All Episodes
Previous Next
April 27, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:01:21
1048 Sunday Call In Show Apr 27 2008

Loving high gas prices; rights, self-ownership and human properties.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
Hope you're doing well at stuff. It is the 27th of April, 2008.
It is 6 p.m. It just took us a little while to get started.
Only about two hours. So we're set.
And thank you everybody so much for joining.
Just a quick few items of business before we get underway.
Which is that...
The book, Everyday Anarchy, second draft is finished.
Christine and I actually went to a hotel and holed up, I guess Friday night, Saturday, and this morning, and read through it, did the second round of edits, and I'm very pleased with it, and I hope that you will download a copy.
I'm not going to charge for anything other than the print version, and it should be out.
I should be able to do the audiobook immediately.
Monday, maybe a little bit into Tuesday, and then it should be out Wednesday.
I hope that you will pick up a copy and ship a copy to other people.
It is really designed to give you some better arguments or some different arguments or ways that...
I'm really trying to work on self-contained arguments.
That's my new kick, and we'll have an example of this in a second when I'm going to chat with Matt about gas prices.
I'm really trying to work with self-contained arguments.
Arguments that we don't need to go off the reservation, so to speak, or out of the conversation and say, ooh, I'll get back to you once I've looked that up and so on.
I really, really want us to be able to stay within the conversation with people to accept their premises and then to work with the argument from there.
And that's a real challenge, but I am really, really trying to get that underway so that we can actually finish An argument.
Because don't you find that you get into these conversations?
We've seen a lot of this stuff floating around the board lately.
And it's been in my inbox as well, where somebody would say, well, I'm having a discussion with people about anarchism, and then we run into, bam, this brick wall of necessary facts or required facts, or I don't know this, or I don't know that, like...
Well, what about the Scandinavian countries?
They're doing well. Well, were the Robert Barron prices declining at the end of the 19th century?
What was the original impetus in legislation for public schools?
And it just grinds everything to a halt.
And I'm really, really trying to figure out how to construct or create arguments for us that do not rely on having to look up historical facts.
Not because I dislike historical facts.
It's just that if we can find a way...
To finish the argument without having to go back and look stuff up and get back to the person, then we will avoid the problem of the roadblocks of facts.
And then, of course, I have found over the course of, oh, so many years of working on this, that when somebody throws a roadblock up called I Need Historical Facts, when you go off like a dutiful little dasher to go and pick them up...
You come back with them, and you're simply told to go and get more.
I have never once that I can remember had somebody who asks for a historical fact, when I come back with said historical fact, have them go, you're right!
Anarchism could work. The government is immoral.
No, it's always like, well, what about this?
And you run off and go and get those facts.
Now, we've used the argument for morality, and I think that that's been very effective.
But I'm trying to extend that so that we can analyze arguments from effect without reference to having to go look up historical facts, which of course themselves...
Are always suspect. If you can create a self-contained argument based on the premises of your opponents, that's always more powerful than you going to look up some Thomas DiLorenzo book which says the robber barons were bringing the price down and they go up and look up some socialist hacks book which says that they were going up.
So all of that kind of stuff is a real problem.
And I'm trying to work out ways that we can deal with this kind of stuff and not have to spend the rest of our lives going to libraries and not, in fact, sorting out anything and actually getting the conversation moved forward.
So it is, I guess, my impatience, if this makes any sense, it is my impatience with this aspect of the conversation That I want to bypass so we can get this conversation moving more rapidly.
For some reason, I think that I am relatively aware that me gonna die and I'd really like to see a little bit more progress before I kick the big one.
And for that, I think that we need to find ways of accelerating the conversation and that's really what I am interested in.
So, that having been said, I hope that you will pick up The book next week, Hand It Out Like Candy.
There is going to be a print version available next week.
And you can pick that up as well.
I'm going to try and keep that as cheap as possible.
I have recently reduced the price of the print copy of Untruth from $17 and change to $12 and change.
So I hope that you will pick up a copy or five of those and hand them out as well.
And thanks again.
I mean, I say this all the time and I really feel that I can't say it enough, but this is all due to the astounding, amazing, wonderful, beautiful, magical, paradisical generosity of the magnificent donators who are making all of this possible and have given me the financial means to advertise to support myself To give out the books for free and spread the conversation as much as possible and without...
Without you doing that, the books would not exist and the books would not be free.
So I just...
I always get moved when I talk about this, but I can't thank you enough for the courage and dedication that you have to this conversation.
And I hope, I hope, I hope that I am doing you proud with regards to the resources that you hand over in trust and, dare I say, belief in...
What I can do to help move this forward or what we can do as a community to help to move this forward.
So thank you again so much.
So, so much. I live an incredibly privileged life of truth and philosophy and I hope that you are getting your money's worth from what you have given.
And if there's anything that I can do to give you more of your money's worth, I am absolutely a slave to the donators.
Whatever it is that you want, just let me know.
I'm more than happy to take suggestions about any ways to improve things and Thank you again for your support over this last year, because I guess we're getting fairly close to the anniversary of when I started doing this full-time.
Took the leap off the career bandwagon into the kaleidoscopic stratosphere that is...
Free Domain Radio, the high-octane, high-orbit of the planet, and it has been a very exciting and wonderful year, and I will give you some highlights when the anniversary actually rolls around.
So, thank you again so much to everyone who has donated, to the people who signed up this weekend for a subscription.
Thank you again as well so much.
That stuff is really helpful for me.
I mean, it's $20 a month, less than half the price of a cup of coffee a day.
It gives me some stable income to look forward to, which I can plan.
The donations are great, but they tend to be upy-downy.
The stable income is fantastic.
And I do send out, just for those who are interested, there are some specialized podcasts in the queue just for subscribers that won't be available anywhere else.
So I hope that... That you will feel free to kick in that little bit of cash.
And it will be, I promise you, something that will be very exciting for you to do.
Give you more confidence.
And this is kind of funny.
There's nothing that gives you more confidence in a debate than having some skin in the game.
Even if it's only 20 bucks a month.
75 cents a day or whatever, right?
You can at least say, yeah, I'm committed, so to speak, in a different way.
Then I do. So, anyway, thank you so much.
Matt, are you on the horn?
On the line, man. Oh, I've put him to sleep.
I knew I should have taken a breath during that last bit.
Oh, Matty, Matty, Matty, Matty, Matty, Matty, Matty, Matty, Matty. Matty, Matty, Matty, Matty, Matty. Mat, Mat, Mat. Mat, Mat, Mat, Mat, Mat, Mat, Mat, Mat.
Okay, we'll come back to that later if he's not around.
Has anybody else?
Sorry, the person who was...
Maybe I got the name wrong. The person who I was going to do the debate about gas prices with...
Did I get the name totally wrong?
I volunteered earlier, Steph.
It's rich. I don't know if Matt had volunteered before me.
Oh, with your four-letter names. All right.
So let's give that a shot, if you don't mind.
We sort of put forward the following scenario that someone is saying, of course, we have now a few new media scares to add to the inevitable panic, such as, Zed, oh my god, the prices of food are going to cause worldwide riots, we're all going to starve to death,
and gas is going to be I'd like to put forward a way of talking about these sorts of things with people that is not specifically anarchistic but has at least something to do with an economic understanding of these kinds of things.
Now, when you talk about economics with people or economic approaches, You have to understand that these are all predicated on this being a free market situation, obviously, right? If it's not a free market situation, then it doesn't mean anything in particular.
Because it's just some government thing here, there, or everywhere.
But if we assume that it's a free market situation, and although oil, which of course is a lot to do with higher prices in gasoline, oil is a cartel monopoly through OPEC and it's heavily regulated and it's heavily taxed, it's still not a communist or socialist endeavor.
There still are market forces that operate We're good to go.
About increased gas prices.
Economics is all about the non-intuitive, right?
But once you see it, it's obvious.
So if somebody says, you know, gas prices are really negative or really horrible, and Rich, if you could play that guy, that would be great.
And then I'll sort of step you through a couple of ways or a couple of questions that you can ask people to get them to understand economics a little better.
So, I'm the guy complaining about the gas prices?
Right, right. So, start off with your, oh my god, speech about the gas prices.
Ugh! Gas prices are so high, I just filled up my tank and it was $50.
I couldn't even... It maxed out at $50 and wouldn't even let me fill up my tank.
Wow! I can understand that that must be pretty frustrating for you.
Yeah. Now, I mean, I'm going to give you a perspective here that might be kind of interesting for you.
Would it be at all interesting for you if I could help you to be grateful for higher gas prices?
Grateful for gas prices?
Not just grateful for gas prices, grateful for higher gas prices.
Okay, lay it on me.
Okay. Well, why do you think gas prices are going up?
And again, let's just assume it's a free market scenario for the sake of this argument.
I'm going to guess inflation and taxes.
Well, see, neither of those would be a free market scenario, although that is an absolutely great guess.
Let's pretend that it was a free market scenario.
What is it that makes prices go up in a free market?
Demand. Yeah, it's either stable demand and reduced supply or similar or increased supply and even more increased demand, right?
Right. So, obviously, it must be in places outside of North America where the demand is coming from, right?
Because it's not like we've suddenly doubled the amount of cars on the road, right?
Right. It must be some other countries and it can't be like Europe, right?
Because, I mean, Europe hasn't doubled the amount of cars on the road, right?
Right. And Australia can't be Australia.
They don't actually have cars.
They just ride kangaroos.
So it certainly can't be Australia.
And we could go through this, but basically it's demand from India and from China that is driving up the price of gas, right?
Right. Oh, because their vehicles are increasing?
Well, it's not just their cars.
It's basically they're going through a process of industrialization, right?
Right, right. So what that means is that they have more cars on the road, but...
That's only a part of it.
I mean, the demand is also being driven by industrialization, right?
I mean, the demand is being driven by, instead of doing stuff by hand, they're ordering machines to do that stuff, and those machines need oil, and they need gasoline, and they need trucks to deliver the machines, and so on, so their use of gasoline is increasing, right? Right.
So, obviously, in China and in India, They believe that it's worth investing in all of this capital machinery and buying cars and this and that, which indicates that their standards of living are rising,
right? Yeah,
yeah. So if some guy has a factory and he's hired a thousand people and he's decided to invest five million dollars in machinery and then he can cut his workforce down to like 500 people let's say or 200 people, then that would account for an increased consumption of oil but it would also be very good for their economy because it's freed hundreds of people up to produce other things which otherwise would not get produced,
right? Yeah, yeah.
Now, a lot of stuff that is produced in India and in China is sold in North America, right?
Yeah. And so, with the increased productivity that is occurring in India and China, what do you think is going to happen to the price of goods that are being sold out of India and China?
I assume the price will go down.
There's no question.
The price has to go down because if the price wasn't going down, if the price was not going to go down, then the price of oil right now would not be going up because they wouldn't be buying all this machinery, buying all this cars.
And the cars primarily, during the beginning of an industrialization process, it's not like they're buying Rolls Royces for Sunday drives, right?
What they're doing is they're buying cars to deliver Their wheat to the city or to deliver their goods to the port, right?
I mean, the cars that people buy to begin with is around usually, almost always around the delivery of goods or services.
It's not for recreation.
Right. So it means that it's going to be that they are definitely expecting to sell more at a cheaper price in the future, which is why they're willing to order all of these cars and machinery right now, right?
And in fact, it shouldn't even take that long for the effects to start showing up because it's not like they have to invent the factories to create.
They just order these things from European or other Asian or North American manufacturers, right?
Yeah, yeah.
So I can guarantee you, again, if it's a free market scenario, which is all we're really concerned about here, I can guarantee you that the money that you will save in buying goods now and in the future will be far greater than the money I can guarantee you that the money that you will save in buying goods now and in Because the people...
Sorry, go ahead.
I'm disappointed.
I wanted to put up a fight.
Well, and do you know why you can be sure that you'll actually profit from increased gas prices?
It's not neutral. Well, yeah, I'd be saving money on the other goods I'm buying that are being produced by other countries.
Well, sure, but you could make an argument that says, well, I'm spending $100 more on gas, but the prices of everything else I buy is only going down $50, right?
If that's true, yeah. Well, sure, but we know for sure that if that actually occurs...
Then everybody in China and India who's a business person is a complete idiot, right?
Because it means that they've driven up the price of gas and oil by ordering all these production heavy cars and machines and so on, but they're not actually able to generate enough profits to cover the increased cost of gas, right?
That would be pretty retarded, right?
So they have to be completely sure, which doesn't mean it will happen, earthquakes or whatever, asteroid could hit the earth or whatever, but they have to at least be pretty sure that they can generate enough profits that they're going to more than do better than the increased cost that they're paying for oil.
Because the price for gas and oil for them has gone up too, right?
Mm-hmm. So the reason that they're doing this is because they fully believe that they will produce far more in terms of profit than they're consuming in the price of additional gas, right?
Yeah, yeah. Which means that they are fully expecting to give you better bargain for your money than you're losing.
They're looking to save you more money than you could possibly lose through increased gas prices, right?
Yeah, yeah. Because if it doesn't work, they're all going to go out of business, right?
And that's why I'm saying you should be completely thankful that gas prices are going up so that you can get $400 notebook and $200 televisions, which will be far better for you than the price of gas going up.
Now, can that apply to...
The market as it is now, or does it have to be a free market situation?
Well, we for sure know that there's no way that gas prices are going to double just because some cartel says so, right?
Because some other cartels always break up because someone's going to underbid, right?
So we know that this must be driven by demand because the price everywhere all over the world is doubling.
Oh, okay. Got it.
Got it. Right?
So we know, I mean, it's not obviously a perfect free market situation by any stretch of the imagination.
But for sure, these people are investing because they expect their productivity to increase far greater than the price of increased gas and oil.
Well, I can't argue against that.
And so we should really, I mean, and it's a bizarre thing, right?
But it's counterintuitive. But, you know, obviously, logically, it works out, right?
That we should be like, I want the price of gasoline to hit $5.
I mean, the higher it goes, the more productivity people are expecting to get out of bidding more for gas, right?
which means the cheaper things are going to be that I buy.
And so this is just – and the reason why, because you never want to – just to break the role play, you never want to leave people feeling stupid, right?
Because this is supposed to be about having people enjoy using their mind more, right?
So what I would say is, and the reason, do you know why it's so hard to think of this?
Because the gas prices are up front in our faces.
I know they're posted on street corners where everything else we don't have an accurate measurement in our mind of what the changes in prices of milk and other goods are.
Right. No, that's brilliant.
That's brilliant. And of course, yeah, because it's in our face that the gas prices are going up, and we feel that, right?
But if something costs $200 rather than $300 next year, we don't have any comparison, right?
Right. Like, we don't sit there and say, there's nothing on the price sticker that says, this would have been $300, but because gas prices are so expensive, it's now $200, where we go, yay, $100.
That makes up for some of the gas I've been paying for, right?
Yeah. Yeah. And this, of course, is the challenge when it comes to economics, is that economics is all about seeing the hidden costs and benefits rather than the obvious costs and benefits, right?
Yeah, and that's really hard when it's, you know...
It's hard to see the changes in costs over time, except for the ones like gas that are right in front of your face.
Right, because with gas, we have an empirical history to compare to.
Like, well, last year it was X, and now it's X plus 50%, right?
So we have a historical, actual scenario to compare it to, but we don't have a future theoretical scenario to compare the lowered prices against, right?
They're just the prices they are, right?
And so I just, I noticed, and because I've been buying computer stuff for 20 years, because, well, it's my crack, but I went to go and buy a notebook, and it's bizarre how cheap they are.
It is completely bizarre.
I got a dual-core notebook with a built-in webcam, got two gigs of memory, a 200-gigabyte hard drive operating system, a great sound card, great video card, warranty, and this for 790 bucks.
I mean, it's bizarre!
And that's because the price of gas has gone up so much.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
What do you mean?
I mean, I'm sitting here with two laptops and a desktop, and I'm relatively poor compared to the rest of the nation.
So it's not hard to have computers now and other goods.
Right.
And so some people will say, well, but I pay for gasoline every week, whereas I buy a computer once every couple of years, so it doesn't match up.
But it's not true, right? Because your employer, say, buys computers all the time.
And because they're paying, that's for computers, there's more to give you a raise or more to expand your productivity so you can get bigger raises in the future.
And everyone who buys computers is going to be competing against those cost savings and pass those along.
There's no way to – even if you don't buy a computer for the next five years and even if computers was the only thing that came down in price, there's no way to avoid the price decrease except by going to live in Montana.
So anyway, was there any other questions that you had or these kinds of things?
No, that was great. I really liked that argument.
And the great thing is, of course, you don't have to look anything up, right?
Right. It doesn't matter whether it's India or some other country.
We just know that some new economy is demanding a lot of petroleum products and that must be because they're expanding their economies.
And the fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of people in India every single day are moving from the lower classes to the middle classes.
It is an absolutely staggering achievement in India.
I mean, China, of course, has been having 6-10% growth for the past couple of years per year.
And China, in fact, at least I've heard an argument, China has in fact lost more manufacturing jobs than any other country over the past 10 years because they've been putting together lots of machinery and so on.
And of course, the first thing that they do is they buy the capital machinery to produce more goods.
And then once they've produced more goods, they need cars and trucks to deliver those goods.
So the price of oil doesn't rise until the second phase, right?
Every car on the road in China is, you know, one is competition.
Of course, the other reason why gas prices are going – never mind about that.
So, I mean, we just know that somewhere there's some huge monster economy or two that has a new requirement for gasoline, which means good stuff, right?
And, of course, the more income they have, the more they'll be able to buy our stuff, which we can specialize in.
And so it's just a fantastic thing for the world as a whole.
There is, of course, some additional pollution, but there's no pollution that's worse than poverty.
So, as we can see from the life expectancy of the Middle Ages, so...
The best way to get countries to become environmentally friendly is to get them over the hump of economic growth as quickly as humanly possible no matter what it does to the environment.
Anyway, I wanted to throw that out there so you can have fun debating stuff with people and give them something counterintuitive like to be thrilled that gas prices are going up.
They're never going to get that from the media because media is all about fear-mongering.
Anyway, I just wanted to point that out.
I was actually curious, is this along the lines of how your book is going to be laid out?
There's some aspects of this in the book, but I would put another book together, which would be basically how to argue anarchy.
I mean, one of the things that I've had some requests for, and you guys can let me know if this would be helpful, is how does shit work in an anarchistic society, right?
And, of course, it's the same as it works here.
You eat Indian food and then pray.
But, I mean, how does stuff work in an anarchist society?
There's some... I've been sort of reluctant to do that because, I mean, I already have books and podcasts on it.
Oh, sorry, I already have articles and podcasts on it, but there's lots of requests for something like that.
And I might put something like that together, but how to argue anarchism, I think, would be a useful thing.
But, no, the book that I've written just now is more about You've got some friend who, like, you're an anarchist.
What the hell does that mean? Are you some complete lunatic?
They just don't understand the word and the phrase and so on.
And so this is really about explaining where the anarchist perspectives come from.
And it's got nothing to do with proving anything about anarchism.
Nothing whatsoever. In fact, I've specifically avoided trying to prove any anarchistic theories.
What I'm saying is that, look, here's the contradictions in our existing society that anarchism takes as its initial approach.
Here's the ambivalence we have towards the ways of getting things done.
Here's the problems with democracy.
Here's the problems with our use of violence and so on.
And this is where anarchism starts from.
I'm not trying to prove anything. What I'm trying to do is say there's no point taking a pill if you don't know that you're sick.
And there's no point trying to fix society if you don't think anything's wrong with it.
So here's the anarchist perspective on what is wrong with society as we see it.
And you can sort of go from there if you want.
And that's sort of the idea behind it.
Excellent. Can't wait to read that one.
All right. Okay, well, did anybody have, does anybody have questions, or are we going to have a snappy, tidy, shorty show today?
Uh, I don't know if you see what's in the chat there.
Huh? Which chat?
There are two. The Skype or the FDR? The Skype chat.
Uh... Prop window open and keep it in place.
Wait, sorry, is that a, uh, is that code?
Oh, but does all of this actually play out that way with the state involved?
I mean, the state steps in to stop all these visible costs from occurring.
Like price controls and all that kind of stuff.
I mean you argued this well from a free market perspective, but when the state stepped in, given the fact that the state is there stepping in, trying to – I mean you've got Barack Obama pretending to – or making promises about doing something about gas prices and stuff like that.
Well, sure, but price controls as an explicit way of dealing with prices.
I mean, they may come back in the next generation, but there's no way they're coming back in this generation because everybody remembers the 1970s, right?
Everybody who's around, at least they've told their kids, even if, right?
This is only like 40 years ago or less, actually.
They remember the 1970s when you had these lines for 12 blocks to pick up gasoline because everybody knows that price can – to that degree, economics has actually been quite effective.
Economics as a discipline has been somewhat effective, I would say, in two or three areas.
One is rent control, which has been relinquished or relaxed in some cities.
Another has been minimum wage insofar as you will hear people barking for an increase in the minimum wage, but it hasn't happened for quite some time because everybody recognizes that the minimum wage just throws the poor and the most vulnerable out of work.
And they also have done a pretty good job on price controls.
There really isn't a credible economist around.
And they do listen to these guys to some degree, who talks about price controls with any credibility.
And of course, the government doesn't benefit from price controls in gasoline, because the higher the price of gas goes, the more money they get in taxes, right?
So, yeah, I mean, the state may step in, but here's the thing, Nate.
You can for sure know that...
People who have a lot more invested than you or I have already looked into this possibility.
And have dismissed it, right?
So, for instance, and again, this is without reference to any of these nasty facts, right?
But it sort of runs something like this.
If I'm, you know, some guy out in Bangladesh and I've put together some manufacturing factory because – and I've gone to investors saying, look, I need to buy all this capital equipment.
I need to get all this money. I'll be able to pay you back because of X, Y, and Z. If I believe, say, that the United States government and the EEC is going to slam the borders closed on my imports, or if there's any talk about this or any fear of this that is substantial, I won't be able to get the money to invest, right?
Because I won't be able to sell enough to make back the investment.
So people who've got their entire life savings on the line feel comfortable, or at least relatively comfortable, that they're going to be able to sell into the United States and Canada and Europe and other places, right?
And I've got to assume that since they have their entire life savings riding on it, they've done their research, right?
Hopefully. Well, no, they have, right?
They have, for sure, right?
So, now, they could be wrong.
I mean, all entrepreneurs can be wrong.
But we know that they're not going to lay their entire livelihoods and savings and future on the line.
Without some reasonable belief that they're going to be able to sell their stuff in the United States or in Europe or whatever, right?
So it doesn't seem likely that the government is going to interfere that much in these things.
And of course the government benefits from lower prices too, right?
Because let's say that you don't want to buy a computer that is 700 bucks.
I mean your budget is 500 bucks and that's it, right?
So if the price is 700 bucks The government doesn't get any tax on any sale where somebody would not pay $700.
If the price of a computer goes down to $500, then everybody who will buy between $5 and $699.99, they can now tax, right?
Right. And of course, those people may spend their money on other things and so on, but lowering prices does tend to spur consumption rather than savings or investment, and consumption gives some governments some pretty significant cash up front through sales taxes and things like that.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I had another abstract question earlier that I discussed with Greg about rights, and I had another debate with somebody who had read UPB last night, all in one night, amazingly enough.
He'd read UPB all in one night?
Actually, it's a she.
Ah, okay. This came out of that.
I got kind of frustrated with the argument, not the argument, the debate, and I kind of bowed out.
Oh, sorry. Just before you start, I just wanted to mention that I wasn't actually sort of purposefully doing this, but I guess my cookies had expired.
And I just logged in last night, and I just wanted to really thank the people who were online.
Notably, Black Acid Lizard and a few other people who were just wonderful with the guests.
They were giving them podcasts.
I think there was a lap dance going on at one point.
I just wanted to really, really thank the people.
I've just seen this over and over again.
You guys are doing a magnificent job.
I really thank you because, I mean...
I mean, these guests are where we're going to get the money to keep expanding this conversation.
I mean, it does come down to a dollar value in terms of advertising.
So I just wanted to thank everybody who has just wonderfully taken to heart and really embraced that whole approach of being nicer and kinder and more positive to the guests coming in.
So I just, by the by, I just wanted to sort of mention that.
Sorry, go ahead. Well, his argument was, or her argument actually, was that rights exist and that rights, she wants to know how she has a right to her own body.
Which is an unusual argument for a female to make.
Really? Because women somehow attach to their bodies.
Men have the option of astral travel, also known as sexual tendency, but that's a different matter, right?
Right, well, it's just, I don't know.
Maybe she's conservative.
I don't know. Maybe she's religious.
Who knows? But I just find it more common for women to understand a woman's right to her own body and stuff like that.
Well, sorry, I would just rephrase that slightly to say that now that there's no longer the draft, the violation of a man's right of self-ownership tends to be a little bit less explicit than that which is advocated in the U.S. in particular for women in terms of reproduction, right?
So they have more threats, and so the guy in the bad neighborhood has quicker reflexes, right?
It's just a cause and effect.
But anyway, go on. Right.
So it got down to a question of...
Of what is a right, and it seems to me that I think from what my conversation – the way my conversation with Greg went was that I was confusing the word right with privilege.
And I was thinking, well, doesn't the word right imply that someone has granted you privilege?
A right, meaning you can only grant rights to something if you own that property, whether it's your own body or your property.
Like a car rental company, you would go and purchase rights to a car for a certain period of time from the owner.
But he said that was more like – he was arguing that that was privileges, not rights, and I was asking what the difference between a right and a privilege was because I didn't really see a difference.
But he was – the end of the argument was that – well, not argument, but debate was that a right – Is like a shorthand for the logical conclusions that come from the non-aggression principle, and I... I'm not...
Other than that, they don't really exist.
Is that kind of...
Does that sound right? Maybe I'm not explaining this well enough.
No, no, I understand. Look, rights is one of these words that I think does more harm than good in conversations.
Because, I mean, if somebody comes up to me and says, well, how do I know if I have the right to self-ownership?
then I would just say to them, okay, prove to me that you don't have the right to self-ownership, but you can't use your body.
Right?
That would be impossible for them to do, right?
Right. So let's say they're in the chat window, right?
And I say, well, how do I know that I have the right of self-ownership?
I'd be like, okay, let's assume that you don't have the right of self-ownership, which means that you don't have the right to use your body.
Now, make that case for me, but don't use your fingers, or don't type, or don't use your voice, or don't whatever, right?
Right, and I made that argument.
I made the argument and I was like, so if I'm talking to you and you're typing on the keyboard, who am I talking to if it's not you?
Who's responsible for what you're saying?
Well, sure, that could be the case, but those kinds of open-ended questions don't tend to lead anywhere.
At least that's been sort of my experience.
It's like, well, it's me, but they don't get it, right?
Right. Well, apparently she's actually in the call.
Maybe we can bring her in.
Oh, is she? Yeah, yeah, let's bring it in, right?
Absolutely. Does she have the mic?
Oh, she doesn't have a mic.
She doesn't have the mic. Okay.
Now, unfortunately, she typed that using her fingers.
Therefore, she asserted self-ownership in order to make the argument, right?
So, just based on she didn't use her fingertips.
Very interesting. For God's sake, don't turn off your webcam.
Sorry. So, clearly, we have somebody here.
This is a self-detonating argument, right?
Which is that If you say, I reject the right of self-ownership and you use your body in order to express that you cannot use your body, then that's a self-detonating argument, right?
right?
It's like, again, it's like the old yelling into somebody's ear that there's no such thing as sound or language, right?
She says, the government has given me the right to use my own body.
Well, Well, but of course, the government is composed of people, and if those people have given you the rights, then they must have self-ownership, right?
And if they have self-ownership, then by UPB, you must either prove a complete biological difference between them and you, or accept that if they have self-ownership, then you have self-ownership as well, right?
Because if they give you permission, they must communicate that in some manner using their bodies, right?
Right, because what gives them the right to give you that right?
I mean, who are they?
Just other people.
Right, right. I mean, but so what I would say is that you simply can't argue, you can't rationally argue about non-self-ownership without using your body, right?
That's something I talk about in UPB. But the word right is, you know, it's just one of these words that is the worst of all possible worlds in so far as It's been poisoned and is confusing, right?
See, anarchism, the word, has been poisoned, but it's not confusing.
People know what it means. It's a society without a government.
Now, it's been emotionally poisoned, but at least people know what the meaning is.
But the word right has not only been emotionally and intellectually poisoned, but nobody knows what the hell it means anymore, right?
I mean, there's property rights, there's a right to education and healthcare, there's the right of self-ownership, there's contractual rights, there's the right of free speech.
I mean, nobody knows what the hell it means anymore, right?
So I don't like to use the word rights in these kinds of debates.
I don't think human beings have rights at all, and clearly they don't have rights innately.
But I think that human beings have properties, and one of the properties of human beings is that they have or possess self-ownership.
And that's just axiomatic because you can't argue against it without exercising self-ownership, right?
What's the difference between self-ownership and use?
I'm just kind of going to roleplay this since she doesn't have a mic.
Self-ownership and use?
What do you mean? Like, if I use something but have no ownership over it, what's the difference?
Well, but we're talking self-ownership, right?
Self-ownership means that only you can work Your vocal cords to produce words.
I mean, it's just an empirical fact, right?
I can stick my hand up the ass of howdy-doody, but it doesn't work so well with listeners, as, of course, we found out in the last barbecue.
But, oh dear, I think I may have just lowered the attendance by everyone for the next one, which is, if I remember right, June the 7th, 2008.
Come on up, there will be carbs.
But, yeah, so, I mean, you simply, it's you're the only one who can Use your fingers to type.
Right. So that's all self-owners.
Human beings have the property, which is that I cannot control your vocal cords, right?
Which is why Celine Dion picks up a check when she sings, and I don't, right?
Because I don't control Celine Dion's vocal cords.
She's responsible for that.
So they're her vocal cords.
Only she can make them work.
So when she sings, clearly it's her cause and her responsibility, whether for good or evil, of course, depends on your musical preferences.
But listen to the song, I'm Alive, which is actually a very fun song.
But... So it's just, human beings have the property of self-ownership.
I mean, I wouldn't say it's a right at all, right?
I mean, it's just a fact.
Right, because no one else can use your vocal cords.
Right. Can I jump in for just a second?
Yes, but you can't use your body.
Well, I was wondering if maybe there was any validity to the distinction between the empirical fact that I own my body and the moral claims.
In other words, that I have not just empirical ownership of my body, but that I ought to have that.
You can't ought to have a property.
It's like saying human beings occupy space in the universe.
Therefore, human beings ought to occupy space in the universe.
Rocks are subject to gravity, therefore rocks ought to be subject to gravity.
There's no ought to where there is an is, right?
Right, and that makes...
Where people are getting confused over the question of rights, too.
Because you could, in one sense, and I was arguing this with Nathan earlier, that...
You could argue that the term rights is just sort of a tag for the effects of valid moral rules, right?
So UPB validates moral rules and one valid moral rule is the non-aggression principle and from the non-aggression principle One effect is the ability to claim ownership over property.
Well, yeah, but this is where the problems come...
I mean, I agree with you in some ways, but the way the problem comes up, and this is the circularity that often happens in debates about rights, is you say, well, you have a right to have property, and then someone else says, well, yeah, but so what?
Someone has a gun that can just take away your property, whereas you're precious right now, right?
Well, sure, but... What does it mean to say that I have a right which can vanish the moment somebody puts a gun to my head, right?
I mean, what does it mean?
Is it like a ghost that follows me that gets dispelled with the specter detector of violence?
Sorry, go ahead. Right, but as you say yourself, the validity of the moral rule doesn't go away just because people violate it.
Right, but what that means is that there's no such thing as rights that exists or attaches to a human being, right?
Exactly. And that's sort of what I was saying, is that it's just a conceptual tag, not a real thing.
It's just a shorthand way of saying, from the non-aggression principle, one of the effects of those things is the capacity to own property.
No, but we don't have a capacity to own property.
We don't. I mean, there's no such thing as a capacity to own property that exists within us in the same way that self-ownership.
Self-ownership exists within us in a physical manner, right?
Because only my brain can control my vocal cords and even then only quasi-randomly, right?
But it's a physical biological fact that only I have control over my vocal cords, right?
Right, so somebody can put a gun to my head and they can make me sing, I don't know, I love Jesus, take the wheel or whatever, but they can't put a gun to my head and then be able to use my vocal cords, right?
Well, provided you don't want to die, they could.
No. No, they still can't put a gun to my head and take control directly of my vocal cords, right?
Because that's a biological fact.
Only my brain can control my vocal cords.
Not directly, but indirectly through the cords.
No, no, no. Directly. Directly. They can't...
I mean, we're talking about physical biological facts.
There's no direct, there's indirect, right?
They can't take control of my vocal cords by putting a gun to my head, right?
Okay, I'll grant you that.
I mean, I don't want to be granted it like I've extracted it unwillingly.
I mean, if there's a way that you know that putting a gun to someone's head can give you control over their neurobiological, neurochemical, physiological system, I've never heard of anything like that.
I mean, it seems to me that it would just be a fact, but I don't want to extract anything unwillingly.
I don't know. No, you're right.
You're right. Absolutely.
So, self-ownership is based on a physiological reality, right, which is that only one brain can inhabit one space and control one set of nerve endings at any given time.
Whereas property can be taken from you, right?
So here we have one property.
I'm sorry to use the word property twice.
Goods, let's say, instead of property.
So we have a property called self-ownership, which is a biological fact which cannot be traversed or transgressed through violence, right?
Wait, restate that?
So we have one property of a human being called self-ownership that violence cannot change.
I own my vocal cords and nobody else can use them no matter what they do, right?
That's true. So here we have one property of a human being that's based on a biological fact, right?
Okay. However, the right to own goods...
I'm just using goods rather than property, not to confuse.
The right to own goods...
Look at this quote right.
The ownership can be transferred...
Using a gun, right? I can take your wallet at gunpoint.
Sure. So, on the one...
I mean, this is a fundamental distinction, right?
In one... The property called self-ownership cannot be transferred through violence.
However, the use of a good can be transferred through violence, right?
Sure. It's the difference between possession and control.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that a property right is different from self-ownership, because a property right can be transferred through force, but self-ownership never can be.
Right. You could never possess my vocal cords, but through the use of force, you could control them.
No, I could not control them.
I could not directly...
This is an important distinction. I could never directly control your vocal cords.
Never, ever, ever, ever. Not directly, no.
Right. Right.
And I don't think that we want to use the word indirectly like it's similar.
Like I can take a direct or an indirect route across town, right?
There's just two alternatives, right?
Right, but I don't mean it in that sense.
Well, what I'm saying is then, if you don't mean it in that sense, I wouldn't use those words, because direct and indirect mean, well, it's the same kind of thing, it's just more convoluted.
But it's not at all the same kind of thing.
Now, if you put a gun to my head and tell me to sing Ave Maria, then you still have no control over my vocal cords whatsoever, right?
You can certainly incent me to do whatever with violence or bribery or whatever.
More than likely you would sing it.
I'm sorry? More than likely you would sing it.
Absolutely. And that still has no direct control over my vocal cords.
Because in that way, if that is the case, then a boss has control over his employee.
Because he's giving an incentive too.
It's not a gun, it's a salary, right?
Which causes him or gives him the choice to do something that you then need to do, right?
Okay. All right. Yeah. Okay.
That makes more sense than negative and positive incentive, I guess, is a good way to put it.
Sure. Well, sure. And then those – the people who are having problems with their families and avoid – then we're saying, well, our families have control over us.
It's indirect. Well, no, they don't, right?
They have influence. They're giving us pluses.
But we still finally have to choose between that, right?
Yeah. That makes more sense.
I'm with you now.
Okay, so that's why I wouldn't say direct versus indirect control, because it's just not the same thing.
Agreed. And of course, we could certainly imagine a guy, I mean, there's this phenomenon, which I've mentioned in books before, this death by cop thing, right?
Where the guy wants to get shot, right?
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So, putting the gun to somebody's head, if the cop stands in front of you or I and says, you know, put your hands in your head, I'm like, yes, sir.
No, sir. Three bags full.
I'm there, right? I'm reaching for the sky like Jimi Hendrix, right?
So, ooh, that is actually a good joke.
Anyway, but a death by cop guy is going to have the exact opposite reaction and is going to look forward to the hail of bullets, right?
Absolutely. So even with that threat, there's still no direct control over the response, right?
Or even an indirect one.
Right, and even in that choice, it's the suicidal maniac that ultimately has control over the disposition of his body.
So I agree with you. Yes, and he has no control over the cops, right?
Right. So this is the problem with the word rights, that you don't want to conflate objective and biological properties of human beings like self-ownership with theories of control and ownership and so on, which can be violated through force, which is impossible to do with physical properties.
I can't put a gun to someone's head and make them taller, right?
Right, absolutely not.
And that's, I think, ultimately where the confusion lied.
The confusion was, for me at least, I don't see things like rights as objective attributes of human beings.
So when it gets described as...
When it gets equated, when ideas like rights get equated with self-ownership, I get confused.
Yeah, and it doesn't work, of course.
Right now, we can say, of course, that theories which describe or theories which propose that property rights do not exist are irrational and against the evidence, right?
Because... Well, because ownership comes from self-ownership.
Property ownership comes from self-ownership, right?
We own the effects of our actions both morally and materially.
And so if somebody says there's no such thing as property rights, they're saying there's no such thing as self-ownership, and they're exercising self-ownership to say there's no such thing as self-ownership, right?
Right, but in that sense, they're saying it by implication, right?
Because if I say there's no such thing as property rights, then I'm saying that self-ownership couldn't possibly exist since property rights are an extension of self-ownership.
Right, and then, yeah, of course.
I mean, I'm not saying it's an obvious thing, and people will, of course, or may argue, I have self-ownership, but that does not implicate the use of property rights, right?
Not necessarily. I mean, you could just sort of run around naked, I guess.
Well, I mean, that to me is a great situation, right?
Because then I'll say, so you don't have any right to your property, and they'll say no.
And I'll say, great, then send it to me.
I like donations, right?
I mean, it's like, you know, pay for your goddamn beliefs then if you're that much of a lunatic.
But then these people suddenly discover property rights, right?
The moment that somebody says, okay, if you don't own anything, if you don't have any right to what you own, then give it to me.
Then suddenly they don't want to play anymore, right?
Right, right. Or they turn it all into some sort of just subjective preference game.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, so, I mean, there's more sophisticated arguments as to why self-ownership leads to property ownership and so on.
But I just prefer to go for the jugular at that point, right?
And just say, you know, well, send me the contents of your bank account since you don't own them, right?
Yeah. Yeah, it saves a lot of time.
Oh, and then they say, well, why should you own it?
If I don't believe in ownership, then why should I give you the money?
It's like, okay, well, then take it and flush it down the toilet.
You know, cash it in and flush it down the toilet.
You know, flush after flush.
And then, you know, go live in the woods, but don't take up any space and don't eat any berries, because the moment you eat something, you're transferring it to your property, which is used by your body, right?
So don't use any air.
You know, it just doesn't work.
You know, it's just ridiculous.
It's not an argument from absurdity, it just doesn't work.
The ultimate self-detonating arguments, sure.
Well, I mean, there's so many, but that's one of them, right?
That's one for sure. Right, denying it is essentially saying that you ought to kill yourself.
Yeah, of course. And, you know, whose typewriter are you?
Whose keyboard are you typing on?
All that kind of stuff. And anybody who, you know, it's like the guy who was in the chatroom on the weekend, you know, who, you know, with admirable Thelma and Louise end-of-the-movie dedication, you know, failed his argument right off the cliff of rationality when he was saying it's not forced.
you because you can leave the country at any time.
And you say, "Well, if you have a store owner and the Mafia moves and the Mafia comes in and demands that he pay them protection money, does he have to pay them because he has the option of moving to another section of town to avoid it?" And he said, "Yes." And it's like, "Wow." You know, like, I mean, thank you for saving me a lot of time.
Anybody who says that you should pay protection money to the mafia is obviously academic in the most nebulous and revolting sense of the word.
Absolutely. That was all I had.
Okay, great. Well, thanks. It was nice to talk about some different stuff.
So, we have time for a question, or due, let us say, more.
And lovely and talented Christina has deigned to join us, which means that she's done her chores.
Not quite done her chores.
But she's here, if anybody has any questions that they wish...
Succinct answers to you.
So, please go ahead if you have questions.
All right. Well, thank you, everybody.
I really do appreciate it. It's a great show.
I appreciate the people who've had some comments and inputs here.
It was nice to talk about some economics for a change.
And have yourself an absolutely wonderful week.
And I will send out...
A broadcast email when the book is ready, and I will, of course, add it to the feed and all sorts of whatnot at freedomandradio.com forward slash free dot html, where you can, of course, pick up all your free books if you have not already.
▲
Export Selection