spin.
I can tell you that, you know, within a couple of more meetings, my wife and my parents don't see each other anymore.
So I broke up with my girlfriend.
I had to, because she wasn't listening to anything I was saying, as I sort of found out when I actually persisted in trying to talk about what was important to me.
I no longer see my brother, and I haven't had any regular contact with my brother for probably about six years now.
I don't really see my nieces.
I kind of wanted to and tried to keep that running, my brother's kids, but I found that to be impossible because he just kept sort of turning them against me, so to speak.
I don't see my mother.
That actually occurred before my father, and she's just this crazy, violent, evil woman, so, I mean, that was long overdue.
I don't see my father.
I mean, my father left the family when I was, like, six months old, so, you know, I never really got much of a sense of him as a father anyway.
I mean, he's a persistent mother.
I mean, so to speak, he writes me a letter every week and stuff, which I never read, just because it's full of like crazy loony ramblings about religion and metaphysics, which are all just completely incorrect and irrational.
So, you know, most of my friends save one, you know, my then long term girlfriend, you know, mother, father, brother, business partners, and, you know, extended family for what it was, all vanished, right?
Because I've sort of found that most human relationships are kind of illusory and just based on everybody sharing the same nonsense opinions and not ever bringing anything up that's important and never trying to deal with any conflicts.
So I know that this has been a little bit of a personal conversation and I hope that's all right with you.
But the reason that I brought it up is because in this sort of general question of how do we deal with the outside world, I am as friendly and positive and humorous as possible.
The first time that I talk with someone, And then if they're interested, of course, I will, you know, gently, where appropriate, guide them towards something that is a little bit more true, or at least get them into some questions and let them find their own way, but to point out the contradictions of what they believe.
However, if that person then either continues to mock my beliefs or will not respond to them in any rational manner but will just insult them or roll their eyes or whatever, then it's like, okay, my friend, the gloves are off.
And you want to rumble?
Let's rumble.
Let's go for it.
Let's get the gloves off and let's really have it out.
You know, and the first thing I will do is sort of say something like, look, these are important issues.
Would you agree?
Well, yes.
Well, then why are you rolling your eyes?
What you owe these issues, if you're going to get involved with them, is a reasonable and rational response to the issues that are being raised.
You can choose not to get involved in these issues.
I choose not to sail around the world, so I don't pretend to have any opinions about what it means to be a good sailor.
I'll just listen if it's interesting, but I'm not going to sit there and say, I know, I know, I know.
I say to people, if you are going to get involved in these issues, then well and good.
Let's have a discussion.
But it's a rational discussion.
It's not a discussion based on personalities, and it's not a discussion based on psychoanalyzing people you barely know, i.e.
me.
It's certainly not a discussion on ad hominem attacks, either on the arguments themselves or on me, or saying, oh gee, anybody who believes this must want sick people to die in the streets, or all that kind of crap.
That's got nothing to do with the argument.
The question is a logical proposition.
You can respond to it logically, or you can shut up.
But you can't respond the way that you are, because it's disrespectful to the seriousness of the ideas.
You know, that usually gets some attention from people, and I'm not saying that it always results in a bosom buddy, but what it does do, and you're not playing to that person, you know, you're really playing to the audience at that point, and I mean, don't mean playing in a false way, but you know, if you back down from abhominable arguments, or you continue to hang out with people who mock your beliefs, obviously you're destroying any validity that the people will perceive you having in those beliefs.
You know, if I say I don't believe in violence and then I go hang out with a group of people who are socialists or, you know, enjoy, strongly advocate government programs or, you know, or at least have no responses when I bring these issues up, well what does it mean then to say I oppose violence?
It means I oppose violence but not to the point where I'm going to let it interfere with my drinks and dinner group.
Then, obviously, it's just an affectation.
These beliefs are just nonsense.
In which case, you should withdraw from the field and turn it over to people who are a little tougher or a little more dedicated and enjoy the social fruits of getting along with people.
If you do have the temptation to bring up things that are libertarian topics and so on, But then when people disagree with you, you kind of back down and say, oh, well, you know, I guess there's differences of opinion, or you just get sulky, or you, you know, withdraw, or, you know, you sort of laugh and say, well, I guess it is a pretty extreme viewpoint, blah, blah, blah.
Then, for God's sake, don't bother.
Like, really, don't get involved.
Don't step in the ring, because you discredit the remainder of us who are willing to take it to the mat.
And you also make the ideas look like just a kind of, you know, I like Sabbath, you like, you know, heart.
So, you know, these issues are not matters of preference.
They're not matters of, he said, she said, I like, you like.
You know, they're matters of fundamental moral and rational truth.
So, you know, get involved if you want, but recognize that you're really going to have to go to the wall, because if you get involved and then just keep backing down, you're doing a disservice to the cause, and you are neither getting the satisfactions of a good, clean fight, nor the satisfactions of Getting along with people and sort of all of that stuff that goes with that.
All of the social approval that comes from, you know, agreeing with things that are wrong and immoral.
So, you know, don't bother.
So, you know, I guess the summation of what it is that I'm trying to talk about, and I hope it sort of made some sense.
I mean, this is all pretty hard-won experience.
But what it is that I'm trying to say is, you know, recognize that people don't know these ideas.
They've never heard of them.
They've never heard of anyone who's heard of them.
They've never read about them in the paper.
And so, you know, be gentle, kind, funny, whatever works best for you, but be positive and excited and happy to communicate these ideas.
And, you know, give people room to breathe and room to absorb these ideas because, you know, people like to think for themselves when they're taught how.
And so, you know, ask them what they think and what conclusions they would draw from the premises that you've given them.
And then just sort of say, well, if you would draw those conclusions, what about this?
And, you know, it can be a lot of fun.
It can be enormously enjoyable.
To have that kind of intellectual discussion with someone.
I mean, it really is.
It's the essence of life.
It is the absolute core of what it means to have a pleasurable intellectual and philosophical life.
And it is also really the core of emotional life as well.
The pursuit of truth and integrity.
I mean, this is all right in the meat of the matter.
So, you know, these can be enormously enjoyable.
You can have a riotous time with people, challenging their perceptions and getting them to think.
But, you know, you really have to be aware the moment it turns dark, the moment it turns black, the moment these people turn on you.
And there will be a time when, you know, the fun and games stop because you've tripped over something that is going to make them face something in themselves that they really aren't prepared to face, right?
Something in their social circle, something that they've done to their kids, you know, something that it's just going to get unpleasant.
Not with everyone, and some people sooner than later, but, you know, in general.
It's going to happen.
And at that point, generally, you know, I say, well, obviously, you know, this is not so pleasant for you anymore.
So let's, you know, adjourn or whatever.
But you have to come back to it at some point with the person.
And then if they begin to start getting hostile and critical, then you really can't hold back.
I mean, otherwise it's just been an intellectual parlor game, which has no relevance to anything, and then the next time they hear ideas on liberty, they'll just assume it's just somebody else who doesn't really believe in anything, and just enjoys being a contrarian, and sort of, you know, having ideas that no one else has, and having sort of intellectual Socratic tricks to trip people up that don't really mean anything.
Right?
Because, I mean, people aren't, as I've mentioned in another podcast, people don't have the ability to judge the validity of ideas.
Because they're not taught how to think or how to reason.
The only way that they can judge the ideas is by the conviction of the person who holds them.
So if you're going to hold these ideas and communicate them, you are taking on an enormous responsibility.
Because you are presenting the truth to a population which is going to be threatened by it.
At some level, for sure.
And so, if you're not willing to act with complete conviction in the matter, then don't do it.
Really, don't do it at all.
It's absolutely discreditable to attempt to get on this bandwagon and then to let it fall by the wayside.
It's really a terrible idea.
So, you want to divide the people that you're talking with into these three categories that I mentioned at the beginning.
The people who know that they don't know and who are then open to at least starting down the road of these ideas.
The people who don't know that they don't know, you know, and then those are the people who can either be taught or and then there's the people who are simply hostile and aggressive.
And you want to treat people very well when you first start talking to them and after that You know, you treat them as they treat you.
If they start ad hominem, you don't return with ad hominem, of course, because, you know, you don't fight foolishness with foolishness.
But, you know, if somebody says, you know, you want the poor to die in the streets, this is, you know, you're just a selfish materialistic whatever, right?
You know, my sort of response to that, it's sort of along the lines of, well, First of all, insulting somebody does not prove a case.
In fact, it really indicates that you're in over your head, that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and so all you can do is spit at someone rather than respond in a sensible and rational manner.
And, you know, you have no idea whether I believe that people should or should not die in the streets.
But even if I did believe that people should die in the streets, it's absolutely immaterial to the truth or falsehood of my argument, right?
You don't sort of argue against the theory of relativity by saying that Einstein had a bad hairdo.
Right?
I mean, it's ridiculous.
I mean, it's intellectually amateurish.
And, you know, you really should know better.
I mean, especially if you've been to university, you should give these ideas the respect that they're due.
And I'm certainly not going to sit here and debate with somebody who considers a personal insult to be any kind of response to a rational argument.
And last but not least, in terms of the pot calling the kettle black, you are saying, oh, this guy believes that people should die in the streets, which is an unproven theory.
But I can quite legitimately say, with complete conviction, that you advocate the use of violence to solve social problems.
And you have admitted that yourself because you have no problem with people taking guns to other people's heads and stealing their money in order to fulfill your vision of a social agenda.
So, you know, first of all, don't respond with any ad hominem arguments because it's immature and it's pathetic.
And secondly, if you really want to start slinging some crap around, let's start dealing with the issue that you're perfectly willing to advocate the use of violence to solve social problems.
And that is a perfectly valid reaction to people who are putting out ad hominem arguments.
Generally the relationship does not improve from there.
Generally the conversation doesn't go on much longer.
but at least people have seen somebody who actually stands out
▲
Export Selection