All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
42:02
927 Ron Paul and Politics versus Personal Liberty

A 42-minute red pill... (audio to a video)

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody.
It's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
I hope that you're doing very well.
Thank you so much to those who went through the videos that I made on Ron Paul, criticizing as ineffectual with historical evidence the political approach to securing personal liberty.
Now, a number of people have written to me very heartfelt emails and other kinds of messages expressing concern that if it's not going to be Ron Paul riding over the horizon to grant us personal freedom, how is it that this can be achieved?
What can I do to achieve personal freedom in my own life and it's an excellent question of course it's a fundamental question and something which we really need to discuss because I think that it can be kind of cruel to take away fantasies without providing some traction in reality to help you to really get some personal freedom in your own life starting right after this if you want starting as soon as you like so I'm going to tell you what I guarantee you Will create freedom in your personal life and then you can't dislike me all you want because it's going to be very uncomfortable.
It's going to be enormously uncomfortable.
There's a reason why the world isn't free and it's not because human beings aren't smart enough and it's not because we aren't knowledgeable enough.
It's not because we don't have the right arguments.
It's not because we're wrong.
I mean those of us who are into the non-aggression principle and to some degree Austrian economics and all that other kind of good stuff.
There's a reason that we haven't won and that reason doesn't have anything to do with not having the right candidate in politics or anything or not having good enough arguments or not having the right medium to transmit the message and so on.
There's a very real and core reason as to why we haven't succeeded in liberating the world.
In fact, why the world slides more and more into, particularly in the West, a semi-fascistic or semi-socialistic kind of enslavement.
So there are three primary ingredients I think that are required to lead a culture in a new direction.
To lead a culture in a new direction.
Hopefully in an upward path towards something that is shining and beautiful and noble and true.
And those three things are integrity, courage and certainty.
And I'll tell you just a little bit about what I mean and then I'll sort of say how you can do this in your own life, immediately starting today and end up with some significant personal liberty by this time tomorrow.
So, integrity obviously is not preaching things that you are not willing to practice, right?
I mean that is a core part of integrity when we look at those endless cavalcades of Christian ministers who preach against homosexuality and are found with drugs and gay male hookers and so on.
We understand that they are not practicing what they preach.
When we have priests who teach chastity and then molest boys, they are Not practicing what they preach.
So you really do need a kind of integrity.
I'm not comparing libertarians to any of these people.
I'm just trying to sort of put the concept over and then talk about how we can actually implement it without waiting until next year for an election which won't work anyway, but we can actually do something about it in our own personal life.
Certainly we need a kind of courage.
We have to respect the fact that it's very, very hard to change the world.
I mean, if it was easy to change the world, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in, which is watching this onrushing tsunami of increasing statism.
So it is very, very hard to change the world, and I think we should recognize that.
It's a lot harder than talking about Ron Paul, posting videos, sending checks, going to vote.
That's not particularly hard.
So the reason that we're not free must be something much more difficult than an absence of political action, because political action fundamentally is not that hard.
And what you really need fundamentally is certainty.
Certainty about Your solutions.
Certainty about your solutions.
And particularly in our realm, since we base our entire approach and communications methodology on virtue, on truth, on virtue, on the non-aggression principle, we have to be certain about that.
So, for instance, since I am the metaphor-generating machine, if we look at a doctor, Who has leukemia and that doctor with leukemia is telling us that we have leukemia and that we should take this radical course of treatment in order to cure ourselves, cure us, and we say, well, you have leukemia.
Have you tried this?
And the doctor says, are you crazy?
No, of course not. Then we would be somewhat skeptical about this cure and we would be much less likely We're good to go.
And the reason that you're going to look at me with some skepticism is there's really only one of two possibilities.
Either I have taken my own advice and I have followed my own diet and I'm 350 pounds, assuming I'm not down from a thousand.
So if I have followed my own diet, then clearly it has not helped me to become a healthy weight, to achieve a healthy weight.
Or I have not followed my own diet, in which case why am I prescribing it to others?
So when you put forward a thesis, particularly, particularly a moral thesis, when you put forward a thesis, which you yourself are not following, you might as well just be pissing into the wind, right?
Except you're hitting a lot of other people, frankly, myself included.
So I charge libertarians, and you can tell me whether you think it makes sense or not, I charge libertarians with hypocrisy, with failing to implement the premises that they themselves put forward.
And I certainly don't do this from any standpoint of moral superiority since I spent Oh, about two decades in the same place.
So I'm not casting stones from any kind of high tower here.
This is what I understood in myself in the last year and a half on the thousands and thousands of emails and posts that I have worked in the Free Domain Radio conversation and this philosophical conversation.
I have found this to be very common.
So I think, and perhaps you can tell me if I'm wrong, it might apply to you and You can get going with the whole freedom thing without having to wait, cross your fingers, and hope that Ron Paul somehow magically does the right thing somewhere down the road.
So what is it that I'm talking about when I'm talking about integrity, courage, and certainty in your personal life?
Well, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists and basically people who are interested in freedom and just about every moral human being is a fan of the non-aggression principle, that it is wrong to initiate the use of force against another human being.
To live with integrity in this regard, to say that it is evil To initiate the use of force, and people don't say, well, it's undesirable, it's a sub-optimal utilisation of social resources or anything like that.
They say that it is immoral to initiate the use of force against another human being.
I think we can all agree on that, and most human beings would.
It must also Be less than great to advocate or support voluntarily the use of force against another human being.
I'm not saying it's evil, but if there are two people in your life, in your life, not on the pages of the newspaper or in the news or sitting opposite Larry King, in your life, if there are two people in your life and person A Does not advocate the use of force against you and does not support violence against you.
And person B does support the use of force against you and approves and supports you being aggressed against.
If you genuinely believe that the initiation of the use of force is evil, then you cannot hold these two people equal in your esteem.
You cannot hold these two people equal in your esteem if violence is wrong.
The person advocating violence against you and the person who does not advocate violence against you and defends your right to live free of violence.
You cannot hold these two people Equal in your esteem.
Now, if you understand that the argument for morality is how society is organized, that whoever controls the moral discourse controls the weapons, controls the guns, controls the armies, controls the police, controls the prisons in society, then you understand that the effect of a guy with a gun coming to take your money in the form of taxation or coming to lock you up because you're smoking some vegetation or whatever it is,
The guy with the gun in blue who's coming to take you away is only an effect of the moral argument that that is right.
Guys don't just spread out of hedges and make up prisons in a finger snap and do all of this terrible stuff.
They don't just appear out of nowhere.
They are an effect.
of the moral theory of the just use of force.
Because people believe that the soldiers and the police are moral, they have free right and free license to rob the population blind.
It is the ethical ideas that shroud and underpin the reality of violence and justify and support the reality of violence that turn a bullet into a blessing It is the moral theories that enable the power, brutality, and evil of the state.
So, when we look at that reality that it is the ideas in our mind that create and support the use of violence in society, the person who defends as moral the initiation of the use of force against you is doing more to ensure the continued escalation of aggression against you than somebody like a mugger who actually put a gun against your chest.
When a mugger puts a gun against your chest, you give him your wallet and you walk on.
It's done. He doesn't enslave your children through deficits and fiat currency inflation.
He doesn't start wars that cause other people to attack you.
He doesn't throw people in prison based on planted evidence and corrupt deals with DEAs.
He doesn't run these gulags with millions of your fellow citizens.
Compared to the state, a mugging is nothing.
Nothing that can be avoided.
The state cannot be avoided.
Somebody who sticks a knife in your ribs or to your ribs and says, give me your wallet, it's there, it's gone.
It's unpleasant, it's horrible, it's evil, but...
Compared to the state, it's nothing, and the state only survives on the moral justifications, on the moral theories that support the use of the gun, that turn violence into moral behavior, that turn the evil of the state into a benevolent charitable fantasy organization.
So, the people who Advocate the use of violence against you are the greatest justification and source and enabler of evil in the world.
It is the moral theories, it is the moral theories that support the state, not the guns.
Police are wildly outnumbered.
It is the moral theories that support the state.
Therefore, those who advocate and support those moral theories are the ones who are enslaving you.
The state is only an effect of the moral theories that we all hold, just as slavery was only an effect of the belief in slavery as a moral institution, as the guiding of the darker races to some sort of Christian ideal.
So your real enemy is not the cop with a gun.
It's the guy who advocates, supports, and worships as moral the use of violence in society.
Pointing that out directly to people in your personal life takes an enormous amount of courage, which is the second point.
We don't even need to talk about that.
Actually, we will, but in just a few minutes.
The question then comes around certainty.
Whoever is the most certain of his or her position in any debate will always win.
This is a decades-old randism.
It's an objectivist principle that the most consistent position will always win in any debate.
So when you put all of these things together, you end up with a program for personal liberty and integrity and courage and certainty that libertarians can pursue immediately.
No waiting. No hoping.
No what if and let's vote and I'll donate this money and I'll donate this time and I'll pursue this course and we'll do political stuff and I'll write on my blog and I'll post a video and I'll send around emails and I'll do this and I'll do that and I'll buy another copy of you know How to change the gold standard and I'll do more research on how evil the Fed is and I'll do more research on how foreign aid corrupts foreign governments and foreign farmers in the third world can't sell because of subsidized agricultural products.
I can do all of that.
And it's all complete and total nonsense.
There's nothing wrong with having a theoretical base.
No question. There's nothing wrong with having a theoretical base.
But oh dear lord, the libertarians pursue this to the exclusion of far more simple and powerful actions that you can take.
That you can take.
Libertarians ask the world from everybody else.
They ask the world from everybody else.
We say to farmers, give up your tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year or millions of dollars a year for large companies in agricultural subsidies.
We say to people on welfare, give up your welfare.
We say to people on old age security, this is immoral and should be abolished.
We say to teachers, you should give up your career in the public schools and everything should be privatized.
We say to all the public sector unions and all the public sector workers on the planet, you should give up your income and your career and your training.
We say to all the tax lawyers, you should abandon this as a corrupt creed of state service.
And the atheists say you should give up religion and we should all drop the gun and we should all give up these incredible and enormous and incredibly invested and powerful things in other people's lives.
We are very cavalier in waving the wand Of ethical liberty and the non-initiation of force and detonating everybody else's careers and investment not only in professional and financial success but in moral certainty as well.
We are perfectly happy to stride around the world detonating with our wand of magic nap everybody else's investments.
And I think that's okay.
I think that's fine. But the reason that we don't win is that we don't believe it.
It's a pose.
It's like moral Sudoku or Scrabble.
It's a fun game of being superior.
It's a fun game of believing in alternate things.
It's a fun game of coming at things from a different angle.
It's a fun game of being clever and outsmarting people.
But there is not one libertarian in a thousand who lives it.
And until we can get that number up, we're just wasting time.
We're discrediting philosophy.
We're discrediting the non-aggression principle.
We're discrediting libertarianism.
And as long as we have fantasies about people like Ron Paul saving our lives, making us free, we're never going to do the really hard work.
We're never. If you've got this leukemia and the doctor says, oh, I've got a pill that will cure you, or you can go into chemotherapy, you're going to take the pill.
The blue pill. You're gonna take the pill.
The reason that I disagree with the Ron Paul candidacy is not because you're gonna spend half an hour voting for Ron Paul.
Who cares? Doesn't matter to me.
What could it matter to me?
That's not why I have any particular issues with the Ron Paul presidency.
The reason that I have issues with the Ron Paul candidacy is that It gives people the illusion that they can achieve something that they can't and that prevents them from doing the actual hard work of being a libertarian, of being a moralist,
of being a philosopher, of having the truth, which is implementing it not on a ballot, not in a checkbook, not on a blog, not on an email list, not on a forum, but in your life with the people you know.
As long as people think that there is some external cause or source of their own liberty, of their own credibility, of their own courage, of their own integrity, they won't do the hard work.
If you think there's a magic pill that will make you thin, you'll never do the hard work of dieting.
It is the fantasy that is enabling this false alternative which prevents people from doing the actual work which will set the world free.
Guaranteed, guaranteed, it will set the world free if you do the following.
And as long as you fantasize about Ron Paul or some article you can write or read or some debate you can have in an abstract realm, as long as you fantasize that all those magical things are going to somehow coalesce into a bridge to liberty, you are fooling yourself and you are doing it in order to avoid exactly what I'm going to tell you now, which is nothing that you don't know.
Two words change the whole thing.
Two words change the whole equation.
Two words will absolutely, completely and totally guaranteed 150% or your money back.
Two words will completely and totally set you free and change the world.
The two words are against Against me.
What am I talking about?
We always say, do you support the use of violence?
In an abstract realm, taxation and regulation and this and that, the war on drugs and public schools, do you support the use of violence?
In the abstract, in some political realm.
In a civilized dinner party debate scenario.
Do you support the use of violence?
Gets you nowhere, right?
Doesn't change anyone's goddamn mind.
You have debates. There's a certain amount of tension.
You withdraw. Someone else withdraws.
Next time you get together, it's like nothing was said.
Because you haven't added those two words which will set the world free.
Against me.
You understand the difference between do you support the use of violence in the abstract versus do you support the use of violence against me?
It's quite different, isn't it?
Emotionally and psychologically, it is a bomb.
It's a complete bomb. So what does this look like in practice?
So someone is saying, well, I think we should stay in Iraq.
Right? And most libertarians will say, I don't think we should stay in Iraq and here's why.
It's a war of aggression, it's the initiation of the use of force, and it violates this, and it violates that, and we should change this, and we should change that, or the Ron Paul people will say it's because the magic congress pixies didn't bless it with their dust, with their fairy dust, and that's why it's immoral.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the real facts of the argument.
The real source of the war in Iraq is not aggression against others, it's aggression against you and me.
The real source of the war in Iraq And people say, oh, you're Canadian.
Well, we're in Afghanistan and we've got people in Iraq.
The real source of the war in Iraq is aggression against you.
People say, I support the war in Iraq.
What they're saying is, you, you my friend, should be shot if you don't support the war in Iraq.
I had this debate with a woman, actually, and she was saying, I support staying in Iraq.
I said, well, I think that you should not be shot for wanting to support the war in Iraq.
And she says, well, of course I shouldn't be shot.
And I said, do you think that I should be shot for not supporting the war in Iraq?
And she says, well, no, of course you should not be shot for not supporting the war in Iraq.
And I was like, okay, then I should not have to pay taxes.
Right? If you can't personalize it, you're chickening out.
And I say this as an inveterate chicken outer for two decades.
Somebody says, I think that we should have farm subsidies.
What will most libertarians do?
Oh, the farm subsidies are unproductive, they're economically inefficient, you get these lakes of wine and mountains of butter and people grow stuff just to get rid of it and then it gets dumped on the third world which makes those governments more corrupt and the farmers there don't have any place to sell their goods and you end up...
Right? That's all nonsense.
That's all nonsense, fundamentally.
Yes, it's all true, But it doesn't connect with anybody emotionally.
You don't put any cards on the table.
You're just playing an intellectual game called Look How Much I've Read.
The statement, I support farm subsidies, can be countered in about ten seconds.
Five seconds, really.
Do you support me being shot if I don't support them?
Forget the statistics.
Forget them. Forget them.
Never gonna change anyone's mind.
Libertarians have been lobbing statistics at people for hundreds of years.
It does. Sweet F all. Does nothing whatsoever.
Doesn't change anybody's mind.
It's just an abstract debate.
It's like three-dimensional chess.
It's like crossword puzzle with statistics instead of clues.
Doesn't achieve anything.
Does not achieve anything.
And I'm not just making that up because we haven't achieved anything.
We've achieved the opposite of what we want.
The opposite of what we want.
Somebody says, I support farm subsidies.
You simply say to them, do you support me getting shot if I don't support them?
I think we need socialized medicine.
Will you support me getting shot if I don't agree?
Or thrown into an ass-raping gangbang hellish prison hole?
Do you support torture or violence against me if I disagree with you?
We need old age security.
Will you shoot me if I disagree?
Yes or no? It's a yes or no question.
Will you support me getting shot if I disagree?
Do you advocate the use of violence against me if I disagree with you?
If every libertarian in the world did this, we would be free very quickly.
And that's how to put some skin in the game, my friends.
To look people in the eye.
And you say to them, do you support me getting shot if I disagree with you?
Do you support the initiation of the use of force against me?
Against me, those two magic words.
Not in the abstract about farmers and foreigners and foreign aid and the history of Africa and the gold standard and the bimetallic currency and the fiat this and the fed that and the causes of the Great Depression.
Screw all of that!
Doesn't work. Doesn't.
Work. What works is against me.
Are you willing to look me in the eye and say, Steph, you should be shot?
Because that's what we're talking about.
Forget all the abstracts and the statistics.
It comes down to a very simple question.
Should I be shot? Are you gonna cheer when they drag me away and throw me in a pit of anal rape?
Do you support the use of violence against me?
Not others.
Not over there or that side of the street.
But me, as a human being, sitting right in front of you, across the dinner table, across the bar, do you support me being shot?
That's all it comes down to.
That is integrity, courage, and certainty.
Now, the certainty comes with the effects of that conversation.
This is where libertarians fall down go boom.
If we truly believe that the initiation of the use of violence is the core evil in the world, and it is, If you don't believe me, read my book.
If we believe that the initiation of the use of force is the core evil in the world, and if we understand that the state is an effect of the moral beliefs of society, then those who advocate justifications or who justify the use of force Are creating a world that enslaves us, actively and purposefully.
So, what are you going to do with those people in your life?
What are you going to do with the people in your life who want you shot?
It's nothing you don't know the answer to.
It's nothing you don't know the answer to.
If a woman is against spousal abuse and she marries a guy who beats her up, we get that there's a strange psychological phenomenon going on, right?
That there's a weird kind of twisted cowardice and recreation and projection.
It's like the gay ministers who rail against homosexual marriage.
We just get that there's a really twisted psychological mess that's going on that doesn't have anything to do with ethics.
So if you genuinely believe, if you are certain that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, And that those in your life,
not in the news, those in your life who advocate and praise you getting shot, what are you going to do with those people?
If you're certain, what are you going to do with those people?
You know the answer. It's nothing I need to tell you.
You don't keep people, and it's amazing to even have to say this, but let me say it.
So there's no misunderstanding.
It's nothing you don't know.
You don't keep people in your life who want you shot.
You don't hang with people who want you shot.
You don't go to dinner parties with people who want you shot.
Do you understand?
What about you means what against me in terms of violence really means.
You don't go to Thanksgiving dinner with people who want you thrown in jail.
You don't go on little shopping excursions with a mother who wants you shot.
If you do, and you can do whatever you want, but just now so you understand with real clarity, real clarity, that if you sit down with somebody, look them in the eye and say, you support the use of violence against me, and that person says, yep, And then you say, great, let's go play some air hockey, right?
Then you're a coward.
And I say this, you know, having been a coward in this way for many years.
You have to look in the mirror and say, I'm a coward.
It's a game to me. I'm discrediting ethics and philosophy by putting forward moral propositions.
Good and evil. And then just continuing to hang with the homies who violate every principle that I hold as moral.
who advocate the use of violence, not in the abstract, but against you.
If a wife claims to be, say, that spousal abuse is the most virulent and evil thing in the world and you should never be with anybody who abuses you, and then continues to stay married to a man who is abusive, and then continues to stay married to a man who is abusive, we have the right to say to her, give up your marriage, or give up Because right now, you're completely living in a hypocritical manner.
It's vile. It's vile.
It's vile.
It's cowardly. It has no integrity.
And it discredits everything that real philosophers are trying to achieve in this world.
You either have to give up your values as a libertarian, or you have to give up the people who want you shot.
If you're a Jew, right, you can't say, I'm a good Jew, and hang with a bunch of Nazis who want you shot.
You can say it, but it's ridiculous.
It's cowardly. It's hypocritical.
There's some big psychological mess that's going on there.
there.
It's got nothing to do with either Judaism or Nazism, but with self-abasement and cowardice.
That's how you can be free by this time tomorrow.
You You call up the people you know and you say, I've got a question to ask you.
I know it's going to be uncomfortable and you know something about my beliefs and I don't mean to put you in the...
I'll put you on the spot but you kind of got a gun against my temple so I just wanted to talk about that.
I know we've talked a lot about all the abstract things in the universe but I want to ask you a question directly and it's better to talk to people face to face.
It's harder to point a gun at somebody face to face.
Even... In an abstract manner.
We talk to them face to face. Go sit down with them in a coffee shop and say, so I just want to understand the basis of our relationship.
So you claim to have some affection for me, some love for me, some respect for me, or whatever.
Assume there's something positive in the relationship.
and you say to them, sitting across from them, you say, excuse me, you say, do you support the use of violence against me?
And they'll, of course, oh, no, of course not.
It's like, oh, okay, so then we're on the same ground.
So, you don't support the use of violence just against me, or do you support the use of violence against everyone except me?
It's like, no, I don't support the use of violence against anyone.
It's like, well, then you must be an anarchist, or an anarcho-capitalist, or a voluntarist, or whatever the hell.
You must be a philosopher. You must be basically decent.
And they say, well, no, I don't.
I still believe in the state.
I still believe in taxation. I still believe in government.
I still believe in Ron Paul.
Okay, well, then you do support the use of violence against me.
And they will do whatever they can to disconnect these two things, theory and practice.
So they can get all the emotional comforts of conformity with the theory with none of the emotional discomforts of actually advocating somebody getting shot, which people are relatively uncomfortable with.
But don't let them have their cake and eat it too.
That's not because you're mean, it's just reality.
If you support me getting shot, at least have the courage, the balls, to look me in the eye and say, Steph, I support you getting shot.
And then I can get you the fuck out of my life.
Because how can I have even a shred of self-esteem, a shred of pride in my own existence, if I'm willing to hang out with people who want me shot?
I mean, that's sick!
That is self-abasement, self-groveling, self-denigration of the most revolting kind.
Well, I know that you want me shot, but hey, can I maybe get a little more meatloaf?
And if we're not willing to do that, like if we're not willing to put our personal relationships to the test, if we're not willing to do that, if we're not willing to do that, that's fine.
Nobody has to do anything. But don't imagine you have anything to do with libertarianism.
I mean, don't imagine that you have anything to do with virtue.
That you're using these ideas To play the clever card, to play the cool card, to play the alternative card, to play the I'm smarter and know more than you and I'm out of the matrix and you're in the matrix and we play all this nonsense.
Don't try and use philosophy.
Don't try and use philosophy.
Don't try and use ethics for your own personal comfort and to feel superior and avoid the anxiety of asking people that basic central question which you yourself bring up.
You yourself bring this question up about taxation as violence.
That's the initiation of the use of laws.
You bring it up. Other people don't bring this to the conversation.
You bring it to the conversation.
So do it. Bring it to the conversation.
That's freedom. I mean, you have no control over the state.
You can run around after the fantasy kite of Ron Paul and imagine you can fly.
It's not going to do a goddamn thing for you.
The state is a concept, and until we act with courage in that concept, Against that concept, revealing the violence of that concept, not from the police, from the abstract, from the people who want the gun pointed at you.
And if you're not willing to get people who advocate the use of violence against you out of your life, then for pity's sake, don't sit there and ask farmers to give up their subsidies.
If you're not willing to give up Your, quote, friends who want you thrown in jail?
Oh, for the sake of all that's rational and good in this world, don't pretend to ask other people to give up anything.
If you're not willing to give up corrupt and false personal relationships with people who want you dead, then don't ask anybody else to give up anything because you'll look like an idiot.
You'll look like a hypocritical fool.
I'm not saying you are, because maybe this is new to you.
I mean, you know it deep down. But maybe this, I'm just saying that now that you know, don't sit there and say to people, yes, well, you know, this group needs to give up welfare, and this group needs to give up the military-industrial complex, and this group needs to give up their subsidies, and all the lobbyists in Washington need to find real jobs, and look how strong I am at telling everybody else what they need to sacrifice and give up for the sake of virtue and truth.
When you're not willing to withdraw from even one friendship or one relationship in your life with people who want you dead, are you daring to talk of the sacrifice of other people and what they need to give up?
Please. You have no control over the level of taxation you face.
None. But I would rather have great friendships and a blissfully happy marriage.
and 50% taxation then no taxation and have to hang with people who want me dead and call it love love really love that's love I want you shot fits in any sane definition of love respect admiration virtue courage integrity certainty really I want you dead fits where in your definition of productive relationships Real freedom,
again, short of being thrown in a gulag which we have no control over anyway, real freedom is having integrity, courage and certainty in your personal relationships.
Not hanging with people who want you dead is real freedom.
Getting out of corrupt and exploitive and destructive and self-abasing personal relationships based on values that you aspire.
I'm not making these things up for you.
These are values that you aspire to, that you say are virtuous.
To actually live by them in your personal life, to create a voluntary society, a free society called you and your circle of friends and your circle of lovers and your circle of people.
That's how we create a stateless society, is by acting on the principle of no unchosen positive obligations, of not saying, well, I was born into this family and I was born into this social circle, so I guess I'm going to have to hang with them even if they want me dead.
Do you see why I said you weren't going to like me when I told you that you can be free by this time tomorrow?
People say, no, no, I'm going to donate another 20 bucks to Ron Paul because that's how I'm going to become free.
No. That's not how you're going to become free.
That's how you're going to avoid what you really need to do to become free, which is to ask people around you if they support you being shot.
So go and do it.
▲
Export Selection