All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:29:40
1277 Sunday Show February 8, 2009

Living in sin, and navigating the statist career maze...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, good afternoon, fine, kind, and wonderful listeners.
It is Sunday, February the 8th, 2009, 4, 10 p.m., and I hope that everyone is doing wonderful and had a wonderful week.
Nothing particularly new.
Oh, I did post a picture of Isabella's first smile, or at least the first recorded smile, which is...
Absolutely cute and adorable beyond words.
And it is actually part of a video.
We took a video of me doing the silly dance and song which made her laugh, which I imagine will continue to make her laugh well into her 20s in public arenas.
And I was going to post the video, but my concern was that it's so cute and she's so absolutely adorable that I'm concerned that there will be spontaneous conception among the female listenership and, of course, possibly but my concern was that it's so cute and she's so absolutely adorable that And, of course, if we end up with immaculate conceptions based on the cuteness of Isabella's laughing video, then we're back into cult territory and we just put that beast to rest.
So let's not go down that road again.
That's why I'm withholding the video for now, because of its fecundity and its possibility of creating a second through 44th coming.
That's my concern. So we will post something soon.
But that is...
She's doing just fantastically and is smiling quite a lot.
And... Yeah, she's almost 10 pounds now, which is really quite amazing.
So, it's wonderful.
Parenting is still great. It's fascinating to see how strong her willpower is, and how benevolent her willpower is, right?
I mean, she gets upset, but she gets upset maybe once or twice a day, and we usually can sort it out pretty quickly, and she soothes herself very quickly.
But it is wonderful to see the primal will of a child.
It's wonderful. It's, of course, a little sad when, you know, Christine and I were talking about the degree to which that sort of gets exercised, so to speak, out of children so often.
And, of course, that's not our goal.
So it's wonderful to see this elemental and benevolent will that she has.
Will is not quite the right word because she's still largely running off biological cues, but...
Then again, so do I. So I'm really not one to hurl stones in that direction.
Sorry? Impulses.
Yes, that's right. Again, not one.
A glass house I don't want to cast any stones out of.
Since she came out of an impulse in many ways.
So, that's it.
Other news. Sorry about the paucity of podcasts, though I would recommend the recent one on negotiations.
But it's been a week of writing.
I've got about 150 pages done.
Of the new book, about 148 of them are the phrase, all work and no play makes Steph Adele boy.
But then it really takes off after that, and I substitute Jill.
So the book is coming along very nicely.
I'm very happy with it.
For those who don't know, it's the sequel to How Not to Achieve Freedom.
It's How to Achieve Freedom.
It's my thoughts, though, of course, I can't say with any absolutism, with certainty about the only path, but it's certainly my thoughts about The necessary and sufficient steps that we need to take as individuals in areas that we can actually affect in order to build a free society in the future.
We won't live to see it, I don't think, but I am absolutely certain about certain things that need to be done in order to create that possibility.
And of course, none of it has to do with voting or voting.
So I hope that it will make sense in companionship to the last book, and I'm looking forward to getting it done.
It will be another couple of weeks still until it's done, and if the Philosopher Kings are interested, just let me know.
I could always post some bits of it or the stuff that's been proofread up there and get your feedback before the final draft is done.
Just let me know. And that's really it.
Nothing else particularly exciting.
The media stuff has completely died down, which is wonderful.
So we continue onwards and upwards with our explorations, our curiosity, our reasonings, and our expostulations.
So, that having been said, the show, as always, the driving wheel is turned over to you, the fine listeners.
And I am happy to entertain your hopefully entertaining questions.
So, over to you, fine listeners.
I had a quick question about something that you mentioned in a podcast.
With Greg, it was the internet dating podcast, I think.
You said that living together before getting married was a bad idea, and I was just wondering if you could elaborate on that for me.
Yeah, Christina told me that.
So here you go, sweetie.
I told you that? You're the one who lived with someone before you and I met.
Can you talk about that experience?
Definitely handled, I must say.
Well, there is some statistical evidence, and it seems to be quite compelling, that living together before getting married results in a higher separation or divorce rate after marriage.
I wouldn't extrapolate from my own personal experiences.
I lived with two women, not at the same time.
I lived with two women before I met Christina, and neither of those situations led to marriage, although one was close, and neither of those situations obviously sustained themselves as relationships.
So that's nothing of any relevance whatsoever, other than to say that my experience conformed to the general statistics.
But there does seem to be a negative correlation between living together and the success of a marriage.
Of course, it's not 100% and so on.
And in Quebec here, everybody's shacking up, eh?
But there does seem to be that.
And there's some theoretical reasons behind it that we can go into if you're at all interested.
But that's sort of where that statement comes from.
Yeah, I actually am interested in the theory behind that.
Well, I can't speak to any factual theories, and I don't know that there are any particularly factual theories.
But what I would say is that in my experience, and again, this is nothing that means anything, right?
But in my experience, living together was kind of like playing house.
It was fun.
It was like a roommate with sex situation.
It was, for me at least, not a, I mean relative to getting married, it was not a mature situation.
And when you live together with someone, I mean when you're romantically involved, when you live together, what happens is your lives become You know, whether you like it or not.
Because you either take this, you know, lying down the middle of the fridge, everybody pays exactly 50% kind of thing, which is more of a traditional roommate situation and doesn't give you that flexibility of the back and forth in terms of finances.
Or, and so that to me is not, you know, that's not a very practical approach or solution.
Or you just start to blend together, right?
You make decisions together, you get cell phones together, you get your bills, your cable, your rent, all of this kind of stuff occurs and you start to blend together.
You start to share friends, you start to share hobbies, you start to share finances, you start to share all these kinds of things.
And yet there's no real commitment there.
So it's like you're married in terms of the blending together of your lives, which occurs just as a matter of course and as a matter of practicality, but there's no core commitment there.
So at what point do you either make the commitment or you don't?
And I think that the issue that I have is that, and this is just a basic sort of economic proposition or pseudo-economic proposition, which is that The higher the barrier to entry, the more choosy you are of making a particular contract or something, right? So you're going to be more picky choosing a cell phone provider if you're locked in for three years than if you're just buying a burner, you know, in this sort of wire scenario.
And if you end up blending your life together in a very complicated and foundational way with someone, without having the higher barrier to entry of let's get married, you're kind of putting the cart before the horse, in my way of thinking.
And again, none of this is obviously true or factual.
This is just sort of the way that I think about it and see if it's of any use to you.
And so I think that given that living together ends up With the complications of marriage that your lives begin to flow together, to enmesh, to sort of bleed together, then the question I would sort of have is, well, why not be married before you do it?
And of course, the reality is that the reason that people don't get married before they live together is they're not committed.
Right? I mean, if they were committed and wanted a life together and was the only person, then they would get married and then live together.
But if they live together, then they end up in an involuntarily committed state, right?
Because, as you say, your finances, your life, your friends, your hobbies, your living styles, and so on, all get enmeshed together.
So, I guess that's, I think, that's what happens that is problematic.
And so my sort of thing is like when people live together, and this again was my experience, right?
So when I sort of lived together with a woman, it was fun, it was convenient, you know, two can live as cheaply as one and so on.
But there was no discussion ahead of time of, and where is this going?
And what is the goal, right?
And I think that what happens is then people end up with a practical enmeshment Of living together complications without the commitment of marriage.
And I think that just becomes problematic.
And of course, there's almost always one person who wants to go to the next level and one person who's more hesitant.
And if you then live together, that can create an increasing source of conflict.
And, you know, to take the traditional example, which is not to say this is true in every case, but if the woman then wants to get married and the man is skittish and they're already living together, what are her options?
Well, I guess she can hope he'll propose.
But they're already, you know, enmeshed that way.
Like, they're already married in a practical sense.
There's just no commitment in a theoretical sense.
Or I guess she could threaten to move out if he won't marry her, but that's messy, and of course that might backfire, and nobody really wants to have that as the foundation of a marriage anyway.
So I think that given that living together leads to these kinds of enmeshed and entwined lives, it's better to say, okay, well, do I want to get married to this person?
Now, if I do want to get married to this person, fantastic, then propose and go to it.
And And if you don't want to get married to this person, then I don't think it's a very good idea to start living together because you're not going to get that feeling later.
After living together, it's rare that people say, well, now that I've taken you for the two-year test drive, I think I'll buy the car.
That doesn't generally happen.
And so what happens is you can end up wasting a lot of time And it's, of course, quite a comfortable living arrangement to be living together, right?
I mean, you have romance, you have cohabitation, you have friendship, you have sex and all those kinds of things.
And so you can burn a lot of years in this kind of null zone.
And I think that does create a certain amount of resentment over time if the two people are not in the same place.
So that, again, means nothing about anything other than that would be somewhat of my theory as to why living together does not then result in, you know, I'm good enough to live with, but I'm not good enough to marry.
I don't think that's a very positive thing to take into a cohabitation.
So, again, that's all nonsense, but that's sort of my thinking on it.
What do you think?
I think that makes a lot of sense.
It's kind of like if you don't have any skin in the game, so to speak, then you're going to make worse decisions.
And yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Thanks so much. Yeah, cohabitation turns marriage into a kind of government program.
And I think that the value of marriage, to me, has a lot to do with I've never lived with anyone other than my family of origin and stuff.
But I do think that there is a level of trust in a marriage that is achievable That probably is not achievable.
Again, no experience with having lived with anyone other than my husband.
But I do think that the level of trust in a marriage is deeper than it would be in a common law situation.
There is a vow that is taken in front of your friends and your family.
There is a level of commitment that is publicly stated and it's observed and it's celebrated.
That's not to say that two people who live together don't have commitment to each other, but I just think it's more tenuous and I think there's room for insecurity in a non-marital situation.
Again, just anecdotal and not based on any personal experience.
The last thing that I would say as well is that, as I was saying, the value of family to me is, sorry, the value of marriage is the public commitment, right?
So if, I mean, just to take a silly example, right?
So if I'm dating, if I was dating some girl for a couple of weeks, and I sat down and, you know, talked about problems within this new relationship, my friends would be more likely to say, well, you know, then maybe you shouldn't go out with her, right?
Like, it's like, because there's, you know, there's obviously no socially proclaimed commitment.
To the situation.
Whereas if we have got all our friends together, and our family, and a justice of the beast or whatever, and we have publicly proclaimed our intention to live together and love each other for the rest of our lives, then if I go to my friend and I say, I'm having problems with Christina...
Then my friend is going to have a different relationship to my relationship after having seen that public proclamation.
And I think it's sort of like a signal to the community to say, this is the intention, and therefore we're all going to work together to help them achieve this goal.
Whereas if you're just kind of living together and you have problems, then it's just, okay, well, then move out, right?
I mean... Because you're not that committed.
You've not made any public proclamation.
You've not made any vow.
You've not made any intent. And of course, the vows and intents aren't permanently binding.
But that at least is the starting point that is publicly proclaimed.
And I think that...
I think that has a difference in how the community as a whole treats the relationship.
And of course, to take a traditionally silly way of looking at it, the commitment lays the foundation if you're young and want to have children, it lays the foundation for the trust that I believe is really required.
To have children, children being such a time and energy intensive things to have around, you need that trust and that commitment before, I would say, before you have kids.
And maybe there's other ways of doing it than what is called marriage.
I don't know what they are, but that's sort of what works, at least what has worked very well for me.
So I hope that makes some kind of sense as well.
No, that's great. Thank you so much.
That clears that up for me.
Good. Well, I'll stop then.
So, good. I'm glad that helps.
And again, this is all just nonsense, just the way that I think about it and what's worked for me and what I've seen work for others.
Oh, great. Thank you. That was an excellent question.
And so pleased to have for the next with the questioning.
Thank you.
Somebody said, just curious when sex should enter the relationship.
I know that the opinion is that soon is not so good.
I'm wondering what the psychological considerations regarding that is also going on trips together, cohabiting in that situation for the duration of the vacation would be psychologically bad early on.
Again, there's no particular...
I mean, to me, this is all a real bell curve.
And it has a lot to do with personal preferences.
And, you know, some people have higher or lower sex drive.
Some people are more or less interested in sex.
So I don't think there are any hard and fast rules.
I think we can say that, you know, going through a good two-thirds of the Kama Sutra on your first date may not be the best thing to do.
One-third, yes. Two-thirds, inappropriate.
And, of course, dating for two years without having sex Might also be considered a little puritanical.
So, it's hard to say.
I think that sex is something you need to talk about before you have, right?
As in, brace yourself.
No, kidding. Incoming!
Something like that. But sex, you know, there's no wrong time to have sex, in a sense, as long as, you know, too early, obviously, too late, but, you know, within that sort of bell curve, the...
You know, sex should not be like a lightning strike that occurs, right?
Sex results from a communication and the communication may not have to be specifically about sex.
You know, do you have a goat in a Roto-Rooter wagon?
But it could be sort of about, you know, well, what is the relationship, right?
Is the relationship something where we want to look for compatibility for permanence, or is this a fling, or whatever, right?
So as long as there's honesty and openness about all of that kind of stuff, I think that's great.
Wherever deception is mixed in with sex, the relationship is doomed for sure.
And so, you know, there's no bad time outside of the two extremes to have sex, as long as there's clear communication about The relationship and about sexuality, right?
And again, my suggestion is that sexuality, you know, we get a lot of propaganda, so to speak, about sexuality, that it's just supposed to kind of happen, you know, like...
The Marvin Gaye is supposed to be playing and the candles are supposed to be flickering and the bodies are supposed to entwine like a bunch of plasticine snakes in a barrel going down a hill.
Sorry, that's more of a metaphor from The Honeymoon.
But it's supposed to work that way and it doesn't work that way.
Sexuality between...
Two people is something that relies on communication about what you like, about what you don't like, your preferences, you know, what feels good, what doesn't feel good.
And I think that keeping that level of communication is important, you know, before, during, and after sexuality.
What did you like? What didn't you like?
How did you feel when you got caught in the trapeze?
Was the pit of crocodiles too much?
Whatever it is that your turn-ons are, as long as you are clear and open about, you know, RTR, right?
That, I think, is really essential to a healthy and happy sex life.
So, that's just sort of my two cents.
So, yeah, just, you know, talk about it openly and, you know, what do you think about sex?
You know, when do you think it should occur?
Oh, partner of mine, and so on.
I think that's all good stuff.
I mean, generally, you know, the way it often happens is people just neck until the point where they end up in bed together without a lot of communication, and I think that's a recipe for some not-so-good things, so.
That's sort of my, again, two bit nonsense answer.
Yeah, we, Christine and I went away for a weekend before we got married.
Yeah.
We had a couple of weekends away before we got married.
Of course, I slept at the foot of the bed, curled up on the bearskin rug, and gently cried myself to sleep.
But no, I mean, we went away.
Yes, we were like, I think four or five months into the relationship before we went away for our first weekend together, is that right?
And yeah, I mean, that's great.
And I think that can be good to see the person in a sort of tiny time slice of cohabitation.
I think that's fine.
I was not surprised about Christina's graciousness and just enormous fun quotient when we went on vacation together for a weekend of, you know, we went biking and hiking and Stuff like that.
And so there was no particular surprise.
I didn't sort of go in there thinking, ooh, this is a test run or anything like that, because she's just got this wonderfully constant personality that frankly and thankfully has transferred itself to Isabella without going into the storm turbulence of my endless hysterics.
So I think, yeah, I think that's a fine thing too.
And again, you just talk about it up front.
We had the discussion on the second date about where we wanted the relationship to go.
So when we were progressing down this road, we both knew that we wanted a committed long-term relationship heading towards marriage.
So when we went away for vacation, it wasn't like, well, what does this mean?
Where is this going?
What's next? Because we knew where we wanted to go, and we were just taking our not-so-long time as we got engaged, what, ten months after we met?
No, less. Ten?
Nine months after we met, we got engaged, and we got married six weeks later.
Five weeks? Seven weeks.
Why did you make me wait?
Anyway, so...
So as long as there's, you know, communication, then I think it's great.
I think what you don't want is for one person to be kind of bewildered, like, okay, so we're going away together.
What does that mean? Where is that going?
I think, I mean, we all process it to some degree, maybe women a little bit more than men, but we all process that to some degree.
Where's this going? What's happening?
And as long as you have that open communication and have at least an agreement, then you can change that agreement if something doesn't work out.
But that agreement on where things are going, then I think, yeah, that weekends away can be great fun.
All right.
Then I will stop talking for now.
And if you have questions.
Hello Steph.
Hello. It's Jessen.
Hey, what's up?
I was just wondering if you could help me understand something about myself.
I can try.
Alright, um...
Well, you know how I've been going kind of crazy in the past few days, getting angry at everyone and everything.
Um... Jake actually helped me sort through that and stop being angry, but I just want to, um...
Figure out what started it and where it came from and stuff like that.
And what do you think or what is your theory as to why you became irritable or snappy?
Well, someone suggested that it might have been the podcast with Andrea that triggered it.
That was interesting to me because while I was listening to that podcast, I actually had almost no emotional reaction to it.
I can't remember if you were listening live or afterwards.
I listened to it afterwards.
And what were your thoughts about why you didn't have an emotional reaction?
I'm not sure.
It's just...
I think it...
I thought, um, that I should be feeling a lot more than I was because I've gone through pretty much the exact same things.
But, yeah, I didn't really feel much of anything.
I understand that, but clearly, if you were asked the abstract question, you know, say, well, if this woman was going to be talking about this difficult stuff, which you had also experienced, you would have some kind of reaction, and therefore the absence of a reaction is important, right? Right, yeah.
It's sort of like a diagnostic tool, right?
Yeah. You know, when a doctor is trying to figure out, if you come out of a car accident, if a doctor is trying to figure out whether you're paralyzed, he's going to tap your toes and say, do you feel that, right?
Right. Or, you know, that reflex check, they tap just below your knee and your knee is supposed to go swinging up, right?
Right. Right, so there's a diagnostic criteria or a self-diagnostic criteria for dissociation called, logically, I should feel something.
But I don't. Right?
Right. And that's evidence of...
And this was a very clear one, right?
This wasn't an obscure one, like someone had a dream that triggered a primal memory that I can't remember.
This was a very clear and explicit reproduction of a situation or experience that you have had, right?
That was enormously traumatic.
Right, yeah. Right, so when you know logically that...
This is traumatic for you but you don't feel that is an indication that you're dissociated, right?
Right, yeah.
And that's really what you need to watch out for, right?
Because if you are dissociated, then you will end up acting out.
And now, of course, there's no magic plug to recreate the connection with yourself.
I think that generally it will occur through conversation with others, right?
Dissociation is a hallmark of isolation and therefore dissociation cannot be solved on your own.
Again, my opinion, no fact, right?
This is just my strong experience and the experience of people I've talked to that dissociation...
Is a symptom of isolation and attack, right?
But fundamentally it's around isolation.
And therefore dissociation, in my strong opinion, cannot be solved in isolation.
That's why I suggest a therapy or if that's not available to talk to somebody that you trust and care about because it is through connecting with another person that we will end up Connecting with ourselves, right?
I mean, there's no magical divide between self-intimacy and intimacy with others, right?
I mean, I think that people make this mistake, and it's sort of understandable why they would, but I think people do make this mistake of saying, well, you know, I'm feeling disconnected from myself or whatever, and therefore I need to reconnect with myself, otherwise I'll have nothing to say to anyone else.
But I don't think that's the case.
I think that it's one and the same thing.
So, I mean, for instance, one of the things that I sort of now know with my magical PhD in parenting from seven weeks on the job is that Isabella receives or develops a sense of herself, who she is, her value, based on how Christina and I interact with her.
Or whether we do or don't interact with her, right?
So when I'm changing her and I'm singing to her or I'm trying to make her laugh or I'm kissing her or, you know, when she opens her eyes after a nap and I give her a big smile and say hello and it's great to see you and how wonderful it is to have you as my daughter and sing songs to her and so on, then she gets the sense of herself as someone who brings pleasure.
Into the family, right?
Because we smile and we enjoy and we thoroughly worship and adore her.
So if we did not respond to her in a positive way, if we were snappy or indifferent or cold or depressed or angry or yelly or whatever, then she would develop a very different sense of herself.
And the continuum between intimacy with the self and intimacy with others to me is not separate.
It is one and the same thing.
And so, if you're feeling separate from yourself, if you're feeling dissociated, you notice that, or you noticed, I think, this last week, that what happens is you begin to cause other people to dissociate, right?
By putting them in impossible situations, by being snappy, by complaining a lot, by all of these kinds of things, right?
Right, yeah. I was just thinking that what you said about isolation, that it Right, so you feel detached from yourself and so you put people into snappy and difficult and impossible to navigate situations.
And you complain about, you know, being ignored or not being listened to or that other people are hypocrites so that they don't want to interact with you, right?
Because that's not a lot of fun and that's also not taking much personal responsibility, for which I don't criticize.
I just sort of point it out, right?
As a result of this kind of stuff, right?
So dissociation from yourself spreads out like a virus or like an infection to cause dissociation.
With other people. And that's what I mean when I say the relationship to the self is the relationship to others and the relationship to others is the relationship to the self.
Because you can't connect with yourself because we don't have that kind of objectivity and we don't have that kind of call and answer response unless you're like super ninja ecosystem person.
But it really does take communication with other people We can then find our way back to ourselves through our intimacy, openness, honesty and communication with other people because dissociation results from isolation and trauma and like any psychological phenomenon or I guess you could say medical phenomenon, the cure is the opposite of the illness, right?
I mean the cure for an infection is...
The opposite of an infection, which is the antibodies which kill off the infection.
And so the cure for isolation and trauma is companionship and sympathy, right?
So you talk with other people about what you think and feel or don't think and feel and the absence and what's going on and so on.
And then you will find yourself connecting with them and through that, and through drinking deep of their companionship and empathy, you will find a way back to yourself.
But this is why a community of friends and trusted people is so essential to the maintenance of good mental health.
I mean, I used to many years ago, but I don't anymore subscribe to this Randian, Galtian, Rourkean ideal of the entirely self-contained and self-esteem-driven moral entity.
I just think that mental health is a communal endeavor.
Intimacy is a communal endeavor, and we don't fix ourselves Before we present ourselves to people, all we have to do is remain honest.
And that, I think, then allows people to connect with themselves, connect with you, and then connect ourselves back to ourselves, if that makes sense.
Right. But if the cure is companionship, what do you do when you're dragging everyone away from you?
Well... You have to stop doing...
I mean, again, there's nothing particularly...
There's nothing particularly magical about this, right?
I mean, there is at some point just a basic decision which says, this behavior is not good.
So I'm not going to do it.
Right? I mean, it's like dieting, right?
Or anything. Exercise. You know the right thing to do, right?
And there's no magical book or theory that's going to push you over the edge of doing the right thing.
You just... You just have to make your decision about whether you're going to do it or not, right?
So if you are feeling irritable, then you know that you're feeling irritable, right?
And then you say, okay, well, I'm feeling irritable.
It occurred after hearing this story in last week's show, and I feel distant from myself.
So I'm not in a position where To criticize others, right?
Because I'm dissociated from myself.
And so, you know, when you're acting out your irritation and you're driving people away, you just have to not do that.
That's just mindfulness. That's just being aware of who you are and the effect that you have on people, right?
You just have to not do that.
And I guarantee you that if you don't give yourself the permission...
To act out in an irritable manner against others.
Your true feelings will surface in about 90 seconds.
Because the irritation and the pushing other people away, it's got nothing to do with them.
You're just trying to push yourself away.
So once we stop acting out, our true feelings will surface with extraordinary rapidity.
We're that close to our true feelings all the time.
But we just have to not give ourselves permission to do that.
Okay, let's see.
And, of course, if she would accept the conversation, and I'm sure that she would, would the person to talk to would be the woman who told her sad story last week right um why would that be you
Why would that be useful? Because it was her story that triggered your dissociation, right?
Right. And as you say, you share the history, right?
And obviously she had a different reaction to the conversation she had with me than you did, right?
So you would want to try to find out what magic go-go juice that was.
Okay. Well, thanks.
That was an excellent, excellent question.
Someone just wrote in the chat room, said, sometimes it bothers me when you discount your opinion, like when you say it's nonsense or that you know nothing.
I feel like if we are sure of something, then we should be confident in that.
You seem confident. I think part of being our authentic self is about being concrete.
Well, I agree with you.
I think that... That false humility is a kind of hypocrisy.
And I certainly, I think, am solid where I think I am solid, right?
So, I mean, just to take an example, in the conversation last week, I did not put any caveats in front of telling this poor woman that she should not feel shame.
And I think that I have been pretty ferocious when it comes to things that I don't have any doubt about.
But as to why...
Living together leads to poor statistical results in terms of marital success.
I simply don't have an answer that is factual.
I don't think anyone does. And I think that I always try to provide a clear delineation between that which I believe I have proved, right?
Some of the syllogistical stuff to do with UPB is, to me, pretty ironclad, right?
The distinction between morally neutral, aesthetically neutral, Preferable actions and universally preferable behavior.
I'm pretty solid on that.
And I think that that kind of stuff, or the historical facts and so on, I don't put forward that stuff saying that it's tentative or theoretical or whatever.
But where I do feel that there is a lack of definitiveness in what I'm saying, I want to put that forward.
And when it comes to things like if I'm talking with someone about a dream, clearly there's no answer that you could say, well, this one is right and this one is wrong.
And that's what I mean when I sort of say it's nonsense.
It means that it can't be proven.
But that doesn't mean that it's still purely subjective because there's an emotional resonance when we have an interpretation that fits particularly with deeply emotional topics.
So, nonsense doesn't mean that it's junk.
It just means that we can't come up with an objectively sensible explanation.
It has nonsense, nonsensical nature.
But that doesn't mean that I think it's fully subjective or it means nothing whatsoever.
It's just a way of saying, this is my opinion, it can't be proven, but it may have value if it has resonance.
So, I just want to always try to be really careful about those distinctions so that when I do say that I'm certain of something...
As was quite a bit of last week, then I think that it means something when I say that I'm sure of something.
it doesn't mean that i'm right and it doesn't mean that that or anything but it means at least that i think it's in the realm of could be right and i think it is right uh and that's different from some of the stuff that that i talk about all right so next
Oh, you know what? I was thinking, just while we wait for the next caller, I was thinking, I still didn't do FDR 1200, and I still do kind of like doing the silly songs.
It's a nice break from the seriousness of a lot of the stuff that we do.
But I simply don't have time to write any lyrics.
So I was thinking if people are interested or would like to give it a shot, it might be fun for other people to write lyrics for a song that I could sing, which would be...
Recording the song takes like 20 minutes, but writing the lyrics takes a day, right?
Right.
And I don't have a day at the moment with the book and FDR and Isabella.
So I was sort of, you know, the song, if I only had a brain from The Wizard of Oz, I thought maybe listening to Free Domain could be fun.
But of course, that would be better for a listener to write.
So I just thought if anybody had any yearning, burning lyricist wannabes, that it might be fun to throw something up that I could because I can grab the piano music for like two bucks.
whip the song together in 20 minutes So that's easy enough, but the lyrics are tough and I'd like to do it, but I just don't have, um, I don't have the time right now to do it, but I'd like to.
So, uh, anyway, I just thought I'd mention that if, uh, if anyone had any ideas for a song that would be fun, I would be more than happy to, uh, wrap my, uh, amateurish vocal chords around it.
So, uh, just, um, It's either, I would say, The Wizard of Oz, Britney Spears, or some savage hardcore rap.
We're still working on the best genre for what it is that I do.
But that is the thought.
So if you have any good ideas, please post them on the board or let me know.
Or I can just accumulate a bunch of haikus and yodel them.
These are all options, which I think only go to show why it's so good that I'm in philosophy and not show business.
Yeah. Oh, we're also working on a new feature.
I'm not going to get into the details now, but thanks to some wonderful technical help from our listeners, we're working on a new feature for the Freedom Bain Radio website that I think will be of no small interest to you.
Yes, I mean you. Not you.
You.
Questions from the listeners.
Remix Baby Got Back to Steph Got Forehead.
Music video would be very helpful as well.
We have two backup dancers now.
Oh, yeah. Hello, Steph.
Hello. Hello, it's Manuel.
How's it going? I'm fine.
I hope now that my microphone is working, it's going to be better because now I think if I keep my mouth three inch from the mic, the sound will be better.
It's good. Go ahead with your question or comment.
It's a comment I would like to make to To show you that since I'm open to your ideas on freedom and free market, even my Marxist views are different.
And this week, once again, I was thinking to you about something.
Because where I work, we are unionized.
You understand?
I do. And I realized, because I've been working there for 10 years, and I realized how the union is really bad.
I mean, first of all, as a Marxist, I consider the union is not there to fight the cause, but only try to fight some effect.
And And also, I realized that people that are in the union, it's really the most corrupted and the most stupid people I have ever seen.
And in the factory, most people that are in the union are really the most stupid and the most corrupted people that are in the shop.
So it's a comment I wanted to make.
I think that to become open to libertarianism helped me a lot to see this.
Right, because I suppose the temptation in a Marxist analysis would be to say that somehow the stupidity of the union leaders is the result of them having to battle corporate interests in a free market, or you'd be tempted for that rather than the empirical facts.
That the most competent people in the world tend not to go into politics or union leadership or whatever, but to actually produce things of value in the real world.
But I would say this, that I am certainly no...
I personally have no hostility to unions whatsoever, and I am sure that in a non-violent economic system, in other words, a system without a centralized state, unions would have a very powerful, important,
and productive... I think that unions have a great deal of noble history behind them, a great deal of genuinely and positively fighting for workers' rights,
and I actually am no small fan of unions and what they've done to help balance the power of state corporatism, but I think that they would look quite different in a voluntary or non-violent economic situation.
Yeah, I think you're right.
Of course, I have my own criticism of unions that are Marxist that you would probably don't agree.
You mean that they're attempting to find the best in a bad situation rather than change the system?
I mean, they are fighting the effect rather than the cost.
Right. And often they are even...
How can I say?
They are on the side of the companies.
I mean, they are on the side of the...
Of the biggies rather than on the workers.
I mean, they often, especially I would say since 30 to 40 years, I think they betrayed.
They betrayed often the workers telling them, yeah, accept that.
Or you're going to lose your job or you accept that because it's better than nothing.
Right, and there is, I think, a strong argument to be made, and it's a lengthy chain of reasoning, though I'll keep it brief just for reasons of efficiency, but there's a strong argument to be made, and I've seen it made very effectively, to say something like this, that unions give money to political parties, and political parties in return will provide money Legal protection for unions.
In other words, you can't break strikes which give unions an unjust monopoly over the corporations or the companies that the unionized employees work for.
And they will also do things like raise the minimum wage in order to bolster their own wage demands, which again is using the power of the state to throw, unfortunately, the poorest and most vulnerable members of society out of work.
Because when you raise the minimum wage, you don't get poor people paying more, you just get fewer poor people employed.
And as a result of this union, this collusion between unions and governments, particularly in the realm of upping social spending and social benefits, what happens is that the country as a whole becomes...
Less productive, government bills go up, which forces foreign lending, right?
You have to go to the foreigners to borrow money to prop up your currency.
If you look at America, and to a smaller degree Canada, the largest creditors to these already practically bankrupt societies are the Japanese and the Chinese.
And if you look at where the biggest trade imbalances are, particularly with China now, it's in China, right?
Free access to import into America.
Of course, the American government has to say yes because it's so indebted.
And so unions have played some role in causing a collapse of the manufacturing sectors within North America and, of course, in Western Europe.
Because they focus not on the long-term health and income of the working classes, for want of a better phrase, but rather...
of what happens in the future.
And the union collusion with governments, I think, has done a lot to open up a non-reciprocal market to really low-cost foreign goods, which has really crippled and destroyed the manufacturing sector in North America, which has been just tragic, right?
I mean, the route out of the lower class to the middle class was through manual labor.
And manual labor, if we look at it in terms of skilled manual labor, was manufacturing.
And with that avenue closed off, it is a really big leap to go from the lower classes to the middle classes, I know, because I made that transition.
And it was not the easiest thing in the world, to say the least.
And I think that lack of a rising tide lifting all boats has caused huge, huge social problems in the world because a lot of people don't feel in the lower classes that they have this escalator up through honorable and skilled manual labor huge social problems in the world because a lot of people don't feel in the lower classes that they have this And where you can't get goodies from society, you no longer want to obey society's rules.
And I think this causes a lot of problems.
So it's complicated and I don't want to go into it in too much detail, but I think it is a big and tragic problem what's happened to the working classes.
Yes?
You'll be happy to know that in my new book I have a whole section on classes.
Because I think that it's a very, very valid concept.
I don't necessarily go with the Marxist analysis of class completely, but I think that it is a very, very important concept.
And I think that there are very specific classes in the world.
I would assign them slightly different categories, but I think that it is an essential way to look at how society functions.
Yeah, I agree, I think, on almost everything that you just said.
I just wanted to say that you helped me to open my eyes to see more things about the Union than before.
I really see, especially where I work, how they can be counterproductive.
They are really doing things that are not efficient.
I think in an ideal society, like multitasking, you understand the word multitasking?
I do. But in the ideal society, multitasking is just logic and rational.
Whether the ideal society would be yours or mine, multitasking is just logic.
It's very efficient.
But where I work, they are so much against it.
They can make a grievance Yeah, no, that's the right word.
I'm sorry, just interrupt for a second.
For those who don't speak French, the word multitasking roughly translates to menage à trois.
But sorry, go on. What?
Just kidding, go on. Okay.
It certainly involves multitasking, but sorry, go on.
No, I just wanted to say yes.
It's really... Oh dear, I'm so sorry, we lost your mic again.
I'm going to just, if you can just hold off, I'm going to just see if we have any other yearning-burning questions, but I think that I certainly do appreciate.
I really have enjoyed, and I've got a whole podcast or two on this, about what Marxism has brought to contemporary debates about economics and class conflict and class interests, and I'm just listening to Matt Damon's excellent reading of Howard Zinn's public...
A People's History of the United States.
And of course, he's a dyed-in-the-wool redcoat, and it is well worth listening to if you get a chance.
And it's very interesting. I really do enjoy his analysis of class conflict and hearing, of course, the underside or the underbelly of what is typically called the sort of heyday of laissez-faire capitalism in the 19th century and what effects it did have on the Working classes, I just think that stuff is just great.
And I think it's, you know, part of any educated person's worldview must include some more than a passing understanding of Marxist analysis because its popularity results from its significant validity in many areas.
In terms of a diagnosis of the symptoms, of course, I would disagree with the solutions, but you have to know the symptoms first.
Thank you very much. I appreciate that comment.
and we have time for another question or two more.
Thank you.
For the true multitasker, Ménage en 1990, also known Ménage en 1990, also known as Montana.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'd also like to mention that I think I'm quite pleased and proud that my new book should be my most annoying and controversial book.
I always like to up the beehive quotient in each of the book, and by that I don't mean the hairdo, but basically having your head trapped in a hive of bees when it comes to challenging topics and approaches.
So that will be exciting.
I also got an invitation to be the closing speaker at the Liberty Forum.
This year, I'm going to just talk to the guy, I think Monday, to go over some details.
And we're pretty sure we're going to go.
I mean, if the invite works out, and last year it was Ron Paul, the year before it was John Stossel, let's hope it's a step up to have me yammering away at the closing ceremonies.
And that will be interesting.
It's in New Hampshire, the 5th to the 8th of March, I do believe.
And let me just...
I'll get the website for you in just a second.
freestateproject.org forward slash liberty forum.
March 5th to 8th in...
Well, it'll be in Nashua, New Hampshire.
So we will be Christina and Isabella and I will be sharing the driving down because we got a high chair for Christina and And we may be there for the whole weekend and meet and greet some people.
So if you're anywhere around New Hampshire early next month, feel free to drop by.
It'd be nice to meet anybody who's a listener to drop by.
And I'm sure we'll be floating around.
Just look for what looks like a relatively small pink and freckled biosphere moving through a crowd.
I'm usually fairly close to below that.
Sorry? So yeah, we're going to drive over probably the 4th of March, spend a couple of days in New Hampshire, because I hear it's balmy and sunny, and that should be fun.
I have mulled over a few topics that I'll be talking about.
I don't think I'll do anything particularly religious or political, but there are some things that I would like to talk about with people that I think will be interesting and positive without necessarily creating A libertarian lynch mob, which would be a bit of an oxymoron, but I think that I could probably pull off, should I want to, which I don't.
So I just wanted to mention that.
There is no topic that they have suggested that I talk about.
So I assume that it's an open topic.
And And it should be fun.
Hello. Hello.
Hello, Steph. Hello.
Hi, Steph. Can you hear me?
Uh-huh. I have a great connection, but if you have any trouble hearing me, I have a problem calling another time.
I'm sorry, you're really cutting out a lot.
Perhaps we could talk, maybe it's something to do with the server, but we could do a one-on-one perhaps, just because it's tough to follow what you're saying.
Absolutely. Sorry about that.
Yeah, no, not a problem.
Thank you. Okay.
Alright, well, last call for our questions.
We could have a short show this week.
Welcome, of course.
Big, wet, only slightly sloppy Canadian kiss.
Welcome to the new listeners who are joining.
The board registration is back open.
And I'd really like to welcome the quantity and the quality of the people who are joining the board.
It is just wonderful to see how many bright, intelligent, articulate people I would like to get, you know, maybe half a dozen of the hardcore determinist listeners.
On a debate, we could use Uvu with some nice video interactions, which I think would be great.
I would really, really like to just get all, because, you know, these threads are just so boring, and it's not because people aren't smart or anything like that.
I feel like I'm making the same points over and over again, and I'm sure that the determinants feel that way as well.
I thought that it would help to post my three-part series on the definition and solution to the problem of free will, but people seem to have listened to it, but don't seem to have gotten it, and so that obviously demotivates me to continue to post about it, And I'm sure that it's as annoying for the determinists.
So I thought we might want to get together and spend some highly quality time going through these issues because, you know, I certainly don't feel any joy whatsoever when a new thread opens up on determinism.
And maybe other people do, but I certainly don't see any particular enthusiasm from longer term listeners.
And because we haven't resolved the issue, it just means that there are two sides of a tired debate that don't want to interact anymore.
And I think that's a real shame because I think there are ways to logically answer these questions.
And so hopefully if you are a determinist, you know, post on the board, I guess maybe a compatibilist if you like.
And let's, you know, let's let's really get it on.
And, you know, let's set aside an hour or two or three to go through these issues and just find a way to to come to some resolutions about stuff, because it is not so obscure and impossible.
A question that we need to have spent a couple of years dancing around and coming to no resolutions.
fundamentally, it seems, whatsoever.
So I think that we really do need to sit down and just hash this stuff out for the sanity of everyone involved, I think, so that we can come to some sort of productive conclusion about this stuff.
It is not beyond the realm of possibility.
We've had these issues before.
This is not to put it all in the same category.
We've had these issues before with nihilism, with agnosticism, with minarchism, with political action.
And we've been able to come to some pretty strong resolutions about these issues.
So let's sit down and really try to hammer it out.
I think that would be a lot more productive and fun.
And I won't get a chance to work on a – to finish really a video on determinism for the next two or three weeks just finishing up the book.
But I can certainly take the time to have a stirring and vivid debate about the issues.
So please post on the board, and if you all can—my time is pretty flexible, so— If y'all can come up with a time that is somewhat reasonable, not too early in the morning on Eastern Standard Time, I will be all over it.
And get yourself a webcam, pick up a copy of uvoo, O-O-V-O-O dot com, and let's get it on.
Oh yeah. All right.
Last call for questions.
The word she is yours.
The question hook is swinging over you.
Hello. Okay.
I have headphones now.
Right now I'm in an MBA program and it's at a pretty good school and I think I'll be finished in about a year.
And basically my question is...
Because I've been reading a blog of a guy who's basically involved in the same conversation.
Kind of takes a different angle on things.
But I've just become pretty concerned lately in that he made a distinction in his blog between like a parasite class and a productive worker class.
And kind of you follow what he's saying and even you sort of in a way said the same thing.
Someone who goes through a graduate business program is pretty much going to be part of the parasite class.
I mean, it's really maybe a crude way of distinguishing between the two.
Sorry, why do you think that would be the case?
Just because of...
I guess the...
I mean, it's really oversimplifying the issue.
I want to say that first because, you know, I don't mean to suggest that everybody who goes into top management is a parasite.
Nothing like that. But just from the point of view that most...
You could say that most MBAs or a lot of MBAs are going to go and try to work for a large corporation.
I mean, not necessarily, but a lot.
And that...
Most large corporations are large corporations because of the state and pretty much they exist and continue to exist because whatever advantages the state affords them.
Thus if you're going to go and you're going to use your skills to, you know, grow and enhance the wealth of a large corporation, you're just going out to To help pull taxes or whatever it is, you know, unfair competitive advantages to extract revenue from, you know, the, again, productive workers or the rest of society or, you know, just depending on what line of work you're in.
But, so that's the basis of it.
And so my question is basically, in what I guess, what kind of a career path should I be considering?
What should I try and do to avoid that?
Well, again, this is a tough question, and I'm sure you're aware that there's no objective answer.
Again, relative to, I don't think you want to go and work for a place that manufactures military equipment, right?
I mean, that would be pretty gross.
And at the same time, of course, there would be certain ways of life where you could be sure you were not participating in the state in any way, shape or form.
The problem is, of course, that you'd be living in a cave and all that kind of stuff, right?
Which I don't think is a very – I think that's abandoning the post.
If you have abilities as a thinker, a philosopher and a communicator, to go and live in a cave to me is abandoning the post of an honorable thing you could be doing to help free the world.
That's my opinion. There are things that I do, of course.
Something like what I do is fairly close to a stateless situation, right?
I mean, I'm using very few state resources and so on.
But I think that you could absolutely find companies that have a minimal to very low involvement with the state, right?
So Microsoft, for instance, right?
I mean, I'm no huge expert, but as far as I understand it, the reason they got into trouble with the DOJ in the 90s was because they didn't have a man in Washington, so to speak, right?
So there are large companies.
I would know more about them in the software field.
You know, someplace like Honeywell.
Well, Honeywell has a lot of involvement with military contracts, so that would be a little less along that continuum.
But of course, there are areas within Honeywell that would deal with consumer concerns, right?
The HVAC systems and all that.
Again, it's not the most glamorous stuff, but for sure, there would be places you could work even within large companies that would not have the same heavy involvement with statist activity, if that makes sense.
So, yeah, you could look for companies that don't have much involvement with statist stuff.
But of course, when you're in Microsoft, they're going to be trying to sell...
Their software to the Department of Education.
I mean, that's just the nature of the beast, right?
I mean, I struggled with it.
You'll struggle with it. It's actually not that much of a struggle.
You know, we didn't make the world.
We've got to navigate our way within it.
And I think that becoming a purist is to limit your life too much, not for any particular gain, right?
It's not like if you don't sell Microsoft software to the Department of Education, Education is not like, okay, well, the Department of Education is going to collapse and we're going to get private schools, right?
It just means that someone else is going to do it, right?
So that doesn't solve the problem.
The problem is solved at a much more fundamental philosophical and psychological level and through the integrity that you bring to your interactions, not based on particular decisions you make, which won't change a damn thing in the long run.
So, I would say look for big companies that have a minimal state involvement.
Look for departments or divisions within big companies.
GE, of course, is a huge company.
And you can work in divisions in GE that have very little to do with the state.
Are they regulated by the state?
Well, of course. But, I mean, you have to drive on public roads to get to any job, right?
Do we say no because of that, right?
It's like, I don't think that we want to say...
Well, my house is on fire, but the government has a monopoly on the fire service, so I'm just going to let it burn, right?
I mean, that to me is not a sensible way to deal with the problems of society, right?
So you can look for companies, and this is not, to me, primarily because of some sort of philosophical purist approach, but this to me would simply be to be happier, right?
The closer you get to dealing with the state on a regular basis, the more unhappy you will get, right?
Because it just sucks, right?
Dealing with the government is difficult and time-consuming and political, and I can speak with some really significant personal experience as far as that goes.
So, I don't think that there's any necessity for you to not work for big companies if that's where your MBA has the greatest value.
I would...
Definitely try to steer your career towards a lesser involvement with the government, not because of philosophical purity, but because it just won't make you happy, right?
In fact, it will make you quite unhappy.
The people who cluster around government contracts, even on the company you'll be working for, they're just kind of low-quality people.
Political, manipulative, you know, kind of oogie people, to say the least, right?
So you want to stay, I think, as close as you can to voluntary customers, as close as you can to as free market a situation as you can.
Maybe this would lead you towards more developing economies, right?
Maybe this would lead you more towards India or China or, you know, Vietnam or Cambodia or other places where Or Singapore, right, where there's a significant degree of economic freedom.
There's lots of things that you can do within big companies that will be of real benefit to the two customers and to your income and to all of those things, which will not require you to fundamentally or significantly compromise your values.
And the last thing that I would say is, of course, MBA recipients end up in management.
And I will say this for sure.
And I, again, stick by this, having had, I guess, not a huge number.
The biggest I had, I think, was 28 or 30 employees was the largest number of people who ever reported to me.
But I will say that your commitment to voluntarism, to...
to the free market, to respect for individuals, to communication, hopefully some of the emotional stuff that you might have picked up from Free Domain Radio, will make you a very good boss to work for.
And I wouldn't deny potential employees the value of having you as a boss versus someone else, because all of those employees will be very strongly affected by having you as a boss.
And that will flow through to their friends, to their families, to their children.
Being in a position of authority in this way will be very beneficial to people who work for you.
And maybe you will end up with 500 people working for you or 1,000 people working for you.
That is a pretty sweet way to spread the principles of volunteerism, philosophy, respect, and all of those kinds of good things, and integrity, and so on, and you will be bringing a lot of happiness and positivity into people's lives that they wouldn't otherwise have.
So, think of the good that you can do with the authority that you can get, and again, I'm just not a real big fan of this philosophical purity thing.
It just strikes me as As religious, fundamentally.
Life is complicated.
We have to navigate. We have to negotiate.
There is ambivalence. There is complications in every decision that we make.
And I think for people to try and cut and dry it to a sort of black and white formula is not...
And I'm not saying that you're doing that.
Just so you understand.
I think that it is really denying the richness and the complexity of life.
there will be difficult decisions to make in a completely free society as well.
Because there will be defense DROs that you may not agree with.
And there will be companies doing business with those defense DROs.
And there will be those kinds of challenges, right?
There will be companies that have questionable business practices in an anarchic society.
And you will have to make decisions about how to deal with those.
There will be dysfunctional people in a stateless society, and you will have them as bosses or managers at a horizontal level or employees, and you'll have to figure out how to deal with those.
There will still be child abuse, and you may have evidence of it, and you'll have to figure out how to deal with that.
So there will still be complications and ambivalence in a stateless society as well.
So I think that, hoping that there's some sort of Join the dots purity test that we can apply to help us through these decisions, I think is...
And I also get this...
Sorry, last thing I say.
It's kind of like an original sin because it's impossible to escape without vanishing from society completely.
And even then, you're still acting on statism.
You're just acting to escape it.
But it's something that to me is always...
It has always struck me as a kind of fallback position for people who've lost an argument.
You know, like, so this happens on YouTube or sometimes in other places where I debate, for want of a better word, you know, where, you know, people will say, oh, yeah, well, you pay your taxes, don't you?
So you can't be against the state because if you were really against the state, you wouldn't pay your tax.
Like, it's just a way of graciously, of ungraciously refusing to admit that you've been disproven, if that makes any sense.
Like, then just saying, oh yeah, well, if you're supposed to be so consistent, why are you hypocritical about this?
And that's not what the debate is about, but people will go there rather than deal with the issues that are actually at hand.
And it's just a kind of nuclear bomb that people drop when they're losing an argument, if that makes sense.
Yeah, totally. It's to say, you know, well, because you missed a spot here, your entire argument's invalid.
Or... Well, no, I don't think it even misses a spot.
It's not even a question of missing a spot because I don't view the fact that I pay my taxes as any kind of moral corruption on my part.
It's nothing to do with any ethical decisions on my part.
The fact that I pay my taxes is because...
I will not be banned from living in society because there are bad people in the world.
I am not going to make my decisions about living in society, about living a civilized life with an income, with a house, with dentistry, with access to deodorant, with all of these.
I'm not going to make my decision about living in society because there are some assholes in a capital city with guns You know, a thousand miles away from me.
I'm just not going to do it.
My decision about living in society is not dependent upon whether bad people a couple of hundred years ago failed to establish a stately society.
I'm just not going to do it.
It's not going to be a moral decision that I am going to accept.
You know, people may as well expect me to pay restitutions for slavery.
Right? I mean, it's not my moral decision about the life that I was born into, the world that I have inherited.
I think that there are moral decisions to be made, and I think the most important moral decisions to be made about how we are going to spend the freedoms that we retain to help build a better, happier, and freer world in the future.
That, to me, is where the moral decisions make.
But I feel absolutely no guilt, no shame, no compromise to my virtue, value, or ethics whatsoever from complying with the brutal rules of a state of society.
It's the world that I was born into, and I'm not going to make my decisions conditional upon violence, right?
Because if I were to flee and go live in a cave, obviously I wouldn't be able to do the kind of good that I hope that I'm doing now.
And I would still not be free because I would be having to live in a cave because there were bad people in the world.
That's not called freedom, in my opinion.
So I just don't take any shred of guilt or ownership for the fact that I was born into this world and have to live with a socially sanctioned violence that's impossible to resist.
I will do my best to change that in the future, but I'm not going to be chased out of a civilized life because there are bad people in the world.
Yeah, and I hope you realize that that applies to you as well, I hope.
Yeah.
Absolutely, yeah. I mean, the whole decision is, I mean, part of it is kind of, it's a continuum, you know.
Obviously, I'm not going to, I don't know, I try to become a lawyer and see if I can work in politics.
But at the same time, like you said, I'm not going to go live in a cave either.
And so, you know, deciding what I'm going to do, you know, I guess it's two things.
Well, how am I going to use my skills in education and then where am I going to use them?
And sort of the where is on the continuum.
How I use them, that determines what kind of a life I live, what kind of benefits I get from my job.
And if I weight my whole decision toward the where, then if I'm going to go purist and cave into the continuum, then I'm going to give up a lot of those benefits.
I keep allowing myself, just like you said, you know, I didn't create the world and it's not my fault.
There are bad people in it. So I shouldn't then try to, I don't know, internalize whatever it is other people have done and try to make my professional decisions, I guess, subject to that decision that they've made.
And so, I mean, I agree completely.
Yeah, I mean, the way that I approach it in a nutshell is this, which is that I'm going to live like there's no government.
I'm living like there's no government.
So I don't vote, because in a stateless society, there'd be no voting.
I don't get involved in politics, because in a stateless society, there'd be no politics.
I don't fuss and fight about having to pay my money in taxation because in a free society there'd be no taxation.
I just say to myself, hey, it's sort of like people donate 30% less.
Would I be okay with that?
Yeah, I'm not happy, but okay.
So, you know, I just pay them their money and live like they're not there.
That's how we...
If I were to flee into the woods, the state would be running my entire life.
Just live like they're not there.
Live like you're already in a free society.
Live like you're already in a stateless society.
Right? Because in a free society, a free society would require that people accept that, you know, child abuse is bad or whatever, so that no media would ever attack me in a free society for standing up for an abused kid, right? So I just live like it's all gonna pass and, you know, It's not real, right?
Because if you live like it's not real, I mean, it eventually will become not real, right?
I mean, but if we make all our decisions relative to the state and its power and its influence and its violence, then we're just reinforcing the fact that it exists, which it doesn't, right?
Yeah, I mean, I don't...
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the government.
I mean, not like I never have or whatever.
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the government.
I mean, I had to do my taxes over the last couple of weeks and, you know, that's a drag, right?
But I'm done with it and I don't think about it anymore.
And that's the only way that I really know how to be free of a state that is largely omnipresent is just live like it's not there.
Make my decision. So that's why I'm saying don't make your decisions based on intellectual purity because that is...
Allowing the existence of the state to dominate your decision making, but make it based on a practical knowledge of the considerations at hand, which is that if you go work for the Defense Department, you won't be happy, right?
So not because, oh my god, it's intellectually impure or whatever, right, if that makes any sense.
Totally. Was there anything else?
I hope that that's given you some freedom, right?
That's what I want to try and communicate, right?
Because we don't want to be dominated by ideology any more than we want to be dominated by the state, right?
Right. So I hope that's helped in terms of keeping your decision-making open and flexible.
It does. I mean, it simplifies things for me because I have a mostly financial background and Over the last few months, I've learned a lot of things about the financial system that really just kind of makes me go, hmm, should I change fields?
And, yeah, that really opens things up for me again.
It puts my focus back to, wait a minute, I didn't make things the way they are, and I shouldn't I shouldn't hold myself responsible for that, so to speak.
I mean, it would be different if I designed the system, which obviously I didn't.
I'd be a little narcissistic to, I think, take the whole world on your shoulders like that anyway.
Right, and it's not realistic and it's not true.
Like, if we lived in a state, a society, there would be companies that would manufacture guns.
And I wouldn't want to work with them.
Not because I have anything innately problematic against gun ownership.
I just don't want to work with a bunch of people who are really fascinated by guns.
Like in the same way that I wouldn't want to work on a road crew.
I just wouldn't have anything in common with them, right?
So we would have restrictions based upon our talents, abilities, and so on.
In a free society as well, but just live like the government isn't there and recognize that...
So if there's a bunch of...
In a stateless society, there would be a bunch of paperwork that would need to be done, right?
There would be a bunch of really basic, annoying, monkey work, Excel, financial grinding stuff that you'd have to do or that would have to be done in any company.
You'd still have to report annual earnings or whatever and you'd still have stock to debt ratios and all that kind of crap.
And you probably wouldn't want a job doing that, right?
And so taxation is just another kind of bureaucracy and unfortunately it's an inflicted bureaucracy but that bureaucracy would still exist.
In a stateless society.
And if you don't want to work, if you wouldn't want to work there in a stateless society, then obviously you want to work there even less in a stateless society, if that makes sense.
But not because it's intellectually impure or you're supporting the state, but just like, hell, I wouldn't want to do this if it was in a free society, so I'm not going to do it in a stateless society either.
Right, and that's why I get these requests for this true news stuff, do more contemporary events about the government.
It's like, but I don't want to spend that much time paying attention to the government.
Certainly not going to set the world free.
I won't do any harm and I'll do some of it, right?
But I just want to live like it's not there.
That's the best way that I know of to help spread the idea of a state in the society is to just not notice the damn state, right?
Okay, anyway, I don't want to go on too long, but that's sort of my thoughts.
And, you know, follow your bliss as far as your career goes.
And trust that what you want to do is going to be the right thing to do, right?
I mean, the whole point of, you know, becoming really good at tennis is you can just go out and play, right?
And the whole point of becoming really good at philosophy and self-knowledge is to just trust that you don't have to guide yourself.
You don't have to have, like, you're not like a...
Philosophy is not like a seeing eye dog that if you lose track of it, you're going to get creamed by a bus or something, right?
I mean it's to trust that with enough self-knowledge and enough philosophical understanding and good enough relationships in your life that what you want to do is going to be the right thing anyway, right?
But not to say, well, I want to do this but I can't because it's intellectually impure.
That's living at an arm's length managerial distance to philosophy.
And I think that philosophy should inhabit us more and guide us in a way that we trust our own preferences, desires, and instincts after a certain amount of exposure and self-knowledge.
That would sort of be my, you know, do what makes you happy.
Because if you're philosophically inclined and you have a good degree of self-knowledge, that which makes you happy will be the right thing anyway.
Good, good. So go forth and prosper.
All right. Well, thank you so much.
That was an excellent call, and they're all wonderful, excellent calls.
You know, massive props and compliments now to the Sirius frontal lobes orbiting the FDR space station.
So, thank you everybody so much.
Thank you for recent donators.
I have finished Mekosystem, excuse me, part three, which I will send out to subscribers.
And have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful week.
▲
Export Selection