All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
33:05
158 Arguments for Freedom (Part 1)

How to find common ground during libertarian conversations

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
It's Steph.
I hope you're doing well.
It is Friday, the 24th It's March 2006, and it's the morning, but not quite the early morning as usual, so I hope you're doing well.
I wanted to take a swing through a couple of arguments for freedom that might be of use to you.
I remember when I used to listen to Harry Brown, he had one conversation about gun control, which I found very helpful.
And this is not in terms of programming you to say what I think you should say.
But giving you some possible options for how to approach the topic of freedom with people and ways in which you can actually come to agreement about things.
And the only way generally that you can come to agreement with people who disagree with you is to focus on areas that you do agree.
And then to start to sort of slowly widen those areas to a more compatible situation.
So, for instance, if you agree with people, or people agree with you, that generally violence is not the best way to solve problems, which most people will tell you, yes, I agree with that, violence is not the best way to solve problems.
If you can agree at that standpoint, then you can also begin to widen that agreement into other areas.
In the issue of patriotism, If people genuinely believe, and I'll just use the American example again, with the usual caveat and apologies, if people in general believe that supporting the Iraqi war is a patriotic and moral thing to do, that you may disagree with the politicians but you can't disagree with the soldiers because that would be kicking our noble fighting men and women in the back when they're down and blah blah blah,
If somebody has an opinion that it is virtuous and patriotic and good, to support the war and support the troops and so on, then it's important to recognize that you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be able to change their opinion on that.
We can never change somebody's opinion if they believe that that opinion is moral.
This is the power of the argument for morality and the reason why When you pull it out, it can be quite a powerful tool, but it could also be very disruptive to your personal relationships, as I have mentioned before.
You can never, ever get somebody to change their mind and accept the conclusions of an opinion that they consider to be immoral.
So that's one of the reasons why I focus so much on the argument from morality.
So if somebody believes that it's virtuous and noble and patriotic and brave and honest and courageous and whatever to support the war in Iraq or to obey the president and they feel that that is the American way and we're the best society in the world, Then, if you're saying you should not support the American war in Iraq, then you are saying to that person you should not be a good and honest and noble and brave and so on person.
And nobody in a million years is going to be able to accept that.
Nobody's going to say, yes, it's entirely the wrong opinion and it is actually ignoble and cowardly, but I'm going to accept it anyway.
So if you're going to present them with a new argument they've never heard before, They are immediately going to dismiss you if they can frame your position in their own minds as something that is ignoble or dishonorable or immoral in some way.
So you will see this, for instance, in the arguments about taxation.
When somebody basically says that if you don't pay taxes you're not patriotic, you will never be able to change their mind about taxation until you can deal with the question of taxation and patriotism.
First and foremost, it's like a huge tree in the road of the car you're trying to drive.
And you can keep ramming the car into the tree, but I bet you, million to one, that the tree is kind of going to win.
Because, you know, when it comes to morality, the tree is kind of like one of those giant redwoods.
So you have to drive around the tree, you cut a hole through it, but you have to deal with the tree.
And if somebody has an ethical argument or an ethical support, to their approach, then you have to deal with that, or there's simply no point having discussions.
All you're going to do is end up in a stalemate, in a shouting match, and discontented, and so on.
Which is not to say that that won't occur with the argument for morality, but at least you will be talking about the right things, and not inconsequential things.
So, for instance, if somebody is talking about gun control, and you say to them that you think all guns should be legal, and all weapons should be legal, or whatever shocking anarchistic or libertarian opinion they're going to bring to bear on the topic, then if in their mind you are advocating a general slaughter and war of all against all, and babies are going to get gunned down, and society is going to descend into mayhem, and you're some spiky-haired, glue-sniffing, Sid Vicious wannabe lunatic,
Why then, it really doesn't matter what other arguments you bring to bear, unless you can get them to understand, at least, that you're both interested in the same thing.
So you want to align yourself with people.
This is not a trick.
This is not manipulative.
This is just a basic fact.
And it is also how we can begin to get these ideas out of the small enclave that we're working in right now, which is a fabulous enclave, and I'm enormously happy to be a small part of it.
But we need to widen these ideas out.
So I wanted to talk about a few things that you can use to bring to bear on these kinds of problems.
So here is, in no particular order, ten premises which you can use to help spread the word of freedom.
Now the first premise is a pretty basic one, and I think it's important to talk to people about this.
And if they don't have the patience for any of these premises, like if all they want to do is start arguing, as Ayn Rand used to call it, philosophizing in midstream, so basically just starting with something like gun control and not starting with something like human rights or epistemology, then they're just sort of an opinionated person who doesn't want to have any basis for those opinions and therefore you're really not going to have any luck changing their mind because in a sort of very real way there's no mind to change.
So the first premise that I would generally discuss with people when you're talking about freedom is this one.
A peaceful solution is better than a violent solution.
Now, this is kind of something that most people are going to be able to get behind, I think.
And if they can't get behind that solution, or that premise, then I would suggest getting out of the room.
Because you're in imminent danger of being beaten up, and that's not exactly going to serve your interests, or mine, because it's tough to get free-domain radio in a hospital.
So don't do that.
That's definitely bad.
If somebody does not agree a peaceful solution is better than a violent one, then get the hell out.
If they do agree with that, then you have something that you have in common when you're starting to solve these issues.
So, for instance, if you're talking about gun control with someone, you, I think, can genuinely and legitimately say that less violence is better than more violence.
And you both have that in common.
You both have that in common.
You aren't advocating the repeal of all gun control laws because you kind of want the society to descend into a mass shootout and for everyone to get killed.
And for women to get raped and children to be murdered.
That's not really your goal.
That you both have the goal of a less violent society.
Now there's a difference in methodology, for sure.
Because this person you're debating the issue with is going to say that gun control leads to a less violent society.
And if they're using the argument from effect, then you may want to stop at the argument effect.
You can always use the argument from morality.
But if they genuinely believe...
that gun control laws breed less crime, less violent crime, then basically you will not be able to change the mind until you deal with that issue.
Now, there's a number of ways of being able to deal with that issue.
You can use the argument for morality and say, well, okay, so some people have the right to have guns and other people don't, and some people must use their guns and other people must not have guns or even possess them.
And so asking them to explain that logic is one thing.
Now if they then say that I don't care about the logic at that level, that's just psychological trickery and mumbo-jumbo and who cares my real... I'm a pragmatic guy!
I'm a pragmatic guy and I just want to get rid of the violence and I don't care too much about the theory...
Well, then you're still going to have a fair amount of trouble convincing that person, because if they're not interested in logic, but only interested in statistics, then I think it's generally a good idea.
I mean, toss out a couple statistics, but given that statistics can do just about anything you want, they're a dog that can be taught almost any trick except objectivity.
then it's worth tossing a few statistics their way, but if they're not interested in theory, then they're really not going to be amenable to any kind of logical argument.
So if they don't have any interest in defining human rights in any universal way, or defining morality or anything like that, then they're just somebody who has an opinion, and they don't know that it's only an opinion, They think it's based on evidence or facts, when it's not.
And so that fundamental brain shield that they have around logic is going to deflect you in the same way that somebody who's committed to God and believes it's moral, regardless of evidence or arguments, has a wonderful brain shield against the problem of logic and evidence.
So, it's just important to qualify, right?
It's important to qualify who you're talking to.
There's a couple of reasons for that, which I'll talk about briefly here.
The first and most important reason is that if you're going to argue with somebody who's impervious to logic, it's going to make you unhappy.
And to me, that's the biggest issue, the biggest criteria.
Don't be unhappy is a pretty important criteria, I think, for how to live, right?
It's the Google motto, don't do evil.
The libertarian motto, or the objectivist motto, or whatever you want to call it, is something like, Aristotelian for sure, don't be unhappy.
And certainly don't be unhappy like, I don't like going to the dentist, but it's going to make me more unhappy if I don't.
For sure, you want to approach things from that standpoint in a logical way, but basically you don't really want to be unhappy for no purpose.
And if you bring logic to bear on somebody who's illogical, all they're going to do is they're going to mash your capacity for being logical, and they're going to enjoy mashing that in a weird kind of sadistic way.
And I've seen this I don't know how many times.
So you're going to feel defeated and bitter, you're going to get frustrated, you're going to feel like the human race is composed of nothing but mentally decomposing idiots, and that's going to make you unhappy.
And it's not like you've done anything for the cause of freedom, so really there's a net loss.
The other person feels they've triumphed over logic, which has sort of verified their opinion that logic is meaningless.
You have become bitter and no one's gotten any closer to any kind of real freedom.
So don't do that.
That would be my suggestion, for sure.
You are not a freedom robot.
You are not somebody who has to go out and fight for freedom in any situation, regardless of the consequences, right?
So you want to do a little probing, right?
You want to do a little probing to find out whether they're logical, interested in reason, or whether all they're doing is using statistics or a kind of weird rationality ex post facto, right?
Like, it's virtuous to obey the government because I'm terrified of my parents, or something like that.
Or my brother's in the military and the last thing I want to do is to confront him or provoke a confrontation with him because my parents will have a heart attack if there's extensive conflict within the family, whatever it is that's going on for that person.
And all they end up doing then is making up all of these logical arguments later on to cover up a fundamental opinion that has nothing to do with logic.
That's sort of important, I think, to understand.
So you don't waste your time, right?
Don't waste your time.
Don't discredit logic.
Don't discredit morality by pretending to argue with people who aren't capable of doing so.
So, if you're able to get sort of premise one across, that generally, all other things being equal, a peaceful solution is better than a violent solution, then that's something you can both agree on.
And if you both agree on that, then you have some premise for moving forward into whatever it is that you're debating with them.
Now, the second premise, which is sort of a correlation to the first premise, is that a voluntary solution is better than a coerced solution.
And, I mean, if they have any problem with this, just say, well, you know, is it better to ask your wife to marry you, or is it better to tell your wife that she's going to marry you, or are you going to shoot her?
I mean, it's kind of funny, right?
But, I mean, that's the reality of the state situation, right?
So, a voluntary solution is probably going to end up with a better outcome than a forced solution, and if they have problems with that, then Just sort of point out the overhead that's imposed.
Even if they don't want the argument from morality, just the argument from effect is something like, well, the overhead of a coerced solution is much higher than the overhead of a voluntary solution.
So, for instance, if everybody was perfectly happy with the existing system and distribution of taxation, then you wouldn't really have any issues with It's becoming a voluntary system, right?
So if everybody was happy and liked the country and was happy and wanted the government to be paid that much and enjoyed, to whatever degree felt it was the right thing to do and were happy about it, as far as their taxation goes, then you wouldn't need the IRS.
You wouldn't need tax forms.
Well, maybe you'd need tax forms.
It could be just some simple online thing, right?
Like, plug in your income and here's the amount of money you need to send to Washington.
Or London, or Cairo, or Baghdad, or wherever it is you're being taxed.
Do you know they have a flat 15% tax in Russia?
It's fantastic.
Anyway...
That's something that you can sort of recognize as a value, right?
Like a peaceful solution, a voluntary solution, is certainly cheaper and nicer, I guess you could say, than a coerced solution.
And that's something else I think is important to talk about.
Even if they're just some pragmatic, practical guy who says, oh, you know what?
I think that it would be better if the government got more taxation.
Well, they'd get a lot more taxation if they simply got rid of the IRS and all of the tens of billions of dollars a year they spend on Enforcement and the prosecution and jails and so on and just had the people send them the money Voluntarily that that would be a better situation now.
He's gonna say or she's gonna say well, that's never gonna happen and That's perfectly valid I mean at this point I would roll with that and just say I understand but you know I guess we could say that if it were a voluntary Situation that we would generally think that that's a better solution than a coerced one.
You know whether or not it's gonna work Let's just play funsies.
Let's just play mental games and talk about that and Now, the third premise which you can talk about with people in regards to freedom is something like this.
A flexible or adaptive solution is better than an inflexible or a fixed solution.
So, for instance, if you say to everyone that you have to have a smallpox injection, Then, or a smallpox inoculation, then that makes sense, of course, when there's a lot of smallpox going on.
But if that solution is simply going to be the way that it is, you have to get this injection from here until the end of time, then it really doesn't make quite as much sense if smallpox has been eliminated.
And, you know, you can say there could be a resurgence or whatever, and I'm just sort of talking in general.
Like, to force everyone to get inoculated is fine, you could sort of even make the argument if there's a desperately bad plague going on, but if it becomes an inflexible and permanent solution, when it really should be a flexible solution that adapts itself to circumstances and changes, then that is not really as good a solution.
So, for instance, there's this JobsWorks program in the United States, and there are similar programs, I'm sure, in most of the other Western sort of democracies, wherein the government spends a lot of money to get people trained who are on welfare so they can get jobs.
Now, of course, if the fact of the matter is that this program does not create jobs for people, but in fact instead denies them the creation of jobs because Well, for two reasons.
One, that they show up for the training, or they don't stay for the training, or they get trained for things which aren't really required or in demand in the market.
Or, after they graduate, so much tax has been taken away from people in order to fund this solution that fewer jobs are created in the market, so they just don't have the same opportunities for employment, or whatever.
Then, that would be considered an inflexible solution, right?
Something that's just going to solve a problem regardless of whether it actually does solve the problem.
It's aimed at that.
And so even if it doesn't solve the problem, then it's still going to get funding and so on.
So generally we would say that that kind of solution is a bad solution.
It would be sort of like saying, I'm having problems with my wife, so we need to go for couples counseling.
And obviously couples counseling would be better if you could stop at some point.
And that would sort of be a flexible solution.
So if you have some kind of cancer you go in for chemotherapy and then you stop going for chemotherapy either when you're dead or when you have a remission and it's you've been clean for six months or whatever and everything's dormant or it's gone away or it's been dealt with.
Then you wouldn't keep going for chemotherapy, right?
So a solution that alters itself according to current circumstances is generally better than one that is just fixed and permanent and has to happen no matter what the current circumstances are.
And this, of course, is tied into both peaceful and voluntary solutions.
So that's sort of important to understand as well.
And if they can agree with you on that, then so much the better.
Everybody's going to be happy about that and we're all going to be better off with that kind of voluntary solution.
Now, another premise I think that's important to talk about with people, that's sort of premise number four, is that people, in general, are benevolent.
People, in general, are, you know, nice-ish.
You know, generally, they like to help people.
Generally, if you stop and ask them for directions, they're not going to punch you in the face, but instead they are probably going to offer you some directions, even if those directions aren't the best, they're still going to do their best to help.
And if your house is on fire, and people are gathering around, and you're begging them for help, and they're not at too much risk, then they'll probably help you.
And if you're stuck on the highway, and you don't have a cell phone, people will probably help you.
Like, there's lots of ways in which people are generally helpful.
Now, this is an important premise, obviously for a variety of reasons that I'm sure I don't need to get into here, but the first sort of premise that you need to deal with with somebody who is a statist or somebody who's into government-run solutions is that they generally believe that everybody in the government is more or less virtuous and everybody in the private sector or who's not in the government is more or less evil and greedy and nasty.
And you want to start pointing out that as a sort of logical contradiction, I think.
So that's something that's also important to get across to them.
So if they say, no, people in general are not benevolent and don't want to help others, then of course you have the problem that they're going to have to answer, which is that you can't make up different moral categories or generalizations for people in the private sector compared to people in the government.
So you can't say, well, people in general are mean and selfish and nasty, but those people in the government who run the welfare programs are not.
The people then who have the welfare programs are mean and selfish and nasty, which is going to mean that the welfare programs are going to be badly run and inefficient and destructive and so on.
People are going to use the welfare programs to benefit their own material gains and careers, and not really to help the poor, or if there is any help to the poor, it's sort of accidental, like incidental.
So, that's an important premise to get across.
Now, if they say that in general people are mean, including the people in the welfare agency, then they have a problem.
If they say that people in the government are nice, but people in the private sector are mean, then they have the problem of just wondering exactly, of answering the problem exactly, of how evil people in general, or corrupt or greedy people in general, can vote in politicians who have wonderful programs like the welfare state, and of course that's completely illogical.
So there's lots of ways to approach that problem, but if, in general, people have a kind of benevolence to them, right?
You can bring out some examples like the New Orleans or the tsunami in Malaysia and so on, where people send lots of money and help.
And, you know, the fact that there are a hundred thousand churches in the States and people do that voluntarily and charities get lots of money and so on.
So there's lots of help in people.
And if people say, well, no, people are mean and greedy and nasty, then, of course, you know, you can sort of ask them, can you give me some examples from your own life?
Like sort of put them on the spot.
Like if people say, oh, people are in general prefer violence to peaceful solutions, you can say, okay, well, other than your family, you know, or maybe you can even ask them about their family if you're feeling kind of brave, you can say, well, can you give me examples of people in your life who are generally violent and mean and nasty and brutal and so on?
And then you can start to sort of try and figure out where and why all this is coming from.
And generally you'll find that it's, you know, drugs or housing projects or really depressed areas where there's lots of welfare or single-parent families or whatever, right?
I mean, this is where the roots of violence really come from, and of course all of these are the direct result of state programs, so...
You can't say that state programs are justified due to violence, because in the vast majority of cases, it's state programs that produce violence.
So you kind of can't use that one logically.
So you can have that conversation about people, like, do they think that people are benevolent or not?
And of course, if they say everyone's mean, then of course they have to put themselves in that category and blah, blah, blah.
Now, another premise, premise number five, that you can talk about with people is something like this.
And again, these are all just suggestions.
I mean, obviously, this is just my list.
I mean, whatever you find most helpful.
But these are things that I found helpful.
The poor generally want to improve their lot.
I mean, those who are poor who don't want to be poor are generally sort of interested in improving their lot.
And that's an important premise to get over as well.
I mean, there are some people who are poor Who are poor because they're a waiter who's trying to get into acting so they take a pretty low income because they're pursuing a dream or I took almost two years off to write a couple of books and So I was very poor in terms of my income I mean I was comfortable in terms of my circumstances but poor in terms of my income and But it's not something that people could help me with or help me get out of poverty.
It's something that I voluntarily chose in order to pursue a particular dream.
And of course this is also the case with people who are university students or grad students that their incomes are really low.
But it's not poverty.
Monks who voluntarily choose this kind of stuff.
Whatever, you know, whatever people are involved in.
There are some people who don't want to get out of poverty.
I mean, not that they'd say no to a free check or a lottery win, but it's not like they are trapped in poverty and they'd love to get out and they'd do anything to change their lives.
They just can't get going.
Now, there are the other people, though, who are poor, who generally would prefer not to be poor, and, if given the opportunities, would like to get out of poverty.
And, of course, if they say, no, the people who are poor love poverty, and they really want to stay there, then, of course, the welfare state makes no sense, right?
Because you're funding people's preferred choices with violence, and that really is not a beneficial thing.
And of course, if the poor don't want to get out of poverty, but really like the welfare state, then that's really unjust as well, right?
That's just a theft, right?
I mean, that's just open greed and stealing, and that's obviously not going to be something that's moral.
I mean, it's open stealing no matter which way you cut it with the welfare state, but if the people don't even want to get out of poverty, but are just grabbing the money to stay there, then they lose a little bit of the sympathy vote, I think, at least just on that sort of pure emotional, uneducated, about real ethics kind of level.
Now, another thing that you can generally say, and I mean, everyone's heard this thing about the fish, right?
I mean, it's better to teach a man how to fish than to give him fish because he's, you know, every day because he's dependent on your fish and, you know, he's going to be lazy and he's going to, whatever.
He's not going to develop the skills and then if you suddenly stop giving him fish, there's the foreign aid argument, right?
Then he's going to starve to death or whatever.
So it's generally better So what that really translates to is that in general, I mean again with all other things being equal and we're all sort of working on general principles, hiring is better than welfare.
I mean I think we can sort of say that somebody having a job is better than them being on welfare.
And so you know these are all things that you can agree on with people.
These are all things that put you on the same side of the fence.
Right, because if you're three psychiatrists arguing about how best to treat a patient, and one psychiatrist is saying, well, I think that we should use drugs to get this person out of their depression, and then maybe we can give them some cognitive therapy, or behavior modification therapy, or talking therapy, or Jungian, or Freudian, or Adlerian, or Skinnerian, or whatever you want to call it, some kind of talking therapy, But the first thing we need to do is to get them out of their chemical or biochemical depression.
So let's give them some antidepressants.
And then four to six weeks later, we can start them on a talking cure while they're feeling better.
That's the best way to do it.
And another one says, well, I don't believe in that stuff.
I think the talking cure is the best way to do it.
And generally, you know, four to six weeks after they start talking therapy, they're better off anyway.
So let's not risk the chemical dependence and the additional cost and blah, blah, blah.
And then the third guy says, I think we should shoot him.
Well, the debate really isn't going to circle around the last guy's points.
They're not going to say, well, that's interesting.
I hadn't thought about that before.
Let's discuss that.
So if one person is considered to have a really radical and immoral solution, they're not going to be part of the debate.
The first thing that you're going to need to talk about when you're talking about dealing with social issues is to get at least people to understand that you're on the same page as they are.
I mean, the premises that I'm putting forward, I don't really think that a lot of people are going to disagree with them.
I don't really think That a lot of people are going to say, hey, you know what?
I think that violence is better than peaceful solutions.
And I think that maladaptive and fixed solutions are better than adaptive solutions.
And I think that people are completely evil.
And I think that the poor are greedy parasites.
And I think that welfare is better than hiring.
I mean, nobody's going to say that.
I mean, nobody credible is going to say that.
I mean, somebody just to be an annoying contrarian is going to say that.
But you don't want to bother debating with these people anyway, and of course the logic behind their rejection of what you're saying is going to be pretty easy to disprove.
So, that's sort of something that I think is important.
I mean, we want to find what we have in common with people, so that at least they understand that, yeah, okay, our kind of solutions may seem radical to you, but the problem is kind of radical too.
And it took a long time and a lot of bad ideas to get into this kind of situation where these problems exist.
And the solutions may sound radical, but it's not because we have a different opinion about the optimal solution.
We have a methodology or a philosophy which is different from what you're used to hearing, like if you're into like Sean Hannity or Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh or whatever.
You're going to have some agreement with us and you're going to find that our solutions are, you know, what you would call radical or extreme or absolutist or something like that.
But the fact of the matter is that we're interested in the same things, right?
We want to help the poor, you want to help the poor.
We want to help the sick, you want to help the sick.
We prefer pacifism over violence, you prefer pacifism over violence.
And so on.
Now, another premise that's important to establish with people is that if you're going to help somebody in terms of charity or resources that you're going to give them, that it's sort of important that you don't just write them a check, right?
You sort of get involved.
I mean, if you have somebody who's... I mean, just to use a provocative example, you have somebody who's a raging alcoholic.
Then if you just give them a check for $10,000 and say, good luck with that, then it seems to me kind of unlikely that you're ever going to end up really helping people.
Or if you do, it's going to be entirely accidental, right?
Because if you've got a raging alcoholic and you give them $10,000, the extraordinary likelihood is not that they're going to check themselves into rehab and turn their lives around.
Or if they do, it's going to be very brief, it's most likely that they're going to go on a bender.
And you know that because they are in fact an extreme alcoholic and they're not in control particularly of their behavior.
So, the important thing, if you're going to try and help people, is to monitor them in some way.
And not just in some sort of punitive way, but monitor them in some way that is actually going to sort of help them.
In a sort of productive and proactive way.
I think that's sort of important.
And so from that standpoint, you're all going to be on the same page.
You're both going to agree.
You're going to agree with whoever it is that you're talking to.
And I think that's great.
So I'm sure that they'll understand, to some degree, that the existing welfare state, not so good with the whole monitoring thing.
I mean, basically people get checks.
And occasionally they will get their checks yanked for reasons that are pretty hard to figure out in any kind of logical way.
So they're going to get their checks yanked, or they're going to get people descending on them and getting mad at them and so on.
But there's not going to be a whole lot of proactive monitoring and helping and individuation with this kind of stuff.
So of course, all other things being equal, if people can get the monetary help, but also get the involvement of people to actually help them turn their lives around, Then I think that would be great, because it seems to me pretty obvious that people who've ended up in a situation of desperate poverty, the solution is not just to give them money, because if they were good at managing their lives to begin with, it seems less than likely that they would have ended up in that situation to begin with.
So this is another example of things that you can have in common with people when you're discussing things like freedom with them.
And, I mean, to get into how our ideas solve these problems without both of you being on the same page about the problems that need to be solved, to me seems, you know, kind of, as my boss calls it, it's a premature elaboration.
And that's sort of something that happens in sales when you talk about all the features in a software package or whatever you're selling without actually figuring out or discussing with the client whether they actually need your solution or have a problem that your solution deals with.
So it's premature elaboration for me to get into this sort of problem of how we solve all of these issues without people understanding that we both have the same goals.
if you're dealing with a socialist or a Marxist or a liberal or anyone like that, they're all going to agree with you in these kinds of discussions.
They're all going to have the same basis in terms of the problems that need to be solved or the optimal solution.
I mean, a Marxist is going to absolutely agree with you that coercive exploitation is bad.
And a moralist is going to generally agree with you that stealing from people is wrong.
I mean, the Marxist may have some disagreements with you because he's going to say all property is theft, but he's still going to have to say that theft is wrong.
He's just going to define it as the existence of private property.
The same way that, you know, you're not going to come across a lot of people who say, That rape and murder are great.
Right.
So these kinds of agreements I think is very important to get going with.
That you all want to solve the same problems.
You all want to help the poor.
We'd all love for the poor to get ahead.
We'd all love for the sick to get as much medical care as humanly possible.
And we all want world peace, right?
We all want to feed the hungry, we all want to clothe the homeless, and we all want to house the homeless, and we all want to heal the sick.
Everybody's on the same page about that.
I mean, that's a wonderful thing.
Because if people aren't on that page at all, then there's no point having any kind of moral solutions anywhere, at any time, in any place.
Because if people don't want those things, then using force to try and achieve whatever moral goals people are talking about is really kind of pointless, I think.
It really won't make any sense at all.
So I hope this has been helpful.
I didn't get to all ten, and I will try and get to the rest of them this afternoon.
▲
Export Selection