All Episodes
Previous Next
June 7, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
23:03
786 Family and Statism Part 1

How family dynamics affects the desire for political activism

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody. Steph, hope you're doing well.
And we continue with our chat.
And I am spending an inordinate amount of time on this topic.
I just think that it's very, very important.
Of course, I'm spending lots of time on it, so naturally you would imagine that that would be the case for me, at least.
But I think it's important to others as well.
And I've had the, I guess, decent fortune to...
Listen to some people who are in the pro-political activism camp talk about some of their familial or family situations and histories.
And the one thing that I would put forward as a potential proposition, let's just say, Just a way of looking at it.
My way of looking at it, this is not meant to be derogatory to anybody.
It's just because there is a matter of process.
I just happen to have been grinding away on this crap for, you know, over 20 years.
So I like to think that I got a couple of things right over time.
I could be wrong, but you can let me know.
But this is a theory that I sort of work with that may help at least frame where I'm coming from in this debate.
There's sort of three major issues, I mean, that I work with.
There's the psychological, there's the principle, and then there's the practical.
The triple Ps, right?
And just to sort of the statism, right?
I mean, the psychological...
You start with the practical. We can go the reverse order, right?
The practical is that the state doesn't work.
Government doesn't work.
Violence doesn't work. Violence doesn't solve problems.
Violence is generally bad all around.
So... From that standpoint, that's the practical.
The principle is universally preferable behavior, non-initiation, the use of force, and all that kind of stuff.
That's the principle. But the psychological is, well, why can't people see these obvious things because of their own family corruption that they don't want to face, or have difficulty facing the core beliefs that they have, and we talked about in the recent Extendo-ASCO therapist session.
So, if we look at these sort of ways of processing the kind of stuff that we're talking about here, the practical, the principle, and the psychological, it's a lot of the ways that we take this particular approach.
My argument, generally, is that when...
because I'm very much against the argument from a fact...
The practical is never useful.
Is it in a defining way?
It's useful in terms of understanding and validating and in perhaps chiseling a few cracks in people's certainty, but it is not useful.
It is not a blanket or absolute way of solving or proving a point.
In fact, I would say that it's a red herring that leads us astray far more often than it leads us to truth.
In fact, the argument from effect can never lead you to truth because it's always in hindsight.
So the practical is the least important, the principle is the most important, and the psychological is, for me, is the sort of newish aspect that I'm sort of trying to bring to bear on the conversation to link the two, or rather to explain why there's so little link between the practical and the principled, and the principle and the practicality.
Because if the principles are clear, why would then people act in opposition to those principles?
Well, of course, that is explainable to a large degree through psychology.
So, having said that, there's ways of looking at this question about political activism in these terms that I think can be very, very helpful in understanding why this is so seductive to a lot of people.
Now, of course, as we know, the general principles behind the show is the logic of personal and political liberty.
It's a show about philosophy, which means that we have to look at the principles pretty much first and foremost.
Philosophy is about principles. The barriers to those principles in terms of psychology are all very important to understand, but the principles first and foremost have to be elucidated.
So, the first principle that I would put forward is is that I find it very hard to believe that somebody who has doubts about the application of principle in his personal life,
somebody who has doubts about the application of a principle in his personal life, cannot logically be certain It's a very, very important component to my thinking.
Whether you believe it or not, I'm certainly happy to debate it.
It's a very important component to my thinking.
If you are unsure of the application of certain principles within your own life, it is logically impossible For you to be certain about the application of these principles for others in general, in society, in politics, however you want to put it.
For instance, if you believe that violence is wrong, and you're in a physically abusive relationship, Let's just take the most extreme example.
If you believe that violence is wrong, and you are in a physically abusive relationship, then your pronouncements about this principle in general can have no real validity. then your pronouncements about this principle in general can have
Now, I mean, someone could easily say that even a schizophrenic can scream out that 2 plus 2 is 4, and that doesn't make 2 plus 2 not equal to 4.
But that's not the issue.
The issue with truth in philosophy is that of consistency, just as the issue of being an expert hitter in baseball is consistency.
An 80-year-old grandmother can bunt a fastball, and any healthy 20-year-old young man can occasionally crack one out of the park, even if he's blindfolded.
The question is consistency.
As I said before, credibility is efficiency, and consistency is credibility.
I can't call myself a doctor.
If I randomly prescribe various Latin syllables to people once in a million times, it cures someone.
It's not being a doctor. Consistency is the key.
How is it that we can learn to trust a thinker?
Well, obviously, as a thinker who seeks to be trusted, my recipe is to...
I try to be consistent and to show that I have taken the pills which I prescribe.
I mean, that's pretty important, I think.
So, when somebody does not have all their ducks in a row or has not enacted a particular principle in their personal life, in his or her personal life, then their statements about society as a whole, politics, economics, abstract philosophy, blah, blah, blah...
All of that is suspect.
All of that is suspect. And I say this, you know, 20 years of debating with thousands upon thousands of people, a pretty good understanding of philosophy, principles, and so on.
If you, and there's nothing wrong with this, nothing wrong with this at all, if you have not got these principles squared away in your personal life, then you can't be trusted to talk about them on a political, in the political side.
I think we can all reasonably understand that the application of philosophical principles at an abstract, third-party society as a whole, politically, whatever level, is far more difficult than the application of those principles in your personal life.
We have no control over the variables, there are a huge number more variables, a huge amount more complexity, more capacity for things to go wrong.
So, if you can't apply these principles consistently in your personal life, then I don't think anybody has reason one to listen to you about these principles in the abstract, in the general, in the social sense.
Then you are, like the schizophrenic, I mean, to be extreme, it's a ridiculous argument, but, you know, forgive me.
Then you are, like the schizophrenic, screaming out that 2 plus 2 is 4.
Well, that doesn't get you a podium at a math conference.
Because the next sentence out of your mouth is, and catfish are eating my testicles.
Assuming you're not standing currently in a Louisiana swamp.
With, I don't know, catfish food all over your twigs and berries, we can assume that this is not going to be a logical statement.
Now, this may sound like it's a condemnatory, but it's not.
It's not. It's all just progress.
It's all just progress. When you're learning to be a golfer, every now and then, you're going to sink a hole in one.
That doesn't mean you sign up for the masters, because it's all about consistency.
And I think it's fair to say, particularly in the realm of philosophy, and I've argued this from the Marx podcast onwards and even before, you have to master something before you can teach it.
You don't get a yellow belt to then try and teach someone how to get a black belt.
You have to master something before you can teach it.
You have to take the medicine before you can prescribe it.
And this is not condemnatory in any way, shape, or form.
Hell, I didn't take the medicine for 20 years.
Last thing I'm going to do is spit on my own history.
Well, not the last thing, but, you know, this is not to condemn me in the past.
It's not to condemn other people in the present.
It's like condemning a nine-year-old for not having pubic hair.
It's just not ready yet, right?
But I would find it rather, let's say, unsettling for a nine-year-old boy to lecture me about sex.
Either you've had it, it's weird, or you haven't, in which case don't lecture me.
Now, in a similar sort of fashion, When people tell me how things should work at a general social level, when people tell me how things should work at a general social level, my first question is: Do you live it my first question is: Do you live it yourself?
Do you live it yourself?
Because if not, what does it mean?
I think it should be.
I think the astronaut should do X. As a non-cook, I think it would be nice to sprinkle something oregano, maybe basil-y, something green on this.
What this is, I don't know.
It's just rank opinion.
But if you haven't lived it personally, for me at least, there's not a whole whack load of credibility in trying to prescribe it universally.
Because, to me, it's a matter of integrity, and until this principle is elucidated and accepted, which I'm not saying it has to be, then it's a kind of hypocrisy to say, these principles should be then it's a kind of hypocrisy to say, these principles should be followed in the abstract, but I'm not willing to follow them in Bye.
It's kind of hypocritical, right?
I don't think I'm missing anything there, and I think that's quite true.
If you want to prescribe principles which you're not willing to live by personally, then something's not right.
Something's not right, clearly.
Now, this applies to certainty as well.
Thank you.
I mean, there are some things that I'm certain about.
I'll absolutely guarantee you a certain reality exists.
I exist, you exist, the microphone exists, UPB is valid in terms of how we can elucidate and understand and look at ethics.
I'm certain of all of this...
Certain that violence is immoral, initiation of violence.
Rape, murder, all evil.
Certain of that. And certain that this is consistently and universally and absolutely and objectively true.
And as somebody once said, I can't remember, like, if child rape is not wrong, nothing is wrong.
including pain, which it produces, right?
So, if people are uncertain in their personal life, if they're uncertain in their personal life, then I don't think that they if they're uncertain in their personal life, then I don't think that they can logically propose anything in in the larger social sphere.
I just don't think that would be right.
If I'm a doctor and I don't know how to cure an illness, but I believe that the illness can be cured, certainly I can critique other people's cures and so on, and it's fine.
But I can't propose a positive course of action.
Because I'm not sure, right?
Or if I say that I'm sure about how to cure a particular illness, I have that illness and I will not take the cure, then obviously my actions belie my words, right?
Now, in the conversation with regards to politics, and there may be lots of people out there who I haven't heard from, to whom this does not apply, and that's fine.
But in the question of how we can approach a political solution to the problem of the government, one of the gentlemen who has been quite one of the gentlemen who has been quite pro-political action himself has corrupt family relations that he won't ditch.
Nothing wrong with that.
It's a process, right?
But if this gentleman has, as far as I understand, not that he's corrupt, corrupt personal relationships with his parents that he won't ditch, Still living with them, I think, I'm not sure, but definitely enmeshed with people that he believes are corrupt or whatever,
negative in various ways. And this is the stuff that I just find, you know, from the other side of this, and again, this is just my perspective, I find this not incomprehensible, I comprehend it, but it's amazing to me, sort of fundamentally nonetheless.
It's amazing to me. It's amazing to me that people who are still struggling with the application of principles in their own personal life, for which there is no shame,
we all do, that people who are struggling with the application of a principle in their own personal lives Don't have any particular problems or issues prescribing principles for the world as a whole.
The same principles. And this is why I say with the Ron Paul debate, I ask people about their history.
I ask people about their psychology.
I ask people about their personal relationships.
I'll ask people about their families.
Because I know that when people are proposing a violation of principles for the sake of practicality with regards to Ron Paul or the debate, and of course, as I've always said, it's not about Ron Paul.
Okay.
If they're saying that for practical reasons we should abandon principle and work with a politician, what is it that they're really saying?
What is it that's really going on?
Well, what they're really saying is...
I'm ambivalent about breaking with my family, or breaking with my corrupt relationships.
When someone says to me, Steph, you should...
Abandon principle and work with the state.
Work within the system to diminish the system.
I know that they're not ready to leave their family or their other corrupt relationships or whatever.
It's as clear as day to me.
Now, the gentleman in question, he says...
That, you know, he's got a bad family and so on, but he's not going to leave them because he's getting a good feeling of strength about hanging out with them, right?
He's feeling strong relative to them and hanging out with them.
Right, so he's going to abandon the principle and it's not, again, it's a process, nothing, not criticizing it.
I'm just pointing it out. So, this gentleman then says, I'm going to abandon the principle of getting rid of bad relationships in my life because I'm getting a short-term thrill or happiness or feeling of strength out of being around these corrupt people and feeling like I'm stronger than I used to be.
But that's fine. But that's just hedonism.
That's not a principle. Right?
Because if we said to people, and I'm not suggesting this is the gentleman's condition, but if we said to people, you need to get rid of bad people in your life unless you're a masochist and get a kick out of having them in your life, that wouldn't be a principle, right?
That'd just be hedonism. If you don't like people, bad people in your life, get rid of them.
If you do like bad people in your life, keep them.
That's not a principle, that's just hedonism.
do whatever feels good.
And so, because this gentleman is keeping his parents around because it makes him feel stronger and more powerful, clearly what's because this gentleman is keeping his parents around because it makes him feel stronger and more powerful, clearly what's happening is he's not relishing the feeling of efficacy.
Now, how's that going to translate into his politics?
Well, Clearly, he's going to feel helpless if he gives up on the idea that supporting Ron Paul can help bring about a stateless society.
So he's feeling a certain amount of efficacy and strength with regards to his parents.
If he gives up on that, then it's going to be a whole lot easier for him to give up on the fantasy that pursuing a political solution is going to help anything. then it's going to be a whole lot easier for Sorry, it's going to be a whole lot easier for him to give up on the fantasy that pursuing a political solution is going to help anything.
Again, it's no criticism, I'm just merely identifying the cause and effect, trying to help people understand what's going on psychologically.
So he agrees, yes, bad people should be out of my life, I'll get to it soon, but right now I'm enjoying the thrill and power of being around my parents and feeling stronger than I used to.
Well, that's fine, but that's just a practical argument as to why you want to hang around with your parents.
And that's fine. That's a violation of principle for the sake of personal preference, right?
And obviously arbitrary, and I wouldn't say very well understood personal preference.
And if you feel stronger relative to people who abused you, that's no good, right?
Because they abused you to feel stronger relative to you, right?
It's not a very good principle to work with, I would say.
That's it in general. As a principle, that's a bad idea.
But it's okay.
It's a process.
So I just sort of wanted to point that out and to mention it so that people, I think, could get some sort of understanding of how it is that at least I approach these questions of psychology specifically.
And I guess I'll make this a short podcast and I'll do another one on the walk back, which will be to do with the question and the efficacy of standing one's ground.
▲
Export Selection