All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2006 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
42:45
423 Theory And Practice - Pocket Nukes and Global Warming
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon everybody.
It's Steph. Hope you're doing well.
We are starting once more in the bowels of the garage, because I realized that the lighting of the regular shows was just a little monotonous, and so I wanted to make sure that we had the capacity to get ourselves some different lighting.
Because, Lord knows, the thoughts don't have high variety to them, so the least we can do is often use some different lighting.
So, anyway, I wanted to talk this afternoon about a topic that has been cooking around on the board for the last little while.
And said topic being that there's some people, or, you know, this topic was opened and I've received a couple of emails on it as well.
There are some people who have a preference for...
Ah, there we go.
Let's actually get the parking done, shall we?
There are some people who have a preference for theory, and there are some people who have a preference for practice.
This should be no great surprise to us.
We do have philosophers and we do have engineers, so I'm sure that we can reasonably say that there are people who prefer these two different approaches to life.
We have researchers and we have doctors.
And, as far as the general question goes, I have no problem, of course, with practice.
I like to believe that everything that I propose that I can think of, I have, to some degree or another, attempted to put into practice to at least some degree.
So, I think that it's fair to say that I value practice prior to theory.
So, for instance, there is a debate going on in the libertarian group that I read and occasionally post to, wherein it is another example of a theory divorced from observation,
a theory divorced from obligation, and This is, of course, the theory that you, or the problem that you will see spat out against a free society, which is, well, gee, what about the problem of the pocket nukes?
Which is something that you will see quite a bit of When it comes to talking about what is going to happen in a free society, when people start gathering together nukes and building tanks in their basement and all this sort of nonsense,
you will see quite a bit of this kind of talk floating around in the realm of Libertarian theory and much intellectual effort is applied to should we search?
Should we have radiation detectors?
Is this an unwarranted invasion of people's privacy?
Should we have this? Should we have that?
All of it relative to this question of how on earth are we going to deal with the problem of nuclear weapons in a free society?
And, of course, you hear the same sort of thing, well, how will DROs, how could they possibly deal with the situation where you want to do business with somebody who's not part of your DRO and all this, that, and the other.
And, as I've mentioned before, once or twice, there is a very...
It's a strong and compelling model for a stateless society, and it's called the world.
Stateless societies show up at the micro, ultimate micro level, which is your life.
Not that your life is unimportant, it's just that it's smaller than the world.
So a stateless society shows up at the micro level in that you don't use force to get your way.
And a stateless society, to a smaller degree, shows up at the macro level.
And particularly in the realm of countries that are nuclear powers.
So in a nuclear power, when facing another nuclear power, it doesn't really threaten them with nukes.
You know, the one thing that is a direct constant of nuclear power It seems to take the sweet taste of war from the mouths of the leaders when they realize the possibility exists that they may,
in fact, end up being vaporized and they're not just sending dumb people to the front to get shot on their behalf, but they might, in fact, suffer themselves, and then it seems that they're able to find peaceful solutions To the problem of war, and so you don't see nuclear powers declaring war on each other, right?
For the very obvious reason that it would result in the destruction of the upper classes in one of two ways.
Either A, the upper classes would get vaporized along with everyone else, or B, The upper classes would get so many of the livestock, i.e.
taxpayers, killed off and so much of the capital and equipment of the society would be destroyed that they might actually go out and have to get semi-real jobs rather than posturing and puffing and preaching evil speeches for the masses.
So, you can see the question of what will happen when there is no government relative to nuclear power when you simply look at the world.
There is no world government.
And countries, I write once in, as I mentioned in my novel, Almost, I talk about the chilly amoral spaces.
Between countries, the chilly amoral spaces between countries.
And, of course, since there is no centralized government, when we look at this question of what does society look like without a government, well, it's going to kind of look like the world wherein DROs represent individual governments.
And a stateless society or a stateless area represents the world as a whole.
Now, of course, it's not a perfect translation because DROs won't have monopolies and violent monopolies over geographical areas.
So, of course, they don't directly represent governments.
But in the realm of nuclear power, they really do.
Because what nuclear power does is, or having the capacity to launch nuclear weapons or have nuclear weapons, what it does is it's the great equalizer between countries.
Power disparities mean that much less between countries if you have a nuclear power.
Now, the theory that we work with quite a bit here is that nuclear...
Sorry, the theory that we work with here is that disparities in power breed corruption and evil, right?
Which is where we have the problem with parenting, where we have the problem with priests, where we have the problem with states, and so on.
And the greater the power disparity, the greater the degree of corruption that is created.
So... We would then expect from this theory that there would be bullying that would occur between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers, because to have a nuclear weapon is really the greatest power disparity that you can have in international relations.
So we would expect, based on this theory, that nuclear powers would treat non-nuclear powers with contempt and with bullying, or just with indifference, but that nuclear powers would treat other nuclear powers with respect, if not affection.
And that would be the sort of test of the theory, and of course, when you look around the world, it really is borne out very, very well.
So, when people ask, well, how on earth would a libertarian society last without a central government to control the nuclear weapons, but when everybody could have a pocket nuclear weapon, well, you would look around and you would say, well, it would last just fine, because these nuclear weapons would never be used.
In the same way that nuclear weapons are never used, certainly not in confrontations between two nuclear powers.
And since you wouldn't know which DRO had a nuke and which DRO didn't have a nuke and whether your neighbor had a pocket nuke or this or that, they would simply never be used.
Never, never. And then one person wrote me back and said, oh great, never be used.
You're so confident of that.
Maybe you can give me some lottery numbers.
And I wrote him back, and I said, no, I can't, but I sell meteor strike insurance for only $100 a month, and you can sign up for that.
And the cost-benefit ratio for that is pretty much the same.
As it is to debate what's going to happen to nukes in a libertarian society, right?
You won't know who has them. You won't know who doesn't have them.
Unfortunately, they've been invented by governments, and you can't put the rabbit back in the hat, so to speak.
And, of course, we wouldn't have them if it wasn't for governments.
So the fact that governments have produced these weapons of genocidal evil It's not an argument for the existence of governments, right?
It's directly an argument against the existence of governments.
This I just find quite funny overall.
The idea that People think that because nuclear weapons exist, we need a government.
But of course, the only reason that these murderously genocidal weapons exist is because governments existed in the first place.
Certainly no free market agency would ever have developed them.
Unless, well, you know, I should retract that.
But I won't. No, I should retract that and I will say that if they are the most efficient way To defend your country and maintain peace, then yes, I do suppose that it is vaguely possible that a free market might have come up with these kinds of...
I just want to see how long it's going to take me to get to the highway.
Boy, this makes no sense if you're just on the audio.
That's why you need to sit down and spend most of your free time, if not all of it, watching free domain video.
FDV. Because FDR, free domain radio, is too confusing with the president.
So, in terms of theory and in terms of practice, it is a yin and a yang.
You can't really have any sort of effective use of one without the other.
And by that, of course, what I mean is that you can't understand the world by just looking at practice.
But you also can't understand the world simply by looking at theory.
Because if you don't understand that in order to know how nuclear weapons are used, we don't need to look at some sort of massive theoretical construct of how low-orbiting radiation-spotting satellites are going to scoop over people, and is this an invasion of their privacy to find out if they have nuclear weapons?
You don't need any of that, because we know.
We know how nuclear weapons are going to be used, which is not at all.
We're just looking around the world. There's not a big mystery or question here.
What I'd like to do is just spend a little bit of time talking about how you can look at theories and dismiss them without having to become an expert.
This is about anti-paranoid intellectualism or anti-paranoid self-assertiveness.
And there are a number of ways in which you can tell that a theory is false without having to become an expert on it.
And of course, you can't.
You simply can't become an expert on everything.
That's simply totally impossible.
So let's not even pretend that we can try to do that.
And so one of the ways that you know that a theory is false...
The theory consistently calls for aggression against you.
I mean, the results of the theory consistently and universally call for aggression against you when there's no logical certainty or no logical reason why that aggression against you would be an automatic and inevitable absolute from the problem that is supposedly trying to be solved.
And just in case, when you drive, you sometimes see these people who are really annoying and who try and sneak in ahead of you when there's been a long line of cars, you now know what one of them looks like.
Really, really sorry. Really sorry, because I just couldn't get in.
There were three buses in a row, and I was trying to get in.
Like, you know how your zippers go together?
That was me trying to merge in between these two buses.
And, of course, people who are concerned about me videocasting, From my car?
Let me tell you this.
How careful a driver do you think I'm going to be if any accident that occurs is going to be A, caught on video, and B, is going to be revealed that I'm doing a videocast from my car, which I can't imagine will help me in court very much.
So, trust me, if you understand something about the free market, it doesn't guarantee that I won't have an accident while I'm videocasting.
But I can certainly guarantee you that videocasting does not in any way, shape, or form add to the possibility of me having an accident.
There's some real-life, in-your-face kind of economics for you.
I wonder if this is not too loud.
So, let's have a look at...
The question of the criteria in a little bit more detail that we're talking about here in terms of knowing when a theory is pure nonsense and the criteria that you can apply to find that out.
So, you know, for instance, one fine gentleman who was talking about theory versus practice posted on the Freedom Aid Radio board and asked, well, what about global warming?
What about global warming? Now, I did do a little bit of research at lunch today on global warming, and I've done a bunch of research before.
And you can do all the research yourself.
I'll post a PDF, one that I dug up, that was actually quite good.
Is the Sky Really Falling?
A review of recent global warming scare stories by Patrick J. Michaels, who is a professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytech Institute and State University, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and author of the 2003 Climate Science Paper of the Year, selected by the Association of American Geographers. selected by the Association of American Geographers.
His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, PhD in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Blah blah blah. Anyway, this guy goes into a good amount of detail about all the nonsense that gets spun out about...
Global warming and all of the refutations that exist.
And you also, if you want something a little less technical, you might want to read The State of Fear by Michael Crichton, which is actually...
Sorry, Dr.
Michael Crichton, M.D., who has written, I think, a very good book about this, replete with the kinds of footnotes that go to...
Putting out pretty gripping kinds of validation for what it is that he's talking about, and I'm not going to give away his big ending, but it's well worth having a look at his book.
So, when you think about global warming, what you need to do is, instead of burying yourself in the data, is to look at the consistency of the conclusions.
This is how you tell propaganda from curiosity.
This is how you tell propaganda from research.
This is how you tell bias from science.
You look at the uniformity of the recommendations.
Because if every single human being who believes X, when X does not necessitate Y, also believes Y, and when X is more highly variable than Y, then obviously the purpose of all arguments is to advocate Y,
not to establish X. So if everybody who advocates global warming advocates a government solution to the question or to the problem of global warming, Then it's clear that the purpose of global warming is to argue for the expansion of state power,
right? Global warming, a highly controversial science where you've got lots of stuff argued for here, there, and everywhere.
And it's without a doubt, you could bury yourself in the data, you get contradictory views from everyone and their brother, but the one thing that is constant is all those who believe that global warming exists believe that the government is the only way that the problem can be solved.
Now, of course, there's nothing that necessitates, if global warming does exist, that an expansion of state power would be the inevitable and logical way to solve it.
In the same way that all poverty advocates advocate an expansion of state spending, and all education advocates advocate an expansion of state spending, and all people who are interested in healthcare advocate an expansion of state spending, and this and that and the other. Just as almost all feminists advocate, yes, an expansion of state spending in the form of maternity benefits and subsidies and so on, and free daycare and all this sort of nonsense.
So, when you look at an extraordinarily wide multitude of beliefs, all of which end up advocating the expansion of state power, when there is zero logical requirement that these beliefs would result in an advocation of an expansion of state power, then you know that the common denominator, what is really going on here, is that people want an expansion of state power.
I mean, they want an expansion of state power, and like sort of a water running down a hill, they will find whatever route, or like me trying to get to work or back, they will find any kind of route that they can to get to the expansion of state power.
And this is one way in which you know that a theory is nonsense.
Right? If there's lots, if there's, obviously, if there's significant debate, then it's premature to come down on any side of it.
If you don't, if it's not a sort of logical, moral issue.
Like, it's not logical or moral whether global warming is caused by mankind, what the results will be, and so on.
This is not a moral question, right?
This is simply a question of science.
Like, it's not moral the speed at which objects accelerate towards the Earth.
It's something that just has to be established through scientific inquiry.
And whether global warming is occurring is not moral, whether it's caused by mankind is not moral.
If it's caused by mankind and the effects are deleterious, or more deleterious than the solutions, then you need to make sure, if you want to solve the problem, that the solutions are put in place, And the solutions that are put in place are a free market wherein people who will have an incentive,
an economic incentive, to solve these problems are left free to let the economic incentives work their magic, just as everything else does within the free market and within a free society.
So, just to take some mild examples from the question of global warming, The numbers have been proven to be complete nonsense.
This hockey stick chart that was first unveiled in the mid-90s, I think, at the UN, the source code has been examined by independent people, and it has been found that the source code contains a logical error, or a code error, wherein even if you feed random numbers through this code, you will end up with a hockey stick projection.
So, the numbers are complete nonsense.
The arguments about the ice caps melting is all complete nonsense, that the ice caps are not in fact melting, that the krill are dying off is not in fact occurring, that 2005 was the warmest on record is not the case.
That, of course, there's nothing to do, there's been no increase in the variance or severity of hurricanes, and, of course, the mouth-breathing ass-clowns who ended up trying to pin the tsunami on global warming, as if the tsunami has anything to do with the shifting of the seabed, while, of course, these people were completely grasping at straws.
But... Basically, you know that there's a lot of controversy around global warming.
But even if we did accept that global warming were true, even if we accepted the fact that even though none of the predictions about global warming have come true, that somehow the future ones are going to magically come true, that even though the...
The climate projections going out have a variance at minimum of at least 400%, which of course means that they're just not even remotely accurate.
Even if we get rid of all of that, And even if we say that global warming is not a natural phenomenon, and of course the one thing about getting older is you learn to take all of this nonsense with all of the ridiculousness that it entails, because when I was a kid, the big fear was not global warming, but global cooling, right?
And the fear before that was mass starvation, and the fear between global warming and global cooling was Oh, we're going to run out of natural resources, and oh, you know, it's all just...
I remember being a kid, and I don't know, I guess I was eight or nine years old.
It was in the mid-70s, and I read an article where it said mass starvation by 1980.
I mean, this constant shit-ass fear-mongering that occurs is just a constant drumbeat of those seeking power over you.
I mean, you just don't listen to it.
You just don't listen to it.
Because even if we did accept that global warming was predictable and caused by man and had deleterious results or results worse than the proposed solutions, that would in no way, shape, or form indicate that the government would do anything other than make it worse.
For instance, I mean, there's three basic things that you could do if you were interested in stopping global warming, right?
If you accepted that it was man-made and bad and so on, and existed, then there's sort of three basic things that you could do to deal with the problem of global warming.
The first thing that you could do is you would argue for private roads.
If you were at all interested in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, particularly from cars, well, the first thing you would do is you would argue for private roads.
Why? Because, of course, the massive subsidies that drivers enjoy at the hands of those who are not drivers, and of course that the people who drive more enjoy at the hands of those who drive less, This has contributed enormously to the overuse of the automobile.
And so you have to recognize that, right?
But I don't know of a single person, economist, politician, climatologist, scientist, whoever, I don't know of a single person who believes in global warming who has recommended that the government privatize the roads.
Not really on the table, is it?
Now, of course, the next thing that you would argue for, if you were interested in really removing the incentive to pump out carbon emissions, You would obviously be pro-nuclear power.
You would be pro-nuclear power.
Nuclear power is a fine, fine, fine solution to the problems involved in global warming.
You would not say to people and wag your finger and nag at them that they should cease to use the kind of energy that they're using.
No, no, no. Instead, you would simply turn to a clean form of energy.
And you would, of course, say that this clean form of energy should be in private hands, right?
It should not be run by the government.
Because the government has contributed enormously to this maybe problem by subsidizing, by basically making all the roads free and by restricting the growth of nuclear power.
And, of course, the final thing, and this is just three off the top of my head, there could be many, many more, of course, but the final thing that you would do if, as I said, you were interested in actually reducing carbon emissions is you would lobby very strongly for a reduction in federal subsidies or state subsidies or any form of government subsidies to any kind of fossil fuel-based energy source.
I mean, there's billions and billions of dollars sloshing around in the world, which ends up in the hands of fossil fuel energy source producers.
And so that's another thing that you would do, because when you take subsidies away, of course, the activities will decline.
And, of course, if you privatize the roads, the other thing that would happen is that because people who live far away from work are basically enormously subsidized through the taxes which go to support roads, the people just keep building houses further and further away.
You know, as soon as the government builds a new free road, then everyone goes, yay!
You know, builds a new housing development right at the end of it, which causes more people to move out there and commute more and so on.
So, there's tons and tons of things that you would do if you were at all interested in reducing emissions, which would have to do with limitations on state power.
It's fairly clear, right?
But, sadly, unfortunately, the people who are interested, who believe in global warming and believe that it's a bad thing and so on, Are bellied to tit with the state, sucking up the taxpayers' funds to produce boneless studies, boneheaded studies that further frighten the taxpayer into giving up more freedoms and money.
And so the people who run these studies...
We always end up with absolutely terrifying stories that indicate that California and Florida will be underwater and there will be, what was it, the movie, The Day After Tomorrow, there will be a new ice age that will fall in about 30 seconds and so on.
And so, I mean, it's exactly the same thing as the War on Terror.
Exactly the same thing as the war on terror.
The government constantly needs new boogeymen to scare you with in order to get you to give up your rights.
The government is all about making up imaginary problems to frighten you with.
Whereas the free market is all about solving real problems to make your life better.
Solving real problems or applying you with new goodies that make your life better.
I mean, the webcam, the microphone, the computer, the car, none of these things came from the government.
Good heavens no. And so that's just a basic thing to understand.
Whenever you have a non-consensus on the problem, the degree, the severity, and so on, but you have a universal consensus on the solution, then you know that the solution is the purpose of everything that is being said.
The solution is the purpose, and everything else is just a means to that end, because that's the one constant that is occurring.
This is not brain surgery, people.
This is not me glowing like the sun in my eyes in terms of my ability to cogitate and think.
This is just obvious.
If every river runs to the sea, then the sea is the goal of the water.
If every piece of rain trickles down your window, then the nature of rain is to trickle down.
Which way it goes and how long it takes to get there doesn't matter.
It's still obeying the universal law.
And the universal law of intellectuals is that they advocate state power, because that's what they're paid to do.
That's what they're paid to do.
That's their economic self-interest.
That is the, quote, market that they're operating in.
They are funded to scare the shit out of people so that people will run to the thugs for, quote, protection.
This is not radical, right?
This is not anything that's unusual.
We used to have hell, and now we have the war on terror.
We used to have hell, and now we have global warming and environmental destruction.
We used to have hell, and now we have the war on drugs.
The fear of the drug dealer, the fear of the minority, the fear of all of these, the fear of the immigrants, the fear of all of these things, and some of which libertarians are quite susceptible to as well.
So, when you see this uniformity of consensus, that's the whole point.
That's what people are paid for.
They're paid to do. They're paid to frighten you.
They're paid to tell you scare stories.
That's the sole goal, object, purpose, and raison d'être for their entire existence.
So if you look at something like feminism, and I wrote in a book where, I think I cut it from The God of Atheists, but in a separate scene, The babble fish was arguing with a woman, and basically she was a feminist, and every solution turned out to involve state power.
And so he said, okay, so basically as far as I understand it, feminism is just socialism with tits.
And that to me has always been rather hard to deny.
Because every time you see a feminist, you see programs that she advocates, or he advocates, which are around the expansion of state power.
Maternity leaves and sexual harassment stuff, and increased professorship for women, and loans for minority and female-owned businesses, and set aside contracts for minority and female-owned businesses, and And free daycare and child subsidies and, of course, going after deadbeat dads, right?
Deadbeat dads. Of course, the women who married these deadbeat dads are in no way, shape, or form responsible for the resulting economic catastrophes because somehow the way to empower women is to make them helpless without the might and violence of the state.
So, basically, women are strong, proud, and independent, but can't seem to get by without fat books of legislation showering down on everyone in the vicinity.
Because that's how just empowered and all-powerful women really are.
Can't get by without laws and the guns of largely men protecting and supporting them.
And so, of course, you really don't have any solution to sort of quote feminist issues other than more violence.
More violence, more violence, more violence in the guise of virtue.
More violence in the guise of virtue is pretty much the definition of what we would call an intellectual.
More violence in the guise of virtue.
That is the definition of whenever an intellectual opens his mouth, that's what's occurring, right?
These honeyed words that give you terminal diabetes.
That is perhaps a slightly more poetic way of describing intellectuals.
And, hey, you know, maybe my metaphor brain has come back.
I think it went to Aruba for a while.
I wanted to do some surfing.
And maybe it has rejoined me.
I think I heard a little thump.
I'll have to play back the video to double-check that.
But, you know, that actually I did pull off a fairly successful metaphor there, for which I am somewhat relieved.
But you see this, of course, in environmentalism, and you see this in feminism, and you see this in the war on illiteracy, the war on ignorance, public education.
You see this in Israel, advocacy for Israel, and so on.
And the war on drugs, the war on terror, all of it is complete nonsense because the one solution that has always arrived at is, hey, we need more guns.
We need more guns pointed at you people who don't have guns.
No matter what is going on, no matter what the problem is, the solution is always pulling out more goddamn guns and pointing at people who are helpless to resist.
I mean, there's always the Patriot Acts, the You know, free childcare, public education.
It's all the same thing.
It's all pulling out more and more guns and pointing at people who can't fight back.
And calling it virtue.
Whenever people say that the solution to the problem, Sarbanes-Oxley, that the solution is violence, you know that the theory is bullshit.
And if it turns out to be true, then it's merely accidental.
Which, of course, people don't recognize as a valid criterion.
So yes, you could write a beautiful poem by blindfolding yourself and randomly tapping the keys and printing out once a page to see if you had assembled a beautiful poem.
But that's not what people really do with their time because, of course, you've got that room full of a thousand monkeys working on Shakespeare, but that's not how people do.
You don't sit down to write a computer program by randomly typing into VSO5 until you get the next killer app pouring out of your screen.
You could do it that way, but that's not what people do.
So you don't try and figure out what's true by analyzing every particular theory you come across any more than you try to disprove the divinity of Zeus, and then of Osiris, and then of Set, and then of Apollo, and then of whoever, right?
Uranus. You simply say that gods don't exist.
And theories which lead to violence are irrelevant.
Theories which lead to violence, theories which advocate expansions of violence against the innocent, they are as much valid and should be as much logically disproven as Nazism.
When somebody says, you know, I'm a Nazi and I think all the Jews should be incinerated, You kind of don't need to go into a whole lot of moral and intellectual theory, and you don't need to sit down and do a whole lot of research on the moral perfidy or virtue of the Jewish race or culture or religion or whatever the hell it is.
You don't have to do any of that, because you just go, oh, this guy's a racist bigot asshole, and I don't really have to listen to what he says.
And so when I don't care how many goddamn PhD letters they have behind their name, when people stand up and say, oh, there's this terrifying thing that's occurring, here's 19 crates of data, and you need to give me your money, and this guy's going to shoot you if you don't, you know what? I don't think it's really that important to go through the 19 crates of data.
I don't think that's really the solution.
What you could say is, I tell you what, take the fucking gun out of my face, then we'll talk.
Put down the gun, then we'll talk.
That was originally going to be the motto of Free Domain Radio.
First put down the gun, then we talk.
Which of course was what I was doing with this physicist gentleman I was debating with a couple of weeks ago as well.
Put down the gun, then we'll talk.
And that, I think, is very important.
I know a woman who's going, she wants a raise, and she's going to her boss to ask for a raise.
And her boss is saying, okay, well, we'll redefine your job description, and we'll give you some extra money in these areas, but you're going to have these extra responsibilities, and this, that, and the other, and it's going to be great.
And, of course, that's all nonsense, right?
That's what we call, what is sometimes called fogging.
Because, you know, okay, maybe we should change my job description, that's fine, but do I get a raise?
And if I do get a raise, then I want that to be tacked on to whatever this new job is, as a raise that I incorporate into that job.
Right? Because when you put all this nonsense together, it's like, let's talk about the basics, and then let's get all complicated with the other things.
Right? And, of course, the basics that occur in the realm of debate, whether it's scientific or gender-based or race-based or economic or whatever, it's like, put down the fucking gun, then maybe we can have a chat!
Right? It's what the negotiators always say if those movies are to be believed, right?
Let the hostages go, then we'll talk.
Put the gun down, then we'll talk.
Right? And this is the same thing that you say to people who are interested in the question of climate change, of global warming.
Put down the gun, then we'll talk.
Stop advocating that more of my money and rights get taken away at the point of a gun based on your obviously incomplete, skewed, subjective, and hotly debated data.
Put the gun down, then we'll talk.
Because while you've got the gun pointed at my face, I kind of know you're lying.
I kind of know that you're lying because you've got a gun pointed to my face, right?
So, you know, when a feminist says, well, you know, we need the state to go after deadbeat dads, and we need subsidized daycare, and we need extended maternity leaves, and we need more aggressive protection for female union workers in the state sector, and so on, you can say, well, maybe.
I tell you what, put down the fucking gun, then maybe we can have a productive conversation.
But as long as you're talking about people pointing guns at me, I gotta think that, You're not telling me the truth.
Because if you were telling me the truth, if these things were genuinely beneficial and good for me, then I'd just do them.
You know, when somebody advertises the next generation iPod, they don't have a gun to my fucking face.
So, put down the gun and then we'll talk.
But I'm not going to pretend to be talking with somebody...
Who's arguing that a gun be put against my face, right?
That's putting a little bit too much civility on a pretty brutal thing.
Anyway, I hope that this helps.
I'll post the PDF. It is a very good article.
You can have a look at it at freedomainradio.com forward slash B-O-A-R-D. And I appreciate you listening as always.
And thank you so much for your continued interest.
We're getting a good, I think, 3,600 video hits.
That's pretty good, I think.
We're getting, I don't know... 200 a day, 150 a day.
I think that's just fine.
I appreciate the cleared e-check that I got this morning.
Thank you so much. If you're thinking of donating, do it because you'll feel better and I'll feel better.
So, you know, it's win-win.
Thank you so much for listening as always.
▲
Export Selection