All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
33:33
107 Burdens of Proof: Arguments of God and State

Logic, evidence, the senses and proof

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
I hope you're doing well.
It's Steph.
It's 10 to 6 on Monday, the 20th of February, 2006.
I hope you're all doing excellently well.
Did you miss me?
I haven't podcasted since last week.
This weekend, I was obsessively creating and going over a website to host freedomainradio.com, this very show that you are listening to.
Right now.
And I'm more of a database user interface coder and report writer coder than I am an HTML or a web coder, so it was a little bit of a struggle.
But I'm quite pleased with the results.
Head over to freedomainradio.com www.freedomainradio.com and let me know what you think.
I've got some pretty cool stuff there, I do believe.
You've got a little personal iPod player, which is a flash thing that you can listen to the podcasts on.
There's a list of all of the podcasts with descriptions with hyperlinks that gives you the chance to go and listen to them.
So if you wanted to go and find older ones and you maybe had deleted them... Unthinkable!
But hey, let's just say accidentally you deleted them from your...
Podcasting software then you can go and have a look at them there.
I also I wanted to integrate sort of all of the the RSS feeds that come out of my blog and out of this show.
And so what I did was I've got sort of two pages there.
One is For the radio shows, which automatically updates when I post something new.
Very cool.
And the other gives you a summary of the articles on my blog with the first couple of sentences, so you can check that out, see if you like them.
We got a message board.
There's a form feedback for letting me know what you think.
There's a poll.
So I got a little carried away, perhaps.
But when I get into that kind of stuff, I don't even want to get up to shower.
So Christina's very happy, as you can imagine, that it's done.
So, I hope you're doing well.
I just wanted to talk about... François from Hellbound Alley had a good idea for a topic, but before I jumped into that, I wanted to talk just a little bit about this Muslim nonsense, right?
So, the Danes.
There is much woe in the state of Denmark these days because, for those who don't know, there was, I think, twelve cartoons that were published in a Danish newspaper which made fun of the prophet Muhammad, blessed be his name.
And what were they saying?
Well, what were they, I guess, portraying?
I've had a look at them and yeah, I gotta tell you, I can see them being offensive to Muslims.
You have one of them has the prophet Muhammad with his black turban and the black turban has on it, or coming out of it, a fuse, like a sort of bombs.
So he's a bomb, the fuse is going in, and stuff like that.
Now the fabulous Imams of the Muslim world took some of these and also put in their own, even more offensive, Portrayals of Muhammad and distributed them in the Muslim world.
So, you know, the stuff that was in the newspaper wasn't particularly bad, but the Imams put this together and circulated them in the Muslim world as if they were all had been printed and got everyone going and got everyone angry and there were deaths and so on.
Well, gotta tell you, I mean, obviously I don't care that it's offensive to Muslims.
I don't care at all.
I think that people who are out in the public sphere, myself included, to the tiny degree that I am, should be perfectly comfortable with people getting mad at them.
I mean, you can't put a whole bunch of ideas out there and then be upset if you, especially if they're moral ideas like religion or religious insanity, and then getting mad when people get angry at you.
That's silly.
Of course it's a volatile topic.
Of course it's a It's an emotional topic for people.
So, yeah, you portray the most holy man of an insanely militant religion as, you know, a terrorist, as all of the other depictions.
You can find them easily on the net.
Of course they're going to get mad.
Of course they're going to get violent.
I mean, is there something that we don't know about Islam that we should be surprised at this kind of response?
Well, of course not.
We know exactly what these people are like and what they're capable of.
But, there's sort of two other things that I wanted to say about that.
One is that, of course, it's completely hypocritical for the Islamic world to be upset over a defamation of a symbol that is emotionally resonant and important for them.
Because, if memory serves me right, I do believe that in my years upon this planet, I have probably on more than one occasion seen Islamic hordes, and this is even before the invasion of Iraq, long before, The Islamic hordes burning the American flag, burning effigies of George Bush Sr., burning effigies of Reagan.
So, for them to say that you really need to be sensitive to our symbols, while perfectly happy to torch and desecrate the symbols of other people, is exactly the kind of wretched, filthy hypocrisy that you would expect from this sort of lunatic group.
But the people that I'm more angry at are the Westerners.
Because we know that the Muslims are brutalized and victimized and horrible and destructive and hypocritical and murderous.
There's no question about any of that.
And what I find so horrifying is that the best response that we have is cartoons.
I mean, isn't that the saddest thing in the world?
The best response that we have to an insanely homicidal cult is to do little pen inks of them that are offensive.
That is the response that the West has.
And of course we can't do much, most of the West can't do much to attack irrationality because most of the West are so insane and irrational intellectuals and religious people and so on.
The professors, I mean they're all insane to begin with over here, so it's hard for them to really get angry at insanity.
But I just find it kind of funny that that's the best we have to offer in terms of opposing something like Islam.
We can't say, look, the philosophical arguments underpinning the existence of God are false.
The collective notions of responsibility for a group are false.
Praying doesn't do anything.
The logic of religion is immoral.
Sorry, the logic of origin is false, the morality of religion is false, therefore it is immoral, and so we can't actually help them.
We can't help the people who are suffering under the slavishness of the Muslim world.
I'm talking about the children and the youths.
We can't help them.
All we do is inflame them with stupid, offensive cartoons that don't strike any kind of intelligent chord whatsoever.
And we're just not... This is the level of intellectual life within the West, that this has become something that we consider a response.
And the idea that Islam is militant versus Christianity is completely ridiculous.
I mean, given that George Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who thinks that God told him to invade Iraq, do you really think that the Muslims don't see us exactly the same way that we see them as far as the West goes?
Especially America!
Especially America, which is off the charts!
When it comes to religious fundamentalism.
I mean, they're willing to put people to death.
They're willing to put children to death.
They're willing to put the mentally handicapped to death on death row.
The only Western country that still has a death penalty.
And they're willing to invade Muslim countries.
They're willing to fund Israel.
Do you not think that the Muslims see America as unbelievably fundamentalist?
And that they have as many critiques of our fundamentalist state as we have of theirs?
Anyway, enough of that.
I mean, I'll get to the topic of Islam in more detail another time.
But Francois had a very interesting idea, which is to talk about the burden of proof.
And I think that's a very interesting thing to talk about, because as atheists, or if you're not an atheist, you know, give it a couple of minutes.
It'll take, really.
It'll be fabulous.
You won't feel a thing.
Actually, you'll feel fabulous.
You'll feel great as an atheist.
The burden of proof is a very interesting thing, and because not many of us are taught the scientific method in any level of detail, or the tenets of logical philosophy in any level of detail, it's probably worth having a few minutes to review the issue of the burden of proof.
Now, the burden of proof is an interesting question, or an interesting criteria, which says, whose responsibility is it to prove, and whose responsibility is it to disprove a proposition?
So, if you've been an atheist for more than, gosh, 8-10 nanoseconds, you've had an argument with a religious person, and that religious person has said, well, okay, So maybe you can't logically prove the existence of God, but you also can't logically disprove the existence of God.
Therefore, it's a maybe, and I'm going to come down on the yes side, and you can't blame me for it because you can't disprove the existence of God.
Well, the response to that, of course, is that, hey, it's not my job to disprove something that you're claiming.
That's a pretty important thing to understand, and it doesn't always mean that the burden of proof is because the proposition is false or crazy or whatever, but let's just say that back in the Paleozoic era, you did not strike anyone as totally radical when you said that the world was flat, because they knew next to smack about astronomy, and they hadn't had the benefit of the Italian Renaissance and Copernicus and Kepler and
Galileo, so... Boy, Jesus, I guess they thought the world was flat back then.
So that's... Now, if somebody comes along and says, well, I believe that the world is round, well, it's like, dude, look around, it's flat!
I mean, it's as flat as flat can be, even if you're not in Alberta.
It's pretty frickin' flat!
So, the burden of proof would then have been on the person who said, no, the Earth is round.
If I'm holding an orange in my hand and say to you, this is an orange that I hold in my hand.
It's amazing how you can make just about anything sound Shakespearean, isn't it?
Then, if you say to me, I don't believe you, then I say, no, really, here.
You can sniff it.
You can hold it.
It really is an orange.
Then, I sort of prove the point.
So, sensual evidence is the proof, and in the absence of sensual evidence, you need a pretty rigorous system of logic to prove what it is that you want to say.
So, you don't have to prove sensual evidence.
It's kind of an axiom.
So, if I I throw you the orange and you catch it and you're eating it, and then you say, I don't believe this orange exists, then you're either mentally insane or a professor of postmodern philosophy.
So it's fairly fine to say that the burden of proof in sensual evidence is irrelevant.
But the burden of proof when you are claiming a logical construct, when you are opposing sensual evidence in particular, Well, the burden of proof is then on you, sir.
You, sir, right there.
And that's something that's very important to understand, and it's something that should be very sort of relaxing for us, and it should be something that helps us get us off the hook of the stalemate that happens when you say, well, logically God doesn't exist, blah blah blah, and then people say, well, sure, but you can't disprove the existence of God, and so we'll call it even, right?
It's like the night in that Monty Python movie, all right, we'll call it a draw.
So, it's perfectly rational and logical and scientific to say, look, if you are going to come up with some proposition called, there's a being that exists which has consciousness without material form and omniscience without material form and is all-powerful and all-knowing and exists outside of time,
And yet, and does not interfere with the world, and yet interferes with the world, and gave his only son, and everyone who was there before him wasn't moral, and you've got to do this, you've got to snip the end of the baby's penis off, and you've got to do this, and you've got... If someone's going to come up with all of that, that devils exist, that angels exist, that gods and so on, and heavens and other realms and so on, well, that's fine!
You know, fantastic!
What a wonderful theory!
Boy, wouldn't that be cool if it were true!
Then the burden of proof lies upon the person who is claiming a construct, the existence of something which is contrary to sensual evidence.
Now, somebody's going to come back to you once you start pulling out your trusty sword of the burden of proof, and it's going to say to you, oh yeah, well, What about atoms, man?
Atoms don't exist.
You can't prove an atom exists.
And it's like, well, no, of course not.
Nobody's saying that atoms exist.
Nobody is saying that atoms exist.
Nobody in the scientific community will tell you absolutely and positively for sure that atoms exist.
And how do I know that?
Because the size of atoms is shorter than the waves of any sort of infrared or light or radar or any kind of waveform.
Atoms are far shorter, and therefore atoms cannot be detected, right?
I mean, in order to detect an atom, you would have to fire something enormously tiny at it, and so there's just no way that you can determine that atoms exist.
We only know I mean, atoms are a metaphor, and I know that I'm going to get some people writing in to tell me that I'm entirely wrong, that it's not a metaphor, that they're real.
They're really not real.
They're really, really, really, really, really, really not real.
What they are is a useful framework for understanding the behavior of matter.
And the fact that you can blast electrons off and you can see the effect of this or that or the other, you can determine that the effects of everything that we see from atoms is entirely because of the way that we have described atoms, the electrons, the protons, the neutrons and so on.
But all of that is simply a metaphor.
Atoms don't exist in the way that an orange exists.
Atoms don't exist in the way that gravity exists, which is directly and perceptually measurable through the evidence of the senses.
Atoms are an incredibly powerful and useful and so far accurate methodology for describing the behavior of matter at, I guess I could say at an atomic level, but that's kind of cheesy, but at a teeny tiny level, to use an overly technical term.
So, a scientist will not tell you for sure that atoms exist and this is how they work and this is how they operate, but they will tell you That this is exactly how matter behaves based on the conception of atoms and therefore atoms are a workable model for how matter behaves.
But there's never going to be any proof that atoms exist in the way in the configuration and the way that we imagine.
It's just matter behaves as if they do exist and therefore we're going to take it as for granted that they are An accurate description of the behavior of matter down at that teeny tiny level.
So, the question then, the response may come back to you and say, well, okay, if atoms don't exist or they're a useful metaphor for explaining the behavior of matter, then yeah, that's what I claim for God, too!
God is a useful metaphor for explaining the behavior of matter.
Sadly, no.
That doesn't work.
At all.
Because The question is, what is the null hypothesis?
What is the means test?
What is the negative proof?
As I've mentioned in a podcast quite a while back now, but I will touch on again here because it's pretty relevant, You have to have a null hypothesis for any proposition to be considered provable or non-provable.
So as we mentioned... Oh, actually, there was a more recent mention of this.
So if you mentioned that if I say to you, I had a dream about an elephant two nights ago.
Well, there's no null hypothesis.
There's only my word for it.
So it's not really a theory.
It's just a statement of what I... It's a statement of fact.
And the only fact is that I have stated it.
It's not a statement of fact like it's empirically verifiable.
Now, if I say that I am taller than four feet, well, of course, I have a methodology for proving or disproving that.
You know, when I steal something from the gas station and run out the door, you can see from those colored lines by the door, which is used to measure the height of criminals, that I am, in fact, taller than four feet.
So there's a null hypothesis.
You can actually test it.
Now, for God, of course, there is no null hypothesis.
You have to sort of say to a religious person, if you get involved in this kind of stuff, well, what would your criteria for disproof be?
In other words, how would you know that God did not exist?
How would you be able to tell if your belief called, there is a God, was false?
Now, of course, science, you have to have a null hypothesis, otherwise you're just making a statement like, uh, I like tulips.
And, um, so it doesn't mean anything other than, you know, I guess it's true that that person states that they like tulips, but who cares?
So the null hypothesis is fairly important when it comes to arguing with people.
Now, atoms do have a null hypothesis, of course.
So, if after the Manhattan Project was complete, and this wonderful power of genocidal murder was handed over to the state, and they dropped it over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it just went poof and thudded into the ground, then that would be an indication that that theory of atomic explosions was false.
And if they sprayed electrons through the, I don't know, through the gold leaf that they do to find out which gate they go through and all that kind of stuff, if all of that stuff turned out to be producing results which the theory of atoms did not predict, well then of course the theory of atoms would be subject to further refinement.
So there is an null hypothesis for A theory, an atomic theory like atoms or quantum physics and so on, that claims to predict and describe the behavior of matter, well, the null hypothesis is, well, Does it or doesn't it?
It's sort of a nice binary proposition.
Whereas for religion, that's not the case at all.
There is no null hypothesis for religion whatsoever.
That's how you know when somebody says, I believe in God, and it's true that I believe in God, and it's true that there is a God, you know that last step is meaningless.
When somebody says, I believe in God, the only truth value that they have in that statement is the statement that at this moment this person says that they believe in God.
You can't even say that they do believe in God because, of course, there's plenty of times when they don't.
So when they're sleeping or when they're using the Lord's name in vain during a particularly energetic and boisterous round of sex, there's lots of times where they're not believing.
They're doing their taxes.
They're probably not dancing on the crown of the Lord God Almighty in beatific and religious ecstasy.
They are thinking, man oh man, carry the nine.
I wish I'd had better education in school.
So, there is no truth value in God exists, or I believe in God, other than to say, well, this is what this person said at this time.
So, I think it's fairly clear where that sits from the standpoint of religion.
Let's have a look at the state, the other side of the coin of fantastic and insane theoretical constructs.
Because, as I was emissioning with Francois today, he was saying that people believe in the state as a moral entity while fully recognizing, after it's been explained to them, that the state does not conform to any moral rules which people generally accept as virtuous, like the state is allowed to murder, it's allowed to steal, If you look at Okinawa, which we'll talk about later this week, twice a month, pretty much, the United States Marines out there are allowed to rape.
And so, you know, if you're in the Abu Ghraib, you're allowed to do whatever.
So there's no moral rule which the government is subjected to, or those in the government.
So you basically have people who say, well, we need the government because there's a moral rule called we should have peace order or whatever.
And so they have moral rules, but they accept the government completely from those moral rules.
So everybody has this universal moral rule, don't steal, don't cheat, don't lie, don't kill, don't rape, don't assault.
And then when it comes to government, there's this massive extrusion into another dimension where government can sort of merrily do all of these things and still be considered a moral entity.
In the same way, people have this view of the world that is based on the evidence of their senses, with this massive extrusion into this alternate realm where you can create fantastically impossible thought concepts and entities without bodies and so on, which all exist regardless of the fact that there's no evidence of the senses.
So, in both the state and in religion, you have rules of morality and of perceptual reality and logic, which everybody follows 99.9% of the time, and then you have these massive voids, which of course I argued recently are created by platonic philosophy, or platonic types of philosophy.
You have these massive voids where you can dump all of these other concepts like God and state and politician and soldier and so on.
Which have no relationship, in fact, to the complete opposite of the realm which is considered to be logical, rational, or moral elsewhere in life.
So these two things are very much the same.
So how does the burden of proof Sit in the realm of politics.
Well, as I've argued against pretty strongly for quite some time now, the argument from effect is this massive, colossal, complete, total, and utter waste of time, in that it sends you running around saying, oh yeah, well the welfare state doesn't work because of this, and we can make the welfare state work because of that, and here are the statistics about this, and here are the statistics about that, and so on.
And, of course, it doesn't get you anywhere, because you are taking upon yourself the burden of proof.
Completely, absolutely, and totally a waste of time.
Which I think we've all experienced, and perhaps probably me even more than a master.
So what does the burden of proof look like in the political realm?
You, my dear statist friend, have to prove the moral validity of the state.
I don't have to disprove it, because you've already got these moral rules which we all agree on, like no stealing, no killing, no rape, no assault, no murder.
So if the person says, no, there's no such thing as moral rules, well, that's fine.
If there's no such thing as moral rules, then they logically have to be an anarchist.
Because if moral rules don't exist, then the state cannot exist.
Because the state is all about enforcing moral rules.
I mean, nominally, I guess, to a tiny degree.
Actually, it's a lot more about causing war and fomenting dissent and creating panics and pillaging the population.
But nominally, the defense for the state is that it's based on universal moral principles.
So if somebody says, well, there's no such thing as moral rules, then you can use the argument for morality and demolish their complete lack of logic and intelligibility.
So somebody who says there's no moral rules, that's fine.
They then can't logically say that the state has any moral validity and therefore the state, by imposing moral rules on others when there aren't any, is logically wrong and should stop and so on.
Whereas if they say, well, yeah, there are these moral rules, and those moral rules are no rape, no kill, whatever, right?
Then you say, okay, well, then you have a problem, my dear sir, because you believe in moral rules, but you also believe in the state, and the state, by its very definition, is not subject to these moral rules.
If it was subject to these moral rules, it would not be a state.
Because a state claims a monopoly of certain types of actions, like the ability to declare war, the ability to have a police force, the ability to run prisons, the ability to pass laws, the ability to tax, the ability to deficit finance, the ability to print money.
All of these things are claimed as a monopoly by this social agency.
So, if you're saying there are these universal moral rules, you have to explain why there's this group of people over there who aren't subject to any of these moral rules whatsoever.
Which is the argument for morality, of course.
But it's not your job.
It's not your job.
In fact, it's a weak thing to do, and it is counterproductive to the movement, in my humble opinion, to argue and go out and gather all the information and try desperately to prove people that the state is bad.
No.
The onus to prove that the state is moral is upon those who claim that it is, despite the fact that it completely violates all the moral rules that they accept.
That's a very important point to get when it comes to the burden of proof.
It's not your job to disprove God.
It's not your job to prove that the welfare state is a bad thing.
It's not your job to prove that the government is immoral.
All you do when people say, yeah, we need a government, the government's good, the government's my best friend, I hope to marry the government, settle down and raise kids with the state one day, your job is to simply say, well, then you have a difficult burden of proof ahead of you.
And they're going to go, huh?
And then you're going to say, well, you believe that you shouldn't lie still, you shouldn't kill, you shouldn't rape, you shouldn't assault, and so on.
Yes.
Do you believe that moral rules exist for everybody?
No.
Okay, well then you've got to be an anarchist, blah blah blah.
And if they say yes, then you have to prove why the state is a valid moral entity.
I don't have to lift a finger.
The statement is disproven by the contradictions already inherent in the statement.
So if somebody says there are universal moral rules, and we need a state that is exempt from those universal moral rules to enforce those universal moral rules, then you really don't have to lift a finger.
They've already contradicted themselves, and all you have to do is say, sorry, you're wrong.
You're absolutely incorrect.
You've completely contradicted yourself, and I can say this in a nice, friendly, Socratic, positive, benevolent way, but you didn't quite make it.
As a thesis, that doesn't quite get where you want it to be, which is anywhere close to the realm of truth.
So you'll have to lift a finger.
Somebody says, well, I think that the welfare state is great.
Well, no, it's not.
It's not moral.
I mean, it's absolutely not moral.
And if you believe that it is moral, then I don't have to.
Somebody says, well, you prove to me that it's immoral.
It's like, well, no, you've already defined it as immoral.
Do you think that people should be allowed to steal from each other?
Yes?
Well, fantastic!
Then we don't need a state with a monopoly on that.
Everybody should be allowed to do it, and therefore the state shouldn't exist.
And if you say, well, no, people should not be allowed to steal from each other, then it's like, fine, okay, then the welfare state is immoral.
And you don't have to run out and get statistics, and you don't have to do that.
I know I've made lots of arguments around the welfare state, but fundamentally that's to sort of get us all up to speed on this sort of stuff.
But you don't have to do smack!
To disprove the morality of the state.
People have already accepted that it's immoral simply by saying that there's such a thing as moral rules.
Or if they don't, they can't have a state anyway.
So that's very important.
And it's fussy.
I know that it's fussy.
And I know it's detail-oriented.
And I know it's nitty-gritty.
But the reason that it's important is that we have to start coming on from a position of strength as a movement.
We have to start coming on from a position of rigor.
And one small example, which I don't mean to pick on Francois, but one small example was that on our MSN today, he said, we don't believe that the state is legitimate.
And that is not a very powerful statement.
It's like an opinion thing, right?
I don't believe that Chinese food is very good or whatever.
So I said to him, well, would you say if you were teaching a child about the world, I don't believe that the world is flat.
You wouldn't say that, because by saying, I don't believe this, you're saying that it's open to a subjective interpretation, or that it's not concluded yet, or it's not a proven case.
I don't believe in quantum physics as a valid model of scientific proof, but that doesn't mean that it's not going to be the case or my mind won't change.
It's simply up in the air right now.
I don't believe that global warming is man-made, or even if it's man-made, that it's entirely based upon the Industrial Revolution and so on.
However, I strongly believe that even if it is man-made, and even if it is reversible, and even if it is something we can do anything about, the last entity in the known universe that you would ever get a positive result out of in this area is the government.
I mean, when it comes to global warming, the idea that the government is going to do anything about the weather a hundred years from now, it's just too funny.
Hasn't anybody noticed that it's kind of not interested in anything past next quarter?
I mean, people who may have noticed that the government tends to run up deficits, which will destroy the economy of the next generation, might have some skepticism towards the idea that the government is going to deal with the weather a hundred years from now.
I'm sorry, I just think it's pretty funny.
So, when it comes to talking about something like the government, we don't say, at least I don't think we should say, We don't believe that the government is legitimate, is morally legitimate.
This is not something which is still debatable.
This is not something that is still up in the air.
The government is not morally legitimate.
The government is stone evil when it comes to any kind of moral evaluation.
Something called the state, this fantasy that there exists this antithetical moral realm that is extruded from existing reality into some fantastical realm where up is down and black is white and good is evil, is simply false.
And of course we've had seven or eight thousand years of history and 4,000 years of recorded history.
There's really no doubt left about the morality of the state anymore.
The very idea that you can say there are these moral rules and that this enormous and incredibly armed group of people who's completely exempt from those moral rules And also have a monopoly on the use of violence.
This is not something which is really a question anymore, is it really?
I mean, maybe for people new, they're sort of startled by the ideas.
But if you've been thinking about this stuff for more than, I don't know, a couple of months, Is there really any doubt left about it at all?
And so what I'm trying to sort of suggest from this is we have to go from a proactive mode in some areas to a reactive mode in some areas.
Now the proactive mode is, let me tell you why the state is immoral, and let me tell you how the welfare state won't work, and let me tell you how the drug war is bad, and so on.
But what I think we need to get to, once we've absorbed the arguments for all of this sort of stuff, what we need to get to is a simple statement of fact.
The government is morally evil.
The government is completely illegitimate.
The government is a completely immoral institution.
The government is a plague and a parasite upon the soul of man.
The state is a morally wretched and disgusting organization.
And it doesn't exist, by the way, except as a fantasy of violence in people's minds.
That's what we need to get to as a movement, and that means putting the burden of proof squarely where it belongs, which is on the shoulders of those who are advocating violence and calling it morality.
I don't sit there and say, I consider slavery to be illegitimate.
Slavery is illegitimate!
And people who argue that it's moral are completely and utterly and totally wrong.
And until we get that kind of confidence, until we get that kind of directness, it's going to be very hard for us to make any kind of gains as a movement.
But as soon as we do, of course, we lose friends and family, as I've argued before.
Well, not just argued, as I sort of know for a fact.
It's going to cost you a lot.
And the only thing that it's going to give you back is your integrity, your happiness, your soul, and your capacity for love.
Which, you know, it's a pretty good trade.
Thanks so much for listening as always.
I hope this has been helpful.
I will talk to you soon.
Oh, please go have a look at the website www.freedomainradio.com.
▲
Export Selection