All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:41
122 Am I Too Mean?

Questions on manners from concerned listeners

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
I hope you're doing well.
It's Steph.
I'm working from home today, so you may not get the tickety-tickety, squeak-squeak, grind-grind, scream-scream background of the car.
So, I hope you're doing well.
I'm going to make this a short podcast as I take a break for lunch.
But I got an email which is interesting, which may also have something to do with an idea that you may have had in listening to the sequence of podcasts.
And I'm going to read a chunk of it.
This is not sort of emails of the week.
I've pushed that one off to the side for a little while, simply because I can post the emails on the message board, and that gives people the chance to give a public comment on the email.
So I don't think that I need to do emails of the week for a little while, but I think this is a very interesting one.
And I'm going to read a little bit from this gentleman's email and then see if I can't help people to understand at least where I'm coming from when it comes to confronting people about libertarian or anarchist or capitalist or atheistic ideas.
So this is the gentleman's email.
He says, and this is just a section of it, First of all, I won't ever shy away from, quote, the arena when defending my atheist and anarchist views.
But I hesitate to call people scum, as you do, because of the fact that Christians become hostile when irrational persons try to get them to see their logical and moral errors.
They become hostile because they're scared.
I'm sorry, but I can't call these people, quote, scum.
Yes, they are more than partially responsible for their immorality.
That doesn't mean I want to appease them, but it also doesn't mean that I can't feel a great pity for them.
It doesn't mean that I feel the need to shun these people like Jehovah's Witnesses shun those who stray from their dogma, or like Ayn Rand in her, quote, shunning years.
What I'm asking about is this.
In some of your podcasts you were saying you have to call it on these people.
They're the scum who enable government evil.
You can't back down.
These people know that they're being immoral.
Almost as if you are calling for everyone to disown all of their friends and family who don't get on the road and follow you and me to our land of anarchism slash atheism.
In other podcasts, there is a more conciliatory message.
If you alienate everyone, how can you spread libertarian messages?
You have to go slowly with people at first, because they've never heard these ideas before.
All you can do is as pleasantly and as kindly make the case as often as gives you pleasure, and enjoy the conversation.
On one day, you're saying, quote, of course people are going to call you names, but so what?
No one is put here to dismantle the mechanisms of the state, which has been here for thousands of years.
On another day, you're saying, don't give in to these people.
If they start telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, the gloves are off.
Sorry for the horrible paraphrasing, but can you understand my confusion?
There are people in my life who rarely comment on their religion or politics, and I leave those people alone, even though I know they are silent little pools of irrational immorality just festering and putrefying there in front of me.
There are other people who are hardened warmonger statists or Christians who I am never going to change, and I don't waste my time unless they spit stupid remarks directly in my face.
There are several people in my life who are very, very curious about my religious and political beliefs, or lack thereof, and they seek out my opinions on current events.
I never shy away from pointing out the immorality of politicians and priests.
These people are far from libertarian, but I've converted a few to openly expressing their disgust with politics, left and right.
It's a huge joy when that happens.
I don't see how I would have that joy if I pushed people up against the wall and demanded objectivist rigor from their brainwashed souls.
Now, I mean, this is a very insightful email, of course, and he's absolutely right to question my contradictions in this area, or to question whether I am, in fact, contradicting myself in this area.
So I hugely respect this kind of email.
This is similar to the kinds of emails that I get when I talk about DROs and so on.
So, let me see if I can clarify my position, and I apologize since I haven't made it clear in the past, to clarify my position on it.
Whether this is useful to you, of course, is up to you, but this is where I stand on it.
Yes, you absolutely should approach people with curiosity, with openness, with open arms, with pleasure, with joy, but there is a limit after which you cannot, in my view, morally do that.
So, to begin with, you start to assume that people are going to be curious and interested and excited and so on.
And the reason that you want to do that is twofold.
One is that to make an assumption about the hostility or negativity of another person, even if they're a Bible-thumping Christian, is not logical.
It's bigoted.
I mean, yes, of course, Christians are irrational, but that doesn't mean that they're stupid and not open to new ideas.
I have met some Christians—a Christian.
It only takes one to break the principle.
I've met a Christian who was very curious about these sorts of ideas.
And I've been very happy to have conversations with that person and it's been great.
So you wouldn't, of course, assume that all Christians or all statists, they may never have run into the ideas before.
They may be trapped in a cell of their own faith-based fantasies and have no idea that there's anything outside the cell.
So you want to give them, you know, that red pill matrix moment and see if you can't lure into a clearer and brighter and more rational world, I think that's great.
Always assume that that is the case, because you have no direct proof otherwise.
It may have been the last thousand Christians you've talked to exploded into hostility, but that's not predictive of the next one, because you are in a situation where free will is operating, and therefore to predict the outcome of conversations is not rational.
Now the second reason is that if you approach people with hostility, you provoke hostility.
This is one of the things that we are having a discussion on at the freedomainradio.com board and it's a very interesting question.
If you approach people with hostility, you generate hostility in return.
That's why I say always assume that the other person is going to be rational and sensible and open and curious and all those kinds of goody things.
And then, if they do prove to be hostile or irrational or derogatory or contemptuous or any sort of negative and terrible kind of response to an open-ended question about ethics or metaphysics or epistemology or anything like that, then you really are going to be able to know that this person is beyond help.
So if I approach somebody from a very rational standpoint, an open and curious and enjoyable standpoint, which I try to do in my podcasts, then If they do respond with complete hostility and contempt, at least I know that it's not me, that it's not my fault.
If I approach them with anger, with contempt, with hostility, with profanity, then if they react in a hostile manner, which I can pretty much guarantee they're going to do, Then the question is never going to be resolved.
I'm never going to know if it was the aggression of my approach that turned them off, or made them hostile, or whether it was the ideas themselves.
So then I'm really kind of at a loss as to understand what happened, and I really haven't done the freedom movement any good, in my view, by doing that.
So that's on the sort of nice side of things.
However, there is another side of things, and this is where my language gets harsher, and this is where, of course, I'm not going to say that I didn't say those things, because I'm sure there's pretty good evidence that I did.
And so, let me explain sort of where I'm coming from, from that standpoint.
So, let's say that I know someone, and I approach them nicely and kindly, and let's just say they're a Christian.
Then we start talking and we start discussing things, and one of the things that I try to establish at the beginning of conversations in these areas, and maybe it's useful for you as well, is to say, well, how are we going to resolve disputes?
How are we going to resolve disputes?
If we're just going to, you know, like two television sets pointing at each other and thinking that we're having a conversation when we're not, then let's not bother at all, because otherwise it's going to be just two sets of opinions being argued about, which nobody can get anywhere with.
This is, of course, what scientists do.
In the scientific community, they have a well-known methodology for resolving disputes, which is the scientific method, so I don't think they particularly have any problem that way.
Nobody says, let me consult my Ouija board to figure out if this is true or not.
So if you do that, you establish that, then the person is sort of honor-bound to accept rationality, right?
So don't bother getting involved in a conversation with a Christian if they say, there's absolutely no rationality for my belief, it's pure faith, it's pure magical thinking, I know there's no empirical proof, and I know for sure that Christianity is not the only way to be moral.
Or even if they do say that Christianity is the only way to be moral, if they say that, saying that I have absolutely no reason to believe that.
It's all faith.
You simply can't examine it in any way, shape, or form.
Then, you know, leave them to stew in their deranged insanity and move on, because they haven't given you any criteria by which you can evaluate.
There's no null hypothesis.
There's no acceptance of rationality or evidence or anything like that.
So don't bother with these people.
It's a big waste of time.
Like Billy Joel said, you should never argue with a crazy man.
So that is one thing.
But those people are very, very rare.
I don't think I've ever met one.
Every single human being in the world who's not schizophrenic or going through a psychotic episode Use his morality and logic to justify their position.
And this is Christians included, and you can get some unbelievably long and tortuous explanations from Christians as to why they believe that Christ did exist, and why people did see miracles, and why the Trinity makes sense.
I mean, more forests have been killed justifying tortured Christian or religious logic than I think any other single source.
So people always do use logic and they do use morality to justify their position.
Nobody just grabs an opinion out of nowhere and says, I just believe this because it is.
And don't talk to me about logic.
There's no logic and there's no morality associated with it.
That's not how the human brain works.
In order to pick one belief out of the thousands and thousands of belief systems that have existed and do exist, you need to have some criteria.
And what's always communicated to children when they grow up in statist and religious societies is that this is logical and it is moral.
And those parts that are not logical are more moral.
So you have more morality to make up for the lack of logic.
So, for instance, in the Christian situation, you have logical reasons to believe in God.
This is sort of a lot of the Thomas Aquinas, all these kinds of Arguments as to the existence of God.
And if that fails, or where that fails, you have this backup mechanism called faith, which is considered to be a virtue.
I saw some singer once, it was a pretty cheesy Christmas concert, and she leant forward and she said, I mean, the concert was good.
That was a slight stomach-flipping moment.
So, where a Christian, or a statist, or a... Let's just talk about religious people for the moment.
So when you're talking to a Christian, and they say that you can believe in God because of X, Y, and Z, and have all these syllogistical reasonings behind it, and then you disprove those, Then they're stuck.
They have a big problem.
So what are they going to do?
Are they going to say, oh, you know what?
This whole metaphysical worldview of mine just went away in a puff of smoke, and by heavens, you've really enlightened me, so I'm not going to believe it anymore.
No.
They have a backup generator for their crazy beliefs, which is faith.
And faith is infused with a moral sentiment.
So, if you disprove the existence of God, then they say, with that smug, crap-eating grin at times, they say, well, it's just a matter of faith.
You just have to believe.
And they don't say this like I've just flipped a coin and chosen to.
They say this with the I mean, it's a little smug, I find, so I'll be upfront about my feelings about that.
But it definitely is virtuous.
So everybody bases their beliefs on rationality, and where rationality gives way, they turn to virtue.
This is why the argument for morality is so important.
Forget about the rational argument from effect.
Go straight to the core, which is to believe in virtue.
So, for instance, in Canada, and I'm sure in most Western countries, you have this statist welfare system and public medicine and so on.
And the way that it works in Canada, when you argue these things with people, is they say that it works well.
And it's sort of logical.
And then, when you prove that it doesn't work well, and that it's actually illogical in its nature, these sort of state-run schemes, then they say, well, we have to help the poor, well, we have to help the sick, well, we don't want people to die in the street, blah blah blah blah blah.
And then if you start to go into those opinions, those are much tougher opinions to overturn in people.
Because just like you have with the Christian, you've gone past the veil of false logic, and now you're into the soupy fog of assumed ethics.
And that's a very tricky place to be with people, which is why the argument for morality is so powerful.
So, that's something which I've experienced a number of times when talking with people, and perhaps you have as well, and that's why I say just start with the argument from morality and forget about the argument from effect, because people will argue logic with you and argue effect with you, but then when you get right down to it, they'll just say, well, it's just faith, it's just good.
And so, for instance, one of the arguments that I've had some success with with Christians in this area is if they say that faith is good, right, so faith is moral, you should have faith, faith is a virtue, then of course one possible response to that is to say something like, well, so faith is believed to be
a belief without any particular reason behind it, or any particular logical or empirical reason behind it.
So if it is a belief without reason, then the question of course then becomes, why would only faith in God exist?
Why not?
If anything which can be believed without reason is part of a moral absolute, that belief without reason is a virtue, then it would seem hard to understand why We would not include every possible belief in the universe that could be believed without reason.
Up is down, black is white, the world is shaped like a disco ball with glittery bits, and Saturn is a fantasy, and leprechauns exist, and black people are this, and Asian people are that, whatever bigotry you could come up with.
That would not really fall outside the idea that belief without reason is a virtue.
So, if belief without reason in general is a virtue, then faith in God is a virtue.
Then believing in the non-existence of God or accepting the non-existence of God would be a vice.
Unless you believed it without reason.
That's one of the problems which belief without reason can come up with is that if you are not particularly bright and you just don't like the idea of God for whatever emotional reason, maybe your father was a priest, And you don't believe in God, but you have no reasons, then you have two opposing beliefs.
I believe in God and I don't believe in God, both of which fall under the purvey of faith, so it would be hard to say that both of those would be valid and virtuous, because they're kind of opposites, right?
And virtue should not include a belief and its exact opposite belief, both in the same vein of virtue... I was going to say virtuosity... of being virtuous!
So, if a Christian understands that there is no virtue in believing without reason, then they have to use some other word than faith, because people can have faith in the most silly of things.
And so, the Christian then has to come up and say, well, belief in my God is a virtue, and, you know, there's lots of ways that you can break these things down, and why would belief in only your God be a virtue?
Why does everyone who believes in a God believe that only their God Only the belief in their god is virtuous, and so on.
So you can begin to break this sort of stuff down.
If you do this in an engaging and positive manner, then I think you can make some good headway.
If, however, at some point the Christian gets cold and angry and just shuts the conversation down, and usually this is done in a pretty rude and abrupt manner, just when you cross over some inner Rubicon of guilt-ridden fantasy land that they have, then they will just simply shut the conversation down.
and say that they simply won't discuss it with you anymore.
Well, that person is kind of bad.
When that occurs, that is somebody being really hostile, really negative, really angry, really bitter, really vicious.
And these are the people that I have a problem with.
And that's sort of the division for me, and I'm sorry that I haven't made it more clear for those who it's not clear for.
But this is the division for me.
You start with everybody in a nice way, and then, if and when they shut down the conversation, and use ad hominem arguments, or cuss you back, or get up and walk away, or get huffy, or whatever, give them a little bit of breathing room and come back and say, we didn't quite finish this conversation.
And if they say, just basically, I'm not going to talk to you about this, Then, the one thing that I would say, or could say in that kind of situation, and you may say this beforehand to people who want to shut down the conversation about, let's just say, religion or Christianity,
is to say something like, well, you know, one of the reasons why this is an important topic for me, and I'm sure you can understand why, is that these religious texts do believe, or do claim, and claim that it is a universal absolute for an all-perfect, all-moral being, that people who don't believe in the Christian God, or in the divinity of Jesus Christ, or whatever, should be put to death, or sold into slavery, or, you know, have some pretty significant sanctions applied to them.
So it's hard for me to look at this sort of religious instruction or this religious belief and not feel that it is personally threatening to my body, to my life.
And that's why I have some fairly significant criticisms of this particular approach.
So I'm sure you can understand that where people have a handbook, let's just say, and I don't mean to disrespect the Bible, at least at this instance, but if a group has a handbook that says atheists should be put to death, then it's, I think, fairly okay for atheists to get angry with people once they know that this is the case.
So let's say you're some not-too-bright guy in the KKK and the Ku Klux Klan, the sort of guys in tent heads, the guys with pillowcases on their heads, for those who are not in the US or don't know.
These people, let's say you're not too bright, you join this group, and you like the campfires, you like running through the woods, you think it's a big game of tag, because you're kind of slow, right?
You're just like, yeah, I think it's fun!
It's like camping!
And you never, whatever, you're out of town every time they do a lynching or have a sort of rally where they burn crosses and terrorize people and so on.
And let's just say you don't know that, and you've never really read through the handbook, then you're kind of in a I mean, ignorance is not bliss, but you're kind of in a morally neutral standpoint, because you just don't know.
We don't sort of investigate the nature of every single club that we join, we just assume that there's benevolence based on the sort of ideas and how people act and so on.
If then somebody comes up to you, like some black guy comes up to you and says, you know, I gotta tell you, I have a bit of a problem with this whole KKK thing.
And he's like, why?
I think I could get you in.
We need some more black people in our organization.
It seems to be kind of white.
Then the black person might sort of look at this not-so-bright white KKK member and say, I don't think you can get me in.
I really am quite sure that you won't get me in, unless I'm already in one of the sheets.
And then the dumb guy might say, well, what do you mean?
I mean, it's a very friendly group.
They all seem nice to me.
And if the black guy then pops open a copy of the KKK manual and says, you know, we want to put all the blacks to death.
Then the guy who's not too bright, but assuming he's bright enough, he's not retarded, he's bright enough to understand that that's not a good thing and that he can understand why the black guy might have a problem with that, suddenly he's no longer in a morally neutral or less than a full moral agent situation.
Because now he knows!
Now he knows what this handbook of his club says, which is, you know, we want to It put all the blacks to death, or whatever.
I don't know if that's what the actual KKK manual says.
I doubt it.
But let's just say it did, and it said it repeatedly and over and over and, you know, throughout thousands of pages.
It was a constant refrain.
And let's just say that, well, that's happened.
Like, they actually have.
I mean, lots of atheists have been killed by religious people and continue to be killed by religious people throughout the world.
So, the person who's not too bright, who's in the KKK, who then has this fact revealed to him, that this is a pretty fundamental foundation of the beliefs of the group, and that the person who this group rage and murderous homicidal fantasies are directed at, might have kind of a problem.
with that group, then the guy who's in the KKK is going to reveal his sort of true nature.
He's going to reveal his true nature.
So if he's going to say, oh my god, that's horrible.
I had no idea.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
I had no idea.
I never read the manual.
I just was going to these barbecues.
We were just running through the woods.
It was fun.
We did songs.
We had secret handshakes.
I'm so sorry.
I really had no idea.
Man, let me do what I can to get other people out of this organization, and I can't believe I was fooled, and oh, forgive me, and what can I do to make it... whatever, right?
That would be a moral response, like a response of somebody who is genuinely interested in morality.
That would be their response.
Now I, maybe you've experienced something different.
I have never experienced that from a Christian.
I have never experienced a Christian saying, Either the Christian has to say one of two things.
They have to say, oh yeah, I know that we want to put you guys to death.
I know that we want to torture you and kill you and drown you and stick spikes through you and all that.
I know that.
You know, I like the hymns.
So, for me, I balance those two moral extremes, you know, genocidal rage and murderous fantasies towards everybody who believes differently, versus, you know, I like the hymns and it's nice to have a place to go on Sunday mornings.
I'm coming down on having a nice place to go on Sunday mornings, and, you know, I like to belt out a good hallelujah, so I can live with it.
I'm sorry I can understand it would upset you, but for me, it's no problem, really.
I'm fine with it.
Now, that's sort of one approach that you can take.
And the other approach is, of course, this one that I mentioned, where you say, oh my god, I didn't know, fix it up, I'm so sorry, I'm going to try and leave this group tomorrow.
Now, Christians don't really like to do that, and neither do statists or Jews or Muslims or whatever, when you point these sorts of things out.
Then they have moral knowledge, right?
So when you say to someone who supports the Iraqi war, and even if you can't convince them that it's wrong, at least you can say to them, well, I believe that it's very wrong.
Would you at least be comfortable with me not having to pay taxes to support this war that I consider to be morally evil?
And if they then say, well, no, you have to pay taxes.
You have to support the war.
And if you don't, we're going to shoot you in the neck or throw you in jail or shoot you in the neck if you resist.
So, it's the same kind of argument we have with all these people.
Once you cross that line where they're now aware that they're advocating violence against you, once you cross that line, and I'm not saying you start with that line, you know, to build it up, be nice, be curious, but be aware that you're sailing towards that waterfall.
You are sailing towards that line.
You are tiptoeing through this minefield.
You're going to set this one off sooner or later, where they have to look you in the face and say, yeah, I think you should be killed.
I think you should be shot.
I think you should be dragged off to jail.
I think if you resist, I think they should taser you and shock you and throw you in the back of a car and lock you up for 20 years.
Absolutely.
I'm perfectly happy with that.
That's moral to me.
Your death is moral to me.
An attack on you is moral to me.
Now this is where I don't retain my level of friendliness quite to the degree that some people would like.
So, absolutely be friendly going up, but recognize you're going to get to that place.
And this is the argument for morality, and this is why I say try and get there as nicely as possible, but as quickly as possible, and don't muck around with You know, what was the tax rate in the 13 colonies in the early 18th century versus now?
But, you know, with gentle and kind persistence, get them to that place where they have to look you in the face and say, yeah, I have no problem with people shooting you in the neck.
I think that's, in fact, I would have a problem if they didn't.
You know, this is the same sort of... This is where the scumminess is.
This is where the moral corruption is.
This is where the intellectual evil is.
And people look you in the face.
And say, yes, you should be killed.
I mean, please, brothers and sisters, tell me what we're supposed to do with that.
Because if that doesn't offend us, what on earth could?
If that isn't something to get our ire going, then what on earth could be?
There's no other greater threat that human beings can give to you than saying, yes, I think that universal state police and military violence should be directed against you, when you haven't lifted a finger to harm anybody.
You tell me what is supposed to get us upset.
You tell me, then, what is worse of a threat than that.
That, at the very best, the rest of our lives should be stripped away and we should be thrown into a rape room and dungeon that the government runs in a prison system.
You know, I don't have a lot that gets me angry, I would say, but I gotta tell you, that's one of them.
And that's really the nature of the arguments that we're having with people.
And this is why I'm saying that if people do look at you in the face, if they look at you directly in the face, and they tell you, yes, you should be killed, you should be put to death, you're going to hell, you don't pay your taxes, I'm going to send the cops over and if you resist they're going to shoot you down.
If people are looking at you in the face, And telling you that, you tell me why they should be in your life.
I mean, people, come on!
You tell me why these people should be in your life.
You tell me what it means to be moral and to let people threaten you with murder and keep them in your life.
I mean, you tell me that you can be a good guy and hang out with Tony Soprano and Through hanging out with Tony Soprano, the guy from the TV show, you tell me that you can be a good guy and hang out with Tony Soprano.
Hey, make the case.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Absolutely.
You let me know what I'm missing.
But if somebody threatens murder to me and thinks not only that it's a threat based on some sort of immediate gratification, but it's a universal moral imperative that I should be put to death, And people get upset with me for using the word scum.
It's just kind of funny to me.
I mean, I understand where this guy's coming from.
He doesn't want to have this discussion with people.
Very few people do.
I don't want to have this discussion with people.
I don't like it when this comes up.
I know it's coming.
I know how corrupt the world is.
I know how people avoid the real nature of evil and how much they sanction through their belief in things that they don't understand.
I know all of that.
I'm not saying that I love going out and provoking this interaction with people, but this is the way the world is.
I didn't make it.
This is what everyone believes.
So if you can tell me another way to approach it, another way that we can either not deal with the facts of the situation with a Christian, if we can deal with the facts of the situation by helping the Christian avoid his belief or her belief that we should be put to death, Great!
You know, I'm totally curious.
I would be ravenously curious to hear a moral justification that we should not be angry with or use terms like scum or evil with people who are counseling the genocide of all atheists or people who are counseling the imprisonment and torture of people who don't like state programs or don't like the government.
Tell me.
Open the door for me.
I can't see my way clear.
I can't see my way out of this other than to say that these people are scum and that people who advocate my murder are evil.
And that I will fight them to my dying breath, and I will call them what they are, and if they don't like it, then all they have to do is change their beliefs?
I mean, you've got sort of two people here.
I mean, this is what's so funny about the modern world, and about how we think.
And this is not the only email I've gotten on this topic, but it's kind of funny.
Like, you've got two people.
You've got two people in a room.
And one of them is saying that all of the armed might of the state should descend upon the other person and kill, torture, imprison, throw into the rape rooms, throw into prison, shoot in the neck, shoot in the leg, that all of this must happen.
It's perfectly moral.
It's not even optional.
It must happen.
It's perfectly moral.
Ooh, sorry, little phone call.
So to continue, you have one guy in one side of the room who wants to bring the entire onslaught and armed might of the state down on the other guy.
And the other guy is saying, you're evil.
That's it.
That's the sum total of the offence that I am accused of.
And I'm not saying this guy is accusing me of offence.
I'm not trying to get off on a high dudgeon here.
I'm just saying that if you look at the moral nature of these transactions, one person is legitimizing the use of genocidal force against people who don't like the state, against people who don't like religion.
And the other person is saying, that's wrong.
That's kind of scummy.
You're a scum for doing that.
Now that you know what you're doing, now that you've read the handbook, now that you know the violence that you're advocating, if you continue to advocate that violence, I gotta call you evil.
If wanting to summon the entire might of the state down to destroy people who are not lifting a finger against you, if that is not evil, then evil doesn't exist and it's a free-for-all and there's no such thing as logical reality or morality or any of that sort of thing, so let's just all descend into a chaos of the state of nature and have a free-for-all.
So I think that's my position on that.
Be friendly, be nice, Get to that line.
Get to that line.
I mean, it's scary, but get to that line where somebody's got to look you in the face.
Look you directly in the face and say, yeah, I think it's very moral that you be shot.
You have to.
You have to be shot.
Sorry, but... Look, the people who say, well, I don't mind paying my taxes.
Why should you?
It's like, well, it's like one slave turning to another and saying, I don't mind being a slave.
Why should you mind?
It's like, well, if you want to be a slave, you could be a slave.
But why do I have to be a slave just because you want to?
That's another sort of...
One of these things that people really don't understand.
Because one thing to say, I want to be a slave, and therefore you should want to be a slave, that's one thing.
But what people who say this about taxation are actually saying is, I want to be a slave, and I will pay people to shoot you if you try to escape.
See, that's sort of the difference.
Somebody says, I'm comfortable paying my taxes, and if you don't pay your taxes, you should get hunted down and dragged off to jail, then Gotta tell you, that doesn't really sound very moral to me.
So I hope that sort of clarifies my position.
There's a line in the sand where people gotta look you in the face and say, yes, I think you should have violence.
The undefendable against might of the state should fall upon you from on high and rend your life into very atoms and destroy your entire existence.
That's the line that you get to with people in conversations about this sort of stuff.
It's a pretty important line.
When you're on this side of the line, when you're on the sunny side of the line, yeah, people are nice.
Chat with them.
Engage them.
Try and show them that you're not crazy by being...
You know, happy and positive and all that kind of stuff, and be nice!
And then, when you get to that line, and you open the page in the handbook of their club, and you say, this bit here about me being killed, not so good, right?
I mean, not so good.
And then if they look at you and they say, no, I think that's good, I think you should be killed, then you're on the other side of that line, right?
You're over that line.
And if you want to keep people who want to kill you in your life I gotta tell you, I don't really think much of your moral stature.
I mean, I'll just be honest with you, I think that that's just craven.
I think you might as well just pack everything in when it comes to ethics or self-respect.
I mean, if you won't even ditch people from your life who want you dead, then what conceivable value can you place upon yourself?
This is going to be a completely self-destructive approach to morality and to life.
It's just completely impractical.
Yeah, okay, you won't be killed, but let's go for lunch.
I mean, if that's not corrupt, I don't know what is.
I mean, it's one thing to want someone dead.
For the sake of material gain, right?
So some, I don't know, someone just about to retire who's pretty corrupt might say, yeah, I think you should be killed if you don't pay my social security because I don't want to live on cat food for the rest of my life.
I mean, it's corrupt, but at least you can understand the self-interest.
But you tell me, what is the self-interest of somebody who sanctions their own murder?
What is that?
I mean, what conceivable self-interest?
Yes, I know you want me killed, but I don't want you to frown at me.
I don't want you to think badly of me.
I'd rather you feel that it's alright to want to have me killed than for you to feel bad for me.
So, I'm, you know, this is not my... I'm not making this stuff up.
This is not sort of my opinion.
And the fact of the matter is that anybody who believes in the Old Testament wants us dead.
I mean, they can say that they don't, but it's in the handbook.
I mean, it's the rule!
So, you know, to think that me calling that what it is, me calling a spade a spade, is somehow the problem.
Or that I'm a Jehovah's Witness who is railing against anybody who doesn't share my exact beliefs is not correct.
It logically is not correct.
I have absolutely no problem with the Jehovah's Witnesses existing and being within their own clan.
I absolutely will condemn them as completely immoral if they understand that they're advocating my death and continue to do it.
Does that mean I'm going to start going out and pushing them over?
Of course not.
What do I care?
I mean, you've got better things to do with my life than chase after crazy people and try and make them sane.
But I'm not going to pull any punches when it comes to talking about the moral nature of what's occurring in the transaction.
And if they don't like that, that's fine.
All they have to do is change their beliefs to something that doesn't involve me getting killed.
I mean, that's sort of important.
I mean, forgive me for wanting that sanction from my fellow man.
If I had a belief that said all Christians should be killed, then I wouldn't particularly be surprised if Christians had a problem with me.
You know, we didn't like particularly Hitler, who said that all the Jews should be killed.
And all the non-Aryans, and all the people who disagreed with him politically, and all the gypsies, and all the mentally retarded, and so on.
We weren't so keen on Hitler because he put it into practice, but to advocate it, I gotta tell you, it kind of brings it closer and closer every day.
Those people who advocate this kind of universal murder It kind of gets closer and closer every day, unless they're opposed, so I can certainly see it.
I mean, it's not exactly imminent, but it's certainly not beyond the reach of reason.
So I think better to act now, and strongly, from a moral condemnation standpoint to those who advocate or murder, it's better to act now than to act later, right?
I mean, I said old, I think it was Reinhold Niebler who said something like about the growth of Nazism, is that he said, you know, They came for the atheists, and I did nothing.
And then they came for the gypsies, and I did nothing.
And then they came for the mentally retarded, and I did nothing.
And then they came for the Catholics, and I did nothing.
And at the end he says, and then they came for me, and there was no one left to help me.
And that's where I really don't want us to get to.
So I hope that clarifies my position.
Do let me know what you think.
And thanks, as always, for listening.
Signing off at 2 p.m.
▲
Export Selection