All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2005 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
57:08
34 Moral Responsibility and Social Security

A great criticism of my ideas - and an analysis of social security!

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, good afternoon everybody.
It is just before 1 o'clock in the afternoon on December 31st, 2005.
So we are in the waning hours of 2005 and looking forward to what's coming up.
At least I certainly am, and I hope you are too, what's coming up in 2006, the year I turn 40.
And, you know, that's a good thing because every additional year is an additional scrap of wisdom, which is a wonderful thing to have.
So, I had a real go at somebody who sent me an email yesterday, you know, a sort of testy attack on what it is that they were saying, and I wanted to sort of contrast that with a delightful conversation that I've been having with a very I think intelligent and well-read, well-spoken and a good writer, a gentleman who's been emailing me back and forth.
And I've mentioned his emails once before.
in that he has uh... people in his family who are christians and he's sort of worried about their kids because as you may have gathered from some of my emails i do consider that the instruction the sort of uh... the imposition of christian morality and christian metaphysics on children is destructive to their capacity to think clearly and therefore for the capacity for happiness and moral integrity and and so on and so he's concerned about this and he pointed out i think a very
interesting and accurate contradiction in what it is that I was saying.
So I don't want people to get the impression that if you disagree with me with me I'm gonna blast you in a podcast.
That's really not the case.
I mean I get lots of emails from people who disagree with me and you know some of them are fantastic.
So this gentleman you know nailed me very productively on a point that I had been unclear on and simply because I had not worked it out in my own head and you can't be any more clear with others than you are with yourself.
And so I'll sort of mention what it is, the substance of our discussion, and what my response to it was, and again to thank him for pointing out an unclarity or an inconsistency or an error in my thinking, because that's what I really want, is to strive for accuracy.
So the debate which we've been having is sort of outlined thusly.
A mind that is subject to religious metaphysics as a child, right, so some let's call little Johnny gets sent to Sunday school and is taught that he has to believe in things which he has no experience of and which are completely irrational because otherwise he'll face an enormous amount of social disapproval.
Then, you know, his mind is damaged.
That's sort of my take on it, and that the mental damage is worse than just about any physical damage that can occur.
So his mind is damaged, and my friend's point is to say, and I think it's an excellent point to make, to say that if I say that a child's mind is damaged by religious metaphysics, then is it not also valid to say that as little Johnny grows up his mind is damaged and therefore he's not as morally responsible for inflicting those same metaphysics on his children?
I mean it's an excellent point and to sort of buttress his criticism of my thinking even more the degree to which I say that the mind is damaged by religious instruction is the degree to which One must oppose religious instruction.
In other words, if it's only a tiny little hurt, then it doesn't really matter.
I mean, I don't focus a lot of my energies on helping people to see the evils of telling children about Santa Claus.
Because, you know, the damage that is done by a belief in Santa Claus relative to the damage that is done by a belief in God Yeah, inconsequential.
So if I say that it is a very bad problem and does a lot of damage to the mind of children, then it's a valid thing to take up arms to oppose.
Intellectual arms, of course.
However, if it is not, but if it is very damaging, and I believe it is, if it is very damaging, then does that not also limit the moral responsibility of the adult whose mind has been damaged?
And that's all perfectly valid.
And if it's not that damaging, then the adult is more responsible, but then the problem is less important to oppose.
So, again, thanks to this very astute observer for pointing out this contradiction of moral responsibility.
And the way that I I have resolved this, at least for myself, and certainly I'd be happy to get anybody's feedback on this, is that just because a person goes through something which damages their capacity to think as a child, that in no way is a moral causality for them reproducing that same damage against their own children.
So, to take the example which I sometimes use of foot binding in China in the 19th century, where these little girls' feet were cruelly bent back so that their toes went into their heels and they sort of hobbled around for the rest of their lives.
Well, that is specific damage to a foot.
Or to two feet, actually.
They didn't hobble in little circles.
So, the specific damage to feet, and of course that is objective damage which is going to last their lifetime.
However, Just because a girl had her feet bound when she was very young, it in no way enforces the fact that she must then bind her own children's feet.
Which is a very important distinction.
Just because I was beaten when I was a child, in no way does it morally absolve me from the responsibility to not beat my own children.
You know, like I can't say, Officer, look, I mean, I was beaten, so I had no choice but to beat my child because I am not a moral agent in the matter.
It could be said, and I've certainly made this argument with friends, that if you, say, were beaten as a child, then you actually should be more sensitive to the need to discipline your own children in a gentle manner because you know what it's like to be on the receiving end of physical violence when you're sort of young and helpless.
Similarly, a girl whose foot was bound, a sort of Chinese foot-binding example, she knows exactly how painful it is and therefore she should be absolutely sensitive to the argument that foot-binding is a barbaric practice which should not be inflicted upon people.
I think actually that's one of the reasons why circumcision has lasted so long, because people who experience that experience it as babies and can't remember it, so it's a little easier to inflict it without necessarily empathizing with who you're inflicting it on.
So I think that the two positions can remain firm, which is that it is an enormous amount of damage to children to teach them to believe in irrational things, sort of cripple their capacities to reason and to think clearly, and also
to do this through the mechanism of social pressure and the threat of parental withdrawal, which is equivalent to the threat of death for a child, as I've mentioned before, because it confuses them, it renders their minds unable to think clearly, and also it puts this towering pressure of social humiliation over them, which will dominate them probably for the rest of their lives.
So it is very damaging to teach a child religious metaphysics.
However, It does not excuse the child when he grows up from the moral responsibility that he has to not teach his children the same lessons that he was taught.
And, of course, psychologically, I mean, that's sort of the moral reality of the situation, just because something was inflicted on you does not give you the right to inflict it on others, no matter how grievous the harm was done.
And it could be argued that the more grievous the harm, the less you should, the more morally responsible you are to avoid inflicting it on others, because you have experienced the harm yourself, and therefore you know what it's like to have it inflicted upon you.
Now psychologically though, I mean that's sort of the moral, the logical moral argument.
Psychologically, however, what you need to do when you have had a hurt inflicted upon you very young is to recognize and accept the truth of the fact that it was painful.
Because if you don't do that, of course you're going to re-inflict it on your children.
So it's sort of an argument that I made with a friend of mine who had a difficult childhood.
And he was resisting the idea of going into therapy, although the effects of his bad childhood were showing up pretty much everywhere in his life in pretty objectively measurable terms.
And he, you know, rejected and refused the idea of going into therapy.
I, you know, so I was talking about another friend, about my frustration with, you know, friend A. I was talking about my frustration with friend A's refusal to go into therapy.
And friend B said, well, you know, he had had a very difficult childhood and he's not used to introspection and whatever, right?
And I said, well, but surely he knows that he had a difficult childhood.
I mean, if I went to friend A and said, did you have a wonderful childhood?
He would say no.
And so, to me, it's exactly the same as saying, well, everybody who's a male in my family died of lung cancer because they smoked.
And therefore, I have no opinions about smoking, or I'm not even going to look into that as an issue.
So I'm going to smoke.
Right?
I mean, because you know that you have a family history of susceptibility to lung cancer, smoking is the last thing you should be doing.
And you have more reason not to smoke than anybody else who has no idea about their family history or whose medical history of their family does not contain this tendency.
So, the argument that because you had a bad childhood you have less responsibility for examining it and for dealing with it is entirely false.
In fact, it's quite the opposite.
You know that you had a bad childhood, if you did, and therefore you're fully responsible for dealing with the after-effects.
And the first thing you need to do is to accept the pain of what happened to you.
So that you can develop empathy for those who are helpless and suffering.
And so you will not re-inflict any of that suffering upon your own children.
Anything we justify, psychologically, we reproduce in our lives.
So, if I said, you know, either, oh, I was never beaten, or, you know, well, I was beaten, but it was for my own good, well, how am I really going to resist inflicting that same punishment on my own children?
I've already defined it as something that's good, or something that was beneficial, or, heaven forbid, something that never happened at all.
You know, the argument for morality works in our parenting as surely as it does in our politics.
And so the first thing that you need to do is to accept the fact that a bad thing happened and that it was painful and then of course you can work to resolve the emotional contradictions and issues that resulted from that so that you can have clearer thinking down the road and of course act in a way that does not reproduce pain that was inflicted upon you at some point in the past.
Now, you know, why have I turned into Dr. Phil all of a sudden?
I mean, despite the baldness, I don't think we have a lot in common.
But the reason for that is that the first thing that needs to happen in order for the cycle of abuse to stop is for people to recognize that what their parents did hurt them, was painful, caused problems, and, you know, was morally contradictory and hypocritical or whatever it is, however it is that you want to discuss that aspect of it.
But the first thing you have to do is accept that pain, in fact, occurred and that it was bad and, you know, there was no redeeming factor to it, and to stop excusing those who inflicted that pain upon you.
If you can't do that, you can't change anything in the cycle of the generations.
It just repeats itself like a sort of blind photocopier over and over.
So, of course, that's my goal in talking about the damage.
that religious metaphysics inflict upon children's minds and on their emotional capacities.
I am trying to get people to understand that what happened to them if they had religious instruction was difficult, painful, dangerous, humiliating, you know, that it rendered them susceptible to all sorts of irrational manipulations and social pressures, that it was an unpleasant experience.
And of course, you know, people will, I'm sure, email me and say, oh, I had a wonderful time in Sunday school, and this, that, and the other.
Well, I'm telling you, you didn't.
You absolutely didn't, because you were being lied to.
And I don't think that any child, deep down, feels real great about being lied to.
You were lied to because there is no God, and you were lied to because you were told that there was a God.
Not only was there a God, but there were good reasons to believe in it.
You also had a bad time because your questions would be met with, you know, scorn, contempt, mocking, hostility, but never rationally examined, because they can't be rationally examined.
I mean, all arguments for religions are based on nonsense and foolishness and emotional bullying.
You know, they can cloak it all in this love, but you try and ask them any real questions, you'll see that love evaporate faster than an iced tea in Arizona.
So that's really what my goal is, to get people to recognize that what occurred to them through their religious instruction was painful and horrible.
and destructive.
And through that, once they understand that, or have been exposed to that argument at all, then now that they're fully morally responsible for not inflicting said religious destruction upon their children.
Now, of course, the question might come back, well, what about those who have never been exposed to the idea that religious instruction is painful?
And they genuinely think that it's good.
Well, sorry, no dice.
You know, these people are still completely morally responsible.
Because the literature on atheism is not hard to find.
You know, I've read the Bible, believe it or not.
I mean, when I was 19, after high school, I had, I mean, those who've heard my podcast know, You know, I grew up in a desperately poor family and we weren't that poor.
I sort of lived in England until I was 11 and we weren't that poor in England.
My mother had a job as a secretary, but then she moved us to Canada because she was afraid of socialism just before Margaret Thatcher got in.
Kind of ironic, isn't it?
And then when we came to Canada, she was diagnosed, well not diagnosed, she basically had a mental collapse and ended up being institutionalized and so on.
And so I had no money at all throughout my teenage life.
I had sort of other kids came to live with me because they had bad homes and you know we all worked jobs and we all struggled through.
And so then when I was 18 I wanted to go to university but I had no money so what I did was I took a job as a gold panner and I worked up north and lived in the woods and all that kind of funky stuff.
And while I was up there I read the Bible.
You know, I had time.
I worked up there seven days a week in a little tent, summer and winter.
And, you know, I'd be out sort of claim staking and gold panning and all that kind of stuff during the day.
And then the evenings, you know, I had nothing but time with which to read philosophy and biblical texts and so on.
So I've read the Bible.
And why have I read the Bible?
Because I'm not going to start criticizing something without having a clue what it's all about.
And so to expose myself to ideas which oppose the truth, which oppose what is rational, I mean, I'm perfectly comfortable in doing that.
I mean, I can argue the religious position until I'm blue in the face.
I've actually done role plays a number of times when my wife was, when we were first married.
She believed in a higher power.
Sadly, it wasn't me.
So, of course, I had to get rid of that.
And, you know, we role-played, right?
So, you know, she wanted to know if I understood the religious position.
So I said, okay, well, you pretend that you're me, and I'll pretend that I'm a priest, and let's argue it this way.
So I'm, you know, perfectly conversant with all of the religious theories.
Well, not all of them, but most of the religious theories and most of the major religious premises and theological positions.
And, you know, I know the Bible Somewhat well.
I mean, it's been a while since I read it cover to cover, but I'm not ignorant of the Bible.
And so, I'm fully conversant with the opposite position, and that's why I'm sort of responsible for... I take responsibility in the matter of knowing the opposing position if I'm going to claim that something is true.
And, you know, most people will... If you ask them, you know, can you just blindly state that something is true without understanding the arguments against it, they'd probably say, well, no.
And so all Christians have complete access to non-Christian positions.
I mean, they know that, you know, Islam and Judaism and Buddhism and Taoism and Zoroastrianism and all this sort of stuff exists.
They also know that communism, which is atheistic, exists.
They also know that atheism Exists even if you just take atheism as its root thing, which is against God or against a deity or against theism You can take that as a position and those texts again with the rise of the internet Those texts are available for any Christian with access to a library of the internet within about 20 seconds So, you know the as I've mentioned before if they were some peasant in France In the 12th century.
Well, of course they have they don't even know how to read They're certainly not taught how to read, and they certainly can't read the ancient languages that the Bible was only available in there, like prior to Luther translating it into the vernacular.
So those people, yeah, I'm absolutely, completely morally forgiven for not understanding the arguments against.
However, you know, in the modern world, guess what?
This information is available to you with virtually no effort, so you are absolutely and completely morally responsible for failing to look at the opposing position.
So, even if people have never taken the time to look at opposing positions, they're still completely morally responsible for that, because they're just so easy to get a hold of.
So that's sort of an example of what I found to be a very positive and productive conversation with someone who pointed out, who had genuinely analyzed what it is I was talking about and pointed out a contradiction, which I've sort of spent some time resolving and I appreciate that.
You know, as I sort of mentioned in my podcast from yesterday, what I don't appreciate is being lectured about the obvious from people who haven't taken the time to analyze my arguments.
I found this particularly annoying with the argument for morality because I even laid it out in a syllogistic form, which You know, the person who wrote me hadn't even bothered to review or point out where I had contradicted myself.
So, there's two other things that I wanted to talk about today.
The second is that I have received a number of emails from people who are heavily critical of my position that, you know, yes, everybody has a theoretical right to self-defense, but what does it really matter because it never seems to work anyway?
And, you know, people are sort of saying to me, you know, you can't be a pacifist.
You know, someone said, read this science fiction book about, you know, a group of people who don't believe in evil and what happens to them.
And, you know, you have to defend yourself and there are bad people and there's violence and so on.
Again, it's, you know, I would sort of caution people, you know, just for their own, for the sake of their own intellectual integrity, like if you're out there and you feel this to be the case, I certainly don't mind if you write in.
I mean, of course I'm putting these ideas out in the public domain.
I invite and encourage You know, a debate with people.
I want to know that I'm right.
You know, being right is very hard and it takes a lot of intellectual rigor and it's incredibly beneficial.
I mean, I couldn't be a happier person, I think, if I burst into flame with joy.
And so I want to retain that and I want to make sure that what I'm putting in the public domain is responsible and is logical and is accurate because I can't say That universal morality is the most powerful thing in human consciousness and defines the fates of societies and, you know, deploys, you know, tens of thousands of weapons in the armies and the police.
I can't say that it's this incredible, radioactive, dangerous, powerful substance and then sort of casually throw out things that turn out to be false.
So please, by all means, come in and let me know where I've made a mistake, as my good friend did, who sent me in an email.
And as other people have done as well.
But I will caution you that you really need to understand what it is that I'm saying.
Before you criticize me, don't sort of read the first, you know, couple of lines of something and say, ah, he's a pacifist.
He doesn't believe in self-defense.
He doesn't believe in evil.
He just wants to roll over and let the tanks roll over him and so on.
And, you know, then fire me off a sort of quick and heated email.
I certainly don't mind if you do.
I mean, you're free to do whatever you want, but you're not going to have any luck changing my mind unless you read all the way through.
and argue with my premises.
And I certainly understand that that temptation.
I once returned an email in the same manner to someone who wrote me in, who then quite rightly chastised me for not reading to the end.
So, I mean, it's a habit that we all have, but, you know, fight it, I guess is what you're saying, is what I'm saying.
But the people who've taken issue with my stand on self-defense, first of all, I do believe in evil.
You know, the same way that I believe that I'm standing in my house just now, because it is a fact.
You know, I mean, murder is evil.
And, you know, theft is evil.
Rape is evil.
Assault is evil.
I also believe that the dissemination of incorrect universal moral absolutes is evil.
If somebody claims to put out a moral absolute into the social sphere and It advocates the use of violence, or justifies the use of violence against the innocent.
People are morally responsible for what they put out into the social sphere.
Does that mean that I think that they should be put in jail?
Of course not, because that would imply the existence of a state, and I don't believe that any such thing as a state is morally justifiable.
It's just a gang of thugs who are, you know, using false morality to steal from people.
It's got nothing to do with what is universally moral and true.
So I have no problem calling those who put Evil ideas, or ideas which advocate the use of evil out into the social atmosphere, I've no problem calling them polluters and corrupt and bad people.
This is especially true, of course, when the evidence comes in and, you know, the ideas that they put out are proven to be false.
I mean, I think it was a gentleman named Durante in the 1930s or 40s who was a New York Times reporter who actively and knowingly covered up Stalin's famines, right?
I mean, when Stalin collectivized the farms and, you know, 10 million people starved to death.
He actively obscured this.
You know, he was the guy who came up with the quote, you know, I have seen the future and it works.
And, you know, privately he knew that these famines were going on.
In fact, he accurately, in private letters to his friends, he accurately estimated the number of people who were dying.
But he still covered it up in public, which gave people a lot of hesitation and uncertainty when they read in the New York Times that this famine was a myth, that it was propagandistic, that it wasn't happening.
You know, I consider that man to be completely evil.
To use your sort of public talents for the obscuring of evil, which of course results in the continued death of millions, I do believe that that is evil.
To me, it's even worse than a doctor who knowingly misdiagnoses and mistreats a patient, which results in that patient's death.
We have no problem viewing that as an evil action.
And if you also put ideas out which result in the deaths of millions of people, say, if you're still a communist or a socialist, then I have no problem labeling you as evil because the evidence is in and you are actively supporting ideas which directly result in the deaths of millions of people.
So I can't say that, you know, moral absolutes are the most powerful tool in the human arsenal and then have no problem with people who, you know, knowingly proclaim false moral ideals.
Like it or not, that's sort of where I stand.
So I do believe in evil, and I believe that evil is very powerful, and evil's power is entirely dependent upon people's belief in false morality.
Evil has very little power if it cannot hijack universal moral principles and present the evil as the good.
That's entirely how evil gets its power.
Or, my argument simply is that The argument from self-defense muddies the waters.
I mean, yes, of course, life is a value, and violence is bad, so it's okay to use violence to oppose violence.
I mean, yes, of course, I absolutely understand that, and I admit as much in my podcasts.
I find that it really muddies the waters to simply say violence is bad except in self-defense.
And to always have to throw that caveat in is to me a complete waste of time because it's such a tiny issue that it completely pales next to the real reality of state violence and state power.
I really don't have anything to fear from my local thugs.
I can move, I can carry a gun.
But the state I have no defense against except these podcasts.
So, and you know, they haven't so far brought my taxes down much.
So I would say that the argument from self-defense, I just don't care enough about it.
I think it's a red herring.
Yes, I agree with it in principle, but I mean, I really don't care about it, and I think it muddies the waters.
And it also, you know, makes sort of a thin edge of the wedge for the state to come back in, right?
Because you say, well, everybody has the right to self-defense.
There's some little old lady who doesn't know how to defend herself, therefore you need to have a social agency which defends her on her behalf, and that's going to be called the police, and you know, lo and behold, you have the state coming back again.
to solve a teeny tiny problem.
And I just don't consider it to be important enough to really spend any time on.
And perhaps I just got tired of typing, except for self-defense every other sentence.
So that's sort of my clarification on that.
So, if you want to write to me and tell me that evil exists when I've spent most of my time on the web and through these podcasts arguing against evil, then you might want to reconsider how much time you want to spend instructing me on something that I'm already advocating.
Now, the argument for morality, as I mentioned in my podcast yesterday, well, more than mentioned probably, is It's confusing to a lot of people and I can certainly understand why.
It wasn't like it just sort of popped out of me fully formed and it still baffles me from time to time.
So I want to just spend a minute or two clarifying it before applying it to another field of social endeavor.
I've done health care and I did welfare in my podcast yesterday.
I'd like to do something like social security today.
So, you know, this is sort of the one-minute argument for morality overview.
And it's just sort of three basic questions.
Two basic questions.
The first basic question is, you know, or statement is, either preferential behavior exists or it does not.
And this is not objective or subjective or anything.
It's just, do human beings prefer to do one thing over another?
And, you know, I've got lots of arguments on Lew Rockwell and on my blog about why that is the case, obviously.
And so, you know, if you have issue with that, have a look at those.
And, you know, if you've sort of fully absorbed those and have found a flaw, please let me know and I'll correct it.
So, either preferred behavior exists or it does not.
That's the first statement.
The second statement, if preferred behavior does exist, Then any rules claiming universality must be common to all people at all times.
Pretty simple statement.
If you say that preferred behavior exists, but it's all completely subjective, then fine.
You're not going to talk about morality.
So I don't really care.
I mean, you have a bunch of opinions, but you're not really... I mean, I may disagree with your position.
In fact, I do.
But I really don't care about your position because you're never going to talk about morality.
Because, I mean, except to oppose the existence of morality, You're going to say that, you know, there's no such thing as morality.
I'm going to take issue with that, but, you know, that's very easy to take issue with, right?
I mean, if you say there's no such thing as preferred behavior, but if your preferred behavior is to believe in universal morality, then all people who believe that are false, then you've just created universal morality, which is, you should not believe in universal morality, and, you know, you need to sort of go back and rethink your position before entering the arena of truth again.
So, if, on the other hand, you do say that there is such a thing as universal morality, Then all you have to do is make any moral propositions that you come up with actually universal.
That's all that's really required.
And if they're not universal, then you need to stop talking about them, apologize to those you've misled, and figure it out again.
So that's the entire argument for morality.
Either preferential behavior exists or it does not.
If it does exist, then if you want to claim universality for those preferred behaviors, i.e.
morality, then you have to prove that your moral theory doesn't contradict itself, doesn't force one people to do one thing and another person to do another thing.
It doesn't contradict its own nature and is as valid in tomorrow as it was yesterday and in this location and that location.
We just have to make it a scientific theory.
That's all.
And it also has to, by the way, explain the facts of reality like, you know, communism gets people killed and capitalism makes them rich.
That's it.
That's the entire argument for morality.
Gee, looking at it like that, it seems kind of simple.
I can't believe it took me 20 years.
So let's take a look at how this works in practice.
This is sort of my third run at it, and I'll make it briefer than my previous two, because I'm sure you're getting the hang of it.
Let's have a look at Social Security.
Social Security, of course, is a pretty simple social mechanism.
old age pensions, but we'll just say social security.
It's a pretty simple social mechanism, right?
All it means is that when you earn money, other people have the right to, you know, person A is earning an income, and person B has the right to take that income from person A, right?
And then when person A turns 65, then person B must give that person A some money back for the rest of their life.
I mean, that's really all it comes down to.
Now, if you're For that to be a universal moral right, so we say the universal moral right is that it's twofold.
You know that person B can take from person A portions of their paycheck and then person B must then return to person A that money or some portion of that money for them as an old age pension.
So, the universal moral argument could be something like, everybody who's 65, from the age of 65 until they die, is entitled to a certain amount of money every month.
Well, that's fine.
So, you know, generally, if somebody tells me this, I'll have my standard opening, which is to say, well, is that an opinion?
Like, you think it would be nice if everybody who was old had money?
Or is it a fact?
Everybody who's old does have the right to money, and other people have the right to take from them that money while they're working.
uh... to pay for whatever some social security was to get older and they would say yes let's just say because if they say no it's just my opinion that it's like you know I like uh... I like strudels and you know that they have the same sort of moral import but let's say that they say that social security is a moral program and this is the moral general moral rule I mean the argument for morality is you know pretty simple right so you say okay
What is the difference between person A who's making the money and person B who's taking that money from them by force in order to supposedly reinvest it for their retirement?
One would say, well, there is no quantitative moral difference between a man who is earning a living and another man who has now the right to take from that person money supposedly for their retirement.
So if somebody can prove to me that these are different kind of species, then of course it's possible that they're going to have different moral rules.
But of course they're not, right?
A man is a man is a man.
And if you say that there's a universal moral absolute for one, then it also has to be the case for the other.
And if it's not, then it's not a universal moral absolute.
It's just an opinion.
I think it would be nice if, right?
You have no right to enforce it using the government or using force or anything like that.
So, you know, if somebody can prove to you the sort of two things that they need to prove to you in terms of moral differentiation, the first being that, you know, person A, the worker, is somehow morally different from person B, the bureaucrat, who can take his money, then, well and good, you've sort of got some step of the way.
I mean, it's one percent of the way to proving the argument for the universal moral validity of Social Security.
And the second is that you need to prove that You know, at the age of 64 and 364 days, a person has no moral right to social security, to this money.
And then the next day, between midnight and 12 or 1, or 11.59 and midnight, their entire moral nature has changed.
So that now, person B no longer has the right to take money from them, but instead must give them money that they're taking from other people.
So what changes in somebody's biological nature, in their essence, in the nature of them as a human being from the age of 64 to 65 that now gives them completely opposite moral rights?
Right?
So in physics, this would be equivalent to saying, you know, rain falls down, rain falls down, rain falls down.
Oh, it's midnight now.
Now rain is falling up!
That's what my theory says, right?
12.01, bing!
All the rain reverses itself and starts shooting skyward.
I mean, that's the exact...
It's the exact equivalent of the moral argument that at 64.999 you must pay for this and then at 65, bing, you know, suddenly you are owed all this money and no longer have to pay for it.
So if somebody can prove how that occurs from a biological or physical standpoint, how somebody's nature changes to that degree, where you now can apply opposing moral rules to them, well and good, right?
But of course the fact of the matter is they can't.
I mean, there's almost no quantitative biological difference between, you know, the day before your 65th birthday and the day of your 65th birthday.
You're still, you know, pretty much the same person, and to have opposing moral rules is simply illogical.
So that would be the second thing that they would have to prove.
Now the third thing that they would have to prove or justify is that, you know, even if we accepted all of that as a premise, right?
Let's just say we toss out the fact that they can't prove any qualitative biological difference between somebody who's 64 and somebody who's 65.
Or somebody who has to pay into a system like a worker and somebody who is forcing them to pay into it like a bureaucrat.
Let's say that we accept that that moral magic can be proven.
Then, you know, there's still no such thing as the state involved in this at all, right?
Basically all we're saying is that if person B has the right to take money from person A for the sake of social security.
You know, this could apply to any government program.
Then why?
Then you're saying that people have the right to take money from others for the sake of the retirement of others, right?
Well, there's no reason why only person B should be able to do this.
I mean, if when I turn 65, I now have the right to the money of people who are younger than me who are still working, Then there's absolutely no reason for a government agency whatsoever.
So, you know, what I say to people who say, the old people have a right to social security, is I say, well, if you believe that that's a universal moral right, then, you know, give me your address and I will send a busload of mossbacks over to you so that you can give them their money.
Right?
They have the right to this money.
It's a debt that you owe them.
So every month I'm going to send them by and you're going to pay them their money.
And then they can, you know, go get it from other people or whatever.
Because it's a universal moral right that you're claiming.
That everyone 65 and over has the right to the income.
of those who are younger are still working.
So, there's absolutely no reason for a state agency of any kind.
In fact, that would be ridiculous, because you're introducing even more moral complexities into the issue.
So, give me your address, I'll send the old people over and, you know, you'll give them money and food and put them up and, you know, because you believe it's a universal moral right.
And by the way, I also am nominating myself as person B, so I want you to give me, you know, what is it, 15% of your pay, if you count the 7.5% you pay yourself and the 7.5% your employer pays.
I want you to give me 15% of your pay, and don't worry, I will take care of the old people.
Um, when they get old, so just, you know, you just send me that check every month because I'm going to nominate myself as person B, right?
The person who can take money from you.
So if people don't feel comfortable, you know, with bus loads of old people coming to live at their house and, you know, lounge around with their feet up, Then it's not a universal moral principle, right?
If it's a universal moral principle, then these old people have the right to the resources.
There's no question about bringing the state into it.
It doesn't matter at all.
It's a universal moral principle.
It's absolute for everyone.
And also, they have no right to object to sending me the 15% that they're currently sending to the state, and me saying, don't worry, I'll take care of the old people when they get older.
Now, they may say, well, You know, how do I know that you're going to take care of the old people when they get older?
You could just be spending that money.
I mean, there's no reason why I would send it to you if I believe that the old people should be taken care of, because you might not do it.
You know, to which I respond, what the hell makes you think the state's going to do it?
I mean, that's the part that amazes me.
I mean, people get absolutely shocked when I say, you know, I would, you know, you send me the money and I'll take care of the old people.
Because they say, well, how do I know you will?
How do I know you're not just going to spend the money and, you know, stiff the old people when they get older?
Well, have you not read the paper lately?
I mean, it's completely ridiculous.
The state is not going to do that in any way, shape, or form, and it's going to be probably no more than 10 to 20 years before the whole system collapses.
You know, and old people are no longer left with the savings that they might have had with 15% of their income.
Because you can create a great retirement with like 5% of your income.
I mean, giving it to the state and expecting it to come back is just ridiculous.
I mean, they actually have far more chance of me doing it than of the state doing it because I can't buy votes and get myself in power and so on.
I'm just going to have a bunch of money.
I'm probably not going to be able to spend it all.
Or at least I'm not able to create debts that the next generation has to pay.
So they have far more chance handing their money to a random stranger than they do giving it to the state.
So that argument doesn't work against it at all.
So, you know, the argument for social security is, it's very easy to counter, right?
I mean, if somebody claims it's a universal moral absolute, then, you know, just point out the, you know, the foolishness of creating these arbitrary moral distinctions.
And then also, you know, that you still have no requirement for a state.
If it's a universal moral right, then, you know, people don't need the state to include it.
I mean, you may prefer it, but that's no longer a universal moral right.
Then you also overcomplicate things then considerably.
You know, we all have the right to self-defense, as I've mentioned before, and therefore I can do it without the state.
I may prefer for the state to do it, but the state's right to do it derives from my right to do it.
And therefore, you know, old people have the right to come to your house and take your money.
They can use force, and you don't need the state.
So there's no way, even if you accept all of the arguments, that you end up with a government role to do it, and so on.
And then, if you want, you can just sort of put the nail in the coffin by just sort of pointing out the basic facts about something like Social Security, right?
That somebody who's retired now is getting $70,000 more On average, out of social security, then they paid in their whole life.
You know, so people who say, I have a right to it because I paid into it, it's like, well, all right, let's figure out how much you paid in, and let's give you back exactly what you paid in, which I wouldn't consider just, but, you know, let's just say that that's an approach.
Then, you know, here's your money, and good luck to you.
Oh, and by the way, you also have to pay for the money that other people have paid in that they're never going to get back, because all the money was spent on your services when you were younger, right?
I mean, I think it was up until the 80s or 90s when you got $3, or $1.50 out, or $1.75 out of government services for every buck you put in, the difference just being shifted to the next generation.
Somebody who's my age You know, I'm going to get over $300,000 less out of old-age pensions than I'm putting in.
So, you know, the idea that it's somehow, you know, you give money to the government and you get it back later is ridiculous.
The money to do with Social Security has all been pillaged.
And there's nothing left there but an IOU note, which can also be sort of thought of as a single raised finger.
You know, thanks for the money.
We're all dead now.
Good luck collecting.
So the argument from social security is pretty easy to counter by using the argument for morality.
And the last thing I'd like to talk about is why do I even focus on this argument for morality?
I mean, it's pretty abstract, right?
I mean, people are going to say, well, that's all well and good, but people need old age pensions and so on.
And of course, even that is an argument for morality, right?
Anything which is a universal should is an argument for morality.
So, if your universal should is, forget about the argument from morality, let's just deal with pragmatism, then you're saying that the argument from effect is the universal morality, right?
The effect of cutting social security would be old people dying in the streets and that's bad and whatever, right?
Then you're just saying that you've just shifted your morality from some sort of abstract thing to I don't like the consequences of a particular moral choice and therefore we should never make it.
So you just you made another universal absolute.
You haven't gotten rid of the argument for morality.
You've just changed it to an argument from an effect or an argument from pragmatism or whatever you want to call it.
But it's not a universe.
You've just created another universal principle.
So why do I focus so much on the argument for morality?
You know, it's pretty abstract and all that.
And, I mean, the way that I answer that question is sort of twofold.
The first is that, you know, we suck as a movement.
You know, I guess it gets sort of delicately put before.
You know, as a movement, we're a dismal failure.
And the one thing that we haven't consistently used is the argument for morality because it's so socially explosive.
You know, I've had people write to me and say, well, you know, I've really thought about your argument from morality as far as religion goes, and the abuse on children of teaching them religious principles, and I'm fairly disturbed because there are people in my family who do that, and what should I do, and so on.
Look, I mean, brothers and sisters, I sympathize.
I truly, truly sympathize.
It is a terrible, terrible position to be put in, to have to use the argument for morality against family members.
And that's why we've lost.
Right?
Because the stakes are so high that we withdraw from the argument for morality and the natural consequences of the argument for morality, which is that you have to call people evil, and these may be people in your life.
I mean, if somebody advocates the use of violence against you, fully supports it morally, isn't that pretty corrupt?
I mean, isn't that sort of a bad thing?
Otherwise, we'd say that blacks should have no problems with the Ku Klux Klan unless they're actually being lynched by them directly.
And since people are advocating the use of violence against libertarians, you really do have to bring the argument for morality in.
And as one of my listeners has pointed out, you kind of have to call family members corrupt if they continue.
Well, yes.
Yes, and that is absolutely a horrible position to be in.
And you can do it, or you don't.
I mean, you don't have to do it.
Morality is all about freedom, and you can live a life of integrity, and you can live an honorable life without fighting with everyone you know about morality.
But if you want to take on this fight for freedom, you have to use the argument for morality.
There are terrible social consequences to that.
That's a price I'm willing to pay, because I want to do good in the world, and I want to leave the world a much better place than I found it.
And, you know, when I have kids, I want them to grow up with at least the same amount of freedoms that I did, if not more.
And that's certainly not going to happen, unless I'm willing to take on the argument from morality, because nothing else works.
You know, going back and talking about the argument from efficiency doesn't work.
Because people don't care about efficiency.
You know, it's not efficient to have children, it's not efficient to go to war.
People still do it, because they consider it to be the good.
So, you know, you don't have to take up this sword, but then don't bother fighting, because nothing else is going to work.
So, the question... the second sort of point to the argument for morality is not just that it's the only thing that's going to work, but also, if you take out... if I ask you this sort of question directly, If you eliminate the criminals who are created by the state.
You know, like the drug dealers and, you know, the people who are subsidized as criminals because they're on welfare.
You know, the people who've been raised in gangs because their mothers have gotten welfare so they've had no parental influence on the father's side and, you know, so they have to define their masculinity through like stupid macho rituals.
You know, whatever it is you want to come up with.
If you take out the criminals who are actively created and fostered by the state, Which, you know, in my view is a pretty significant percentage.
But let's just say it's only like 50%.
Half the criminals in our existing world are created and fostered by the state.
I think it's higher, but let's just take 50%, because, I mean, it's somewhat of a subjective decision.
So, are you more afraid of 50% of the criminals in the world, or are you more afraid of your government?
And if you answer the government, I agree with you.
I mean, that's a perfectly logical response.
Half of my income is not taken from me by criminals, right?
I mean, okay, they are.
They just happen to be in a blue suit and, you know, with donut glazing on their upper lip.
So, I mean, criminals do me almost no harm.
I mean, no harm whatsoever.
And, of course, I can defend myself against criminals.
I can put a gun in my house.
I can move.
I can, you know, I can do whatever to eliminate or to reduce the danger that I have.
I can put an alarm system in.
I can hire a security guard.
I mean, I can put video cameras in.
I can, you know, I can, if I'm a store owner, I can mock my goods with that dye that comes off in your hands.
If you don't, you know, I can put the alarm systems in with the magnetic strips.
There's lots of things that I can do to protect myself against criminals and to minimize their effect on me uh... there's nothing that i can do to minimize the effect of state violence upon me you know the regulations that i have to pay the property taxes that i have the regulations i have to obey the property taxes i have to pay to pay
The payroll taxes, the goods and services taxes, the risks, if I were to choose, of going off the grid and working only for cash, the insurance that I have to buy for my car, the money that I have to pay in every stage and form of the economic transactions from sort of birth to grave.
I have absolutely no power to reduce or control those.
I can choose to disobey the government, but all that does is increase the amount of power the government has over me.
And since minimizing the amount of violence I'm subjected to is my goal, disobeying the law and getting thrown in jail isn't going to do that.
Right?
So, you know, without a doubt, half the criminal population poses much less threat to me.
I mean, it's infinitesimally less threat to me than, you know, governments, foreign or domestic, you know, the military, the police, the law courts, the prison guards, all of these You know, crazy institutions populated by a bunch of, in my view, people who have significant problems with understanding morality or, you know, just out-and-out sadists.
So the government is much more dangerous than criminals.
And how is the government justified?
How does the government justify its power?
You know, one word.
Two words.
Universal morality.
The government justifies every single one of its predations based on universal morality.
As I said earlier, evil has very little power in the absence of its capacity to hijack the definition of the good and warp and corrupt everybody's moral sensibilities.
Human beings are drawn to obey the good.
It is just natural within our nature's For reasons that I'm not going to get into right now, but maybe an interesting subject for a podcast.
Once you get someone to define something as the good, they are yours for life.
That is an absolute fact.
It doesn't mean that it's absolute for everyone, because, as I've mentioned, theories about human beings need biological accuracy, not the accuracy of blind physics.
But it certainly is true that human beings cannot resist what they define as the good.
They might fight it, they might grumble about it, but they cannot resist it fundamentally because they've defined it as the good.
And human beings are drawn to obey the good like matter is drawn to a gravity well.
And our enemies know this much better than we do, which is why I keep hammering the point.
I hope not to the point of, you know, complete redundancy.
But our enemies understand this, which is why they get children when they're young and pound the good into their head like nails into a plank.
Because then they're, you know, they own them for life.
It's why the first thing the government did, get control of the educational system.
That's why the first thing that religious people do is get control of the children.
Because they understand.
You get someone to believe that something is good and you own them body and soul for the rest of their lives.
So, all the government power, all the government programs is justified.
Nobody looks at something and says, it's evil and I support it.
They look at it and say, I must support it because it is good.
And I may not support it in my heart of hearts, but I'm not going to do a thing about it, and I'm not going to raise my voice against it, because I believe, or everybody believes, and I'm afraid to stand up to everyone, that it is the good.
I mean, just look at the invasion of Iraq.
I mean, you go through these mutating series of justifications, all of which are moral in nature.
Right, so Saddam Hussein has to be destroyed because he is threatening the U.S.
You know, he's got all these weapons of mass destruction, he's got these missiles which can magically fly over the Atlantic and land in the eastern seaboard and, you know, we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud and all this kind of crap.
So, you know, scare the pants off people and, you know, claim the right of self-defense and the right to protect your family.
That's all moral justifications.
And then, you know, well, there isn't any weapons of mass destruction, and so, you know, we went in there to liberate the Iraqi people, because, you know, freedom is good, and we have freedom, and we've been blessed with freedom, and we need to share it with the world.
All of it an argument for morality.
I mean, if you peel off any justification for violence underneath it, always is the same thing.
It's the argument for morality.
And, you know, then if you don't like the fact that we're liberating the Iraq people, hey, no problem, let's pull out another one.
Let's just say, well, Saddam Hussein might have been in league with Al-Qaeda who attacked, you know, the U.S.
and, you know, or, hey, you don't like that one?
No problem.
Democracy is the good and we need to bring democracy to the Middle East so that we can bring peace to that region because it's been warring for thousands of years and blah, blah, blah.
So we're minimizing violence.
Hey, no problem.
You don't like that one?
Let's pick another one.
All of the arguments around something as morally repulsive as the invasion of another country, which had done nothing to harm you or even threaten you, they're all based on the arguments for morality.
You look at something like the welfare state, argument for morality.
You look at something like universal health care, argument for morality.
Everything that we face that is violent and imposed upon us is entirely founded on the argument for morality.
and you know you might say well this is what people really believe and blah blah blah doesn't matter absolutely doesn't matter who there's absolutely no relevance to something someone's intention has no relevance whatsoever in a moral justification or in an examination of their moral beliefs uh... it really doesn't matter why somebody is mugging you the fact that they are mugging you is what's important you know science can only deal with and rationality can only deal with Empirical cause and effect.
Empirical effects.
Logic, rationality, and so on.
And you can't logically determine or objectively measure somebody's intention, right?
Then it just becomes a he said, she said, right?
I say I was mugging you because I believe that the poor need your money and I was going to give it to the Salvation Army.
Well, Who knows?
It doesn't matter.
Absolutely irrelevant.
So whether people think it's good or not, or whether they use universal morality to get us to obey them, or whether they really believe it, absolutely doesn't matter.
The fact of the matter is that what they believe is false, what they believe is violent, and what they believe is going to destroy society.
Their intention doesn't matter.
And of course, if you do actually want to find out somebody's intention, like are they well-meaning but uninformed, well, pretty easy.
Just inform them.
Just tell them, hey, you know what?
The government is violence.
You know that you're advocating violence against me?
And if they go, oh, man, I never thought of that.
Oh, that's terrible.
I'm really going to have to examine my position.
I don't want to advocate violence against you.
Well, then they are the rarest breed, which is those who are uninformed and in error innocently.
However, if they say, hey, no problem.
I'm perfectly happy to justify violence against you.
Sucks to be you.
Too bad.
So sad.
Nice win.
Don't try.
And then they're, you know, morally corrupt, right?
They're morally evil.
They're putting out ideas which are directly threatening your continued existence on this planet, right?
So when I say to a Christian, by the way, do you realize, I mean, I got an email from a guy who was saying, you know, you're kind of mocking our beliefs, you know, you're kind of not representing them fairly and so on.
It's like, dude, I'm quoting the Bible, you know, word for word.
And if you're so sensitive to offense, how do you think I feel when I talk with people who believe in a text that advocates my murder?
You know, forgive me for not finding that your argument for the sensitivity of your feelings to be particularly compelling, because let's say that I am doing exactly what he says and mocking the Bible and mocking Christians, well, surely mockery is not as bad a sin as advocating murder.
So, I don't really find that too compelling that Christians get all sensitive and feel offended.
I think I have a lot greater right to be offended than they have, because, you know, people who advocate that I get killed sort of rub me the wrong way.
Well, anyway, I'm going to go out and do some shopping with my lovely wife, and we're going to make a wonderful dinner this evening, and we've set up our living room to dance in.
Yeah, we didn't feel like going out.
It's kind of snowy, so we're going to have a dinner dance at home.
So I hope that you all have a wonderful, wonderful New Year, and I hope that you take time to enjoy the pleasures of your life and the beauty of this world, and I will talk to you in about a year.
All the best.
▲
Export Selection