All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
29:04
279 Violence and Virtue

Unraveling the contradictions between choice and punishment

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody.
Hope you're doing well. It's Steph.
This is take two.
Something caused my computer to reboot while I was driving.
So here we are, now 8.41.
We'll have a very short podcast this morning, about halfway to work.
So it'll be, well, I guess you could say relatively concise would be the key phrase.
So what I'd like to do is just talk a little bit about this issue of the poor that we were talking about yesterday.
And to just go a little bit further into what it is that I mean by shock the poor, and it really is to do with this, that when people are talking about the poor, In political discussions.
They're not talking about the poor like they really get and understand poverty and they really get and understand the free market and they really get and understand personal and individual responsibility.
They don't get all of that stuff at all.
What they're doing is they're using a move.
It's like a chess move. It's like a block.
All they're doing is trying to block the flow of your argument to stifle or to stymie or to squelch the flow of your argument and what they're doing is they're pushing a big button called STAW and we all sort of We're born with these buttons, and they're sort of sitting out there, big red flashing buttons that people use in order to shut us up.
I mean, it's not that they're really interested in the poor, because, of course, as I sort of mentioned yesterday, if they were interested in the poor, they would compare the current situation of the poor to the proposed situation of the poor.
So that's not something that they're trying to do is help the poor.
What they're trying to do is push this big red button that's on everybody's chest and forehead called the poor, or the sick, or the old, or the helpless, or whatever.
Which is designed to sort of stall us from any kind of freedom.
This is what the state leaves in your psyche, and this is what the church leaves in your psyche, so that you can't become free.
And so we sit there fighting amongst ourselves about the poor while the state impoverishes us all.
I mean, that's sort of the joke of it, right?
I mean, if you really cared about the poor, then...
So, if you really cared about the poor, you would be very concerned about the government spending.
A deficit, right? I mean, just rationally.
You'd be very concerned, if you were concerned about the poor, you'd be very concerned about the problem of opportunity, right?
So what the poor need most is opportunity, and that's something only the free market can provide.
But these people are. They just throw this word, well, what about the poor?
And it's just a move.
And so, like, another move that you get, I'll just sort of tell you where I'm coming from in this sense, right?
This is another move that you're going to get in any kind of debate with people.
The virtue-violence swing, right?
So people, if you say, if somebody's forced at the point of a gun to do something good, is it really good?
They'd say, well, probably not, or maybe...
But it wouldn't be as virtuous as if somebody came up with on their own.
So whenever you're talking about politics with people, you'll always get this virtue violence pendulum.
So they'll say, well, we have to...
Why do we bring up taxes?
You say, well, taxes are evil.
No, they're not evil because we choose the government.
We choose the government.
And so you say, oh, okay, great.
So the majority want X, Y, and Z, right?
And then they'll say, okay, yes, the majority want X, Y, and Z. The majority want to be taxed at 50% or 40% or 60% or whatever.
And so if that's the case, if people voluntarily will choose things, then you don't need the government, right?
You absolutely don't need the government.
So for instance, if people say, well, people like paying taxes for the welfare state and they want to pay 30% of their income to the welfare state, then you don't need a government, right?
I mean, that's just inconceivable that you would need a government.
Because if people are paying 20 or 30% of their money towards charity, well, actually, I think that would be a disastrous thing for the poor, as it is with the welfare state.
I mean, the people who should be helped to a poor should be helped for a very short period of time while people help find them a job or get them training, and then they should not be helped.
That's intervention, right?
Otherwise you're treating people as children and not as adults, which is only going to make it worse.
And it's something that Christina mentioned to me once about psychological work in a hospital, that you have to be very careful about not causing people to regress.
Go back to childhood. So you have to keep giving them responsibilities to keep their sort of adult self awake and alert and not have them slide into passivity and manipulation, which was their experience as children.
So it's just very important to not give and give and give to the poor, as you would not want to give and give and give to anyone.
Like if you look at the Native Americans or the Native Canadians, the aboriginals, You know, they live in this absolutely fetid squalor because they get everything given to them, right?
So it's a bad thing.
It's inappropriate to human life to just be given stuff.
Now, I mean, by the government, right?
If it's the result of force.
So if people say, well...
We're not being forced to pay taxes because we choose our government.
We choose the welfare state.
We choose to help the poor, and the government's just enforcing that.
Well, you can't sort of have it both ways, right?
If we choose to help the poor, then there is no gun in the room, right?
There can't be a gun in the room because there's a choice, and it's a virtue, and it's a good thing.
But if there is a gun in the room...
Then it's not a choice, right?
But you'll always get back and forth, right?
So the general argument will be something like this, right?
Everybody's had this experience, right?
So you go and you say, well, taxes are evil.
Oh, no, taxes aren't evil because we choose the government.
Well, but if we choose the government, why have I never been asked for a choice about the government, whether there is a government or not?
And also, why is a gun being held to my head every day to get my money and time and energy, right?
You can't sort of have it both ways.
If the government is based on force, then that's fine.
You can say, well, the government's based on force, and taxes, they're evil, but they're not as evil as the consequences of whatever, right?
But it definitely is the use of force.
But people will say, when you bring up the use of force, that we choose the government, right?
So then you'll say that the natural response would then be, well, great, then we don't need the force, right?
If people choose the government, we don't need the gun in the room.
And then people say, well, no, no, no.
We have to force people.
Well, why? Well, because people wouldn't choose it if they weren't forced, right?
So this is the conundrum that you get into.
It's not your conundrum. It's the moves.
This is not a logical analysis.
You have to really understand with people.
They're not talking to you like reasoning things out from first principles.
They're not talking to you like...
Trying to understand where you're coming from and being curious.
All they're doing is they're just throwing mud in your eye.
You're skateboarding along and they're throwing concrete blocks in front of you hoping to make you trip.
It's not an argument in any way, shape or form.
They're just making moves.
And this pendulum between violence and virtue or choice and force is always, always, always, always going on in your debates with people.
I mean, I've had discussions up here in Canada, and I think I've mentioned this once before, wherein people say, socialized medicine is a fundamental Canadian value.
Fantastic! Great!
Then, I mean, this is an important point to understand.
Then, if it is a fundamental Canadian value, and we just want nothing more than to give all this money to a healthcare system, then we don't need the government, right?
If it's a value, if it's something that people will choose anyway, then we don't need the government.
And if it's not something that people would choose anyway, then you can't claim that we're obeying something that we choose.
I mean, how would it, and I've had this argument with feminists, I mean, how would it be if I said, well, this woman really wants to marry me, so I'm going to force her to.
Well, if she really wants to marry me, Why would I need to force her?
And if I am forcing her, how can I claim that she really wants it?
It's a complete paradox. Do you know, the amazing thing about the state, and this may be useful to you, if you're dealing with people who actually have some brains and want to know, rather than just they're acting out their own childhood thwarting, their own being thwarted as children to you, But when people say, well, we choose the government and we want the government and we like the government and we like the programs and it's democracy and blah, blah, blah, then say, well, fantastic.
So you're saying that people want this.
Fantastic. Then, you know, we could take away the power of taxation and society might look exactly the same as it does now.
Right? If everybody's so keen on all these government programs and if everybody's so keen on 100,000 regulations coming out of the federal government in the US every year, and if everyone's so keen on unions, and everyone's so keen on all this kind of stuff, if everybody wants to choose it,
then you could go to a stateless society tomorrow, and absolutely nothing would change, other than you would no longer have the overhead of enforcement.
And this is a very important thing to understand.
If it's a true democracy, if it's a true democracy, which everyone says, well, it's a democracy, we can vote or a government, whatever.
But if it is a true democracy, then there's no need for any force at all.
Because if there's a huge DRO, we'll call the government, that everybody wants a central government to do X, Y, and Z. Everybody wants this, that, and the other.
Then... We can have a stateless society and it's going to look exactly the same.
If everybody wants the Food and Drug Administration to spend 10 years approving a life-saving drug, if everyone wants a massive welfare state that traps people in poverty, if everybody wants child benefits that cause teenagers to have children, if everybody wants all of this kind of stuff,
then if everybody wants to spend $400 billion a year on the military, not counting the deficit, If everybody wants to rack up massive debts for their children, then we don't need a state.
What will happen is you'll get rid of the state, but everybody will continue working there.
So you'll get rid of the Department of Defense as an entity which has the power to enforce taxes and so on.
But everybody's so keen on the Department of Defense that they'll just continue to send the money anyway.
If it really is a fundamental Canadian value, To spend 8-10% of our gross domestic product on healthcare and get shitty healthcare as a result, if that's what everybody wants, then we don't need the force, right?
So when people say, what's going to happen to the poor, then I say, well, do you think that people have voted in the current system?
Well, yes. Well, then they obviously want to help the poor.
So nothing's going to change.
All we're doing is saving a massive amount of overhead.
Because we don't need tax laws.
We don't need the IRS. We don't need this, that, and the other.
Because people are just going to say, well, I support the government anyway, so I'm going to send them the money.
I'm going to send them a check for what it is that they're doing.
I'm going to send them 40% of my income.
All you'll need is a bill.
You won't need any enforcement.
So, if people love government education, then you could privatize everything, but everybody would end up doing exactly the same thing as they're doing now, and nobody would voluntarily go out of the public education system because they like it.
Now, if people then say, well, and they will, and they're horrified by that, well, you can't let people choose.
I mean, you can't let people choose where they're going to send their kids to school.
You can't do that.
You can't let people choose their own health care providers.
You can't let people choose how they're going to help the poor.
Well, that's fine.
But then you certainly can't claim that we're obeying the government because we like the government.
Right? I mean, it's one or the other.
If you say to me that I'm obeying the government because I voted and I like or whatever, right?
That's fine, but then you can't have any problems with me saying that you don't need any enforcement, right?
You just need the government to send you a bill for like $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 at the end of the year and send you your property taxes, and then there'll be this option, right?
So you're buying some clothing at the store, and they'll say, do you mind if I put the 15% tax on you?
And, of course, everybody likes the government, and everybody agrees with it, so they'll say, well, yeah, of course they will.
So it doesn't need to be put on, and if you don't charge it, you get thrown in jail, because everybody wants it.
Now, what they'll say is, well, the majority of people want it, and a minority of people don't want it, or they want something different.
Well, it's like, okay, well, that's fine.
But you're still saving all of the overhead of enforcement if the majority of people...
Who want healthcare?
Are they educated people or stupid people?
Are they idiots who never completed grade 9?
Although there can be, of course, geniuses who never completed grade 9.
I'm just talking about in general.
Or are they people who are well-educated and well-read and who understand this kind of stuff?
And they'll say, well, they're well-educated people.
You don't want to say that the social program is only approved of by People who aren't particularly bright, right?
Because it doesn't speak too well to the social program.
Oh, well, you know, educated people like the social program.
Well, great! Because educated people tend to be the ones with the money, right?
I mean, 80% of taxes are paid by the top 20% of people, right?
So, if it's educated people, then you don't need it, right?
You don't need the rest of it. So, there's...
I mean, even this majority argument doesn't work very well.
And... If you then say, well, but the majority have to, you know, then you get to the majority forcing their will on the minority.
There's lots of arguments against all of that, right?
A bunch of soldiers and a woman decide on who gets raped.
You can look at those kinds of arguments if you want.
There's lots of ways to sort of diffuse that kind of stuff.
But then, at least you can then say taxation is evil for the minority.
Even if you don't want to go down to the rape room argument, which I know is a little explosive, you can at least say, okay, well, so what you're saying is that taxation is evil then for the 49% who haven't managed to gain control of the state.
At least go with me that far.
So if people get to 51%, they can enforce their will on the 49%.
At least the 49%, the taxation is evil for them.
Because they're being forced to do something against their will.
And so, you can sort of get this any way you want, but the important thing to understand is that if people believe that the government is what we want it to be, if the government is what we want it to be, then you don't need any enforcement.
I mean, obviously, obviously, you rape because the woman won't have consensual sex with you.
I mean, you're evil, right?
So, if people believe that in the absence of enforcement, That the state is going to look different, then the degree of difference is the degree of evil.
So if they say, well, maybe 1% of 1% of social programs would change without enforcement, then obviously enforcement is unnecessary.
But if they say, well, the state will be radically different, radically different, without enforcement...
Then, obviously, the state is not what people want it to be.
And so you can't claim that we're obeying the state because it does what we want.
Instituted by men for the sake of secure our freedoms and so on.
Buy in for the people. Well, if the state does mirror what the citizens want, then there's no enforcement needed.
And if the state does not mirror what people want, then enforcement is evil.
That's just simple logic.
Now, of course, the question is why are people always so blind to this?
Well, because they're not arguing about the state, for God's sakes.
They're not arguing about the state.
They're arguing about their parents.
They're arguing about their authority figures.
So your parents say to you, obey me because I'm virtuous.
Well, I think that's fine.
Then your parents should be able to explain virtue to you in a kind of self-interested kind of way.
But people grow up, because parents, you know, God bless them, my parents don't have a freaking clue about ethics, because nobody has a clue about ethics, I think, except for a few of us.
People who are parents, they don't have a clue about ethics, but they want their children to obey them.
They want their children to not, you know, kick the cat and steal from stores or whatever.
I mean, not that children are innately that way, but they definitely want their children to obey them.
And you see all these super nanny episodes where there are these tearful men and women saying, I just want my children to respect me.
And, you know, of course, they don't act in ways that generate any respect whatsoever.
Scream at their kids not to raise their voices.
They hit their kids saying, don't hit.
I mean, they don't have a clue about ethics whatsoever.
But parents are the ultimate source of the argument for morality, right?
Parents can't open their mouths and say, Obey me because I'm bigger.
Obey me because I can beat you up.
Obey me because I'm able to use violence against you without any consequences.
Parents don't say that.
They say, Obey me because I represent goodness.
Obey me because I'm moral.
So there was this guy on Dr.
Phil yesterday who was like, Second best is not an option.
Well, of course it is. But second best is a failure is not an option.
You know, all of this kind of hilarious, nanchuk-wielding movie, Steven Seagal kind of nonsense.
But he didn't say this.
It's like, I don't want you to fail because I'll get angry at you.
They say, well, no, he was always framing it in the argument for morality, that it'll make you a better person, that it makes you strive for excellence, that it makes you aim for the top, and all that kind of stuff.
Which, of course, the funny thing is, this guy never went to college, and not that there's anything wrong with that, but to end up saying, aim for the top, but I didn't go to college, is kind of funny, right?
It makes it a little tougher.
But... Parents are the ultimate source of the argument from morality.
They always say, obey me because I'm virtuous, because I know what the right thing to do is, and you better obey me because I'm the representative of all that is sunny, noble, and trustworthy, and honest, and good, and virtuous in the world.
And then if you don't obey, you get punished.
I mean, isn't that kind of funny?
I mean, it's kind of, kind of, kind of funny.
And, of course, the reason that we don't notice this as children is that there's no possibility of reciprocity when we're children.
And what I mean by that, by reciprocity, is what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So, if we're told by a parent something, then it should always be reciprocal when we get to be adults, right?
Because it's not, like, they don't say it's just because I'm older, they say it because I'm an adult and whatever, right?
So it should always be reciprocal when we get older, but it never is, right?
You try turning your parents' rules against your parents when you get older, and boy, it just doesn't work, right?
I certainly remember when I was in my teens, and after my mother had spent, you know, I guess a good 12 or 13 years hitting me, I grabbed her, you know, when I got big enough, and I grabbed her arms and, you know, yelled at her not to hit me anymore, and of course she was shocked and appalled, right? Shocked!
Shocked and appalled! That I would even remotely consider using violence.
I mean, it's funny, right?
I mean, it really is funny.
And you try this with your parents when they get older.
You try reversing any of these rules on your parents, and you just don't get anywhere, right?
It's not ethics.
It's almost talked about as ethics.
But it's simply obedience to people who are larger and powerful, and who hold the financial purse strings, and who, you know, when you're in my house, you do as I say.
And parents, of course, are all, do as I say, not as I do, is a constant refrain with parents.
So when people are dealing with this polarity between virtue and violence, they really are simply dealing with their families.
I mean, this is what children go through all the time.
They believe that their parents are virtuous, because to believe that your parents are lying to you about virtue, as I talked about in the parable of the apple, is more than children can bear.
I mean, if you go into that world of knowing that your parents are lying to you about virtue, and using your natural desire as a child to be good, if they're using that against you to turn you into an empty conformist, then it's about as evil an action as somebody can do towards a child.
Children can't handle that their parents are corrupt and evil when they're young, because what happens is they then lose the desire for virtue and become kind of sociopathic.
Like, when the parents finally convince the child that they're evil, then the children generally become sociopathic.
That's a broad statement, and I'm not going to semi-defend it in every case, but...
That's why it's so difficult and dangerous to recognize that your parents may be corrupt and evil, because you do risk nihilism as the emotional result of that, and that's why you've really got to fight your way through to your true self as quickly as possible when you go through this process with your parents.
So we believe in our parents' virtue, but we obey them because we're frightened.
So when we're children, we have this exact polarity with our parents.
Oh, my dad's a great guy.
He wants nothing but the best for me.
But if I don't obey, he'll withdraw, he'll yell, he'll...
What do parents do when you don't do what they tell you to?
What do your parents do? Do they reason with you?
Do they sort of talk to you about, I mean, when talking about not when you're walking into traffic when you're two, like when you get older, do they reason with you?
Do they understand? Do they allow you to ask questions?
Do they allow you to be curious? Do they explore ethics with you?
Do they, you know, do they admit of error?
Are they co-explorers in this wonderful journey towards truth that is the greatest thing that a human being can do and the greatest and most exciting journey in the world and in life?
Or do they just snap at you?
And if you point out things that they did that were hurtful to you when you were younger, do they just say, well, yes, sorry, but we were doing the best that we could?
Do they just come up with excuses?
Or do they actually start to really take ownership for what they did?
Do they start to say, well, yeah, you know, I can't imagine why I did that, but maybe we can talk about it and figure it out.
Maybe it had something to do with my own childhood, but I'm really, really sorry because it was terrible.
I can understand it would be frightening for you.
Do they do that, or do they just sort of say, yeah, well, you know, things were tough all over, buddy.
So this is something that you can explore, of course, and I recognize.
I really, you have to do this.
I mean, I think I'm not telling you what to do, but, you know, if you're really into ethics, you have to start with what is closest to you and also what is potentially or was potentially the most damaging thing to you.
So you start with your family and start exploring these questions of ethics with your family and about Things that hurt you or things that bothered you or things that frustrated you or things that you feel with regards to your family.
Just speak honestly, right?
I mean, if you're supposed to be close to your family, then...
But this is another place that people don't deal with this, right?
So everyone says, oh, I'm shocked that you might suggest not seeing your family because I'm very close to my family.
Well, of course, if you really were close to your family, then you would understand that most people are not.
And so you would at least have some sympathy with that.
You'd recognize that it's not a common situation.
Like, if you really were close to your family, it would be pretty evident to you how not close everyone else is to their family, because you'd notice the difference, right?
You'd really know the difference. And you would also have had a wild enough experience growing up that you would know how unique you were if you were really close to your family.
But everyone says, no, no, I'm shocked.
I mean, you guys talking about not seeing your family anymore.
It's terrible. Oh, my God, how could you even think of that?
I'm very close to my family. We have the best relationship ever.
Well, that's great.
But first of all, if you were really close to your family, you would have gone through this process of exploring ethics and exploring truth.
And so your first response to another person who was having trouble with their family would be to be curious and to be empathetic, not to slam them for the approach that they were taking.
It's sort of important to understand.
You reveal your family in your response to things that you find surprising.
You reveal your family in your response to people's questions and comments.
I mean, I see this on the board all the time.
Every time I look at someone's post, I'm like, yeah, well, I think I understand their family now.
I think I understand where they're coming from.
I've got a pretty good picture of their histories.
And it's something that you just reveal all the time.
I mean, until you deal with it, it's unconscious.
So, of course, a number of people have joined recently.
Welcome to you. Fantastic.
Glad to have you aboard. But they're not displaying any curiosity about what's going on with people's families.
They're just saying it's shocking and it's appalling.
And, you know, when I put a statement out there in regards to a thread on martial arts, and I said, well, I've never known somebody who's heavily into martial arts who wasn't physically abused as a kid.
Well, people hit the roof, of course, right?
They weren't curious and said, well, why do you think that?
And what's your experience?
And how many people are you talking about?
And tell me more. No, they went, oh, you're wrong.
You're crazy. I go to the gym.
We have a great time. They're great guys.
It's not true that everyone who's into martial arts was physically abused as a kid.
Right? And of course, that's not what I said.
But I mean, all they're doing is revealing how their family dealt with topics that were problematic.
They just shouted them down. I mean, you see, and the board members are very polite relative to other boards that I've heard of.
So this is a very minor issue relative to most people.
What happens when you come across something that troubles you?
Do you explore it?
Do you have the ego strength to look at it and to say, well, here's something I don't understand.
Let me try and understand it.
I may not agree with it at the end, but let me at least understand where this other person is coming from.
Do you do that, or do you just sort of shout it down?
Well, if you shout it down, all you're doing is revealing everything that happened in your family when you were a kid.
Which is not bad or anything, it's just that, I mean, to anybody with an experienced eye, it's as clear as day, and you're certainly not achieving what you want to achieve, which is to win the argument or something.
You're not doing that for sure.
I can tell you that from anybody with an experienced psychological eye.
You just look like somebody who's acting out, right?
So you may think that it's some sort of a benefit to you to do that, but it's not at all.
It's not. You just look immature, you know, to be honest with you.
So, you know, that's why I say really go for this curiosity thing.
And when you run into these kinds of pendulums where people just throw stuff at you, the poor and this sort of virtue violence pendulum that we're talking about today...
Just, you know, well, how do you know?
Where did you get this idea from?
And we'll talk about this more this afternoon.
But the important thing is to say, well, where did you get this idea from?
Because most people don't have a clue.
It's just propaganda, right?
They don't have any idea where they got this from.
Oh, everybody knows it. Well, no, I don't.
So... When people say, well, what would happen to the poor in the DRO society?
You say, well, what do you think would happen to the poor?
Well, they'd starve in the streets.
Well, where did you get that idea from?
I mean, I don't believe that, but tell me where you got this idea from.
Well, people are selfish.
Okay, well, where did you get that idea from?
I mean, is that because you've done some sort of study?
You've read statistics? How do you know?
How do you know?
You don't have to do it in a belligerent way, but just be curious.
How do you know, right? And very quickly you'll figure out that they only know because somebody told them.
And they're repeating it because they were going to be punished for not repeating it at some point in their life.
I hope that's helpful. I had some nice donations yesterday.
Thank you so much to those who donate.
It puts a spring in my step and a song in my heart, though fortunately I'm not singing at the moment because I've got this Tom Waits thing going on.
But if you'd like to come by and donate, I'd really appreciate that too.
▲
Export Selection