All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
22:47
1320 Bait'n'Switch

An elemental fogging tactic to watch for in debates...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good afternoon, everybody.
Hope you're doing well. It's Steph and Easybelly.
It is the 2nd, I think, of April.
2-009.
And I hope you're doing well. These are warm-ups, I suppose you could say.
And the warm-ups are something around...
These two ideas.
And I sort of post them here, and you can sort of see if you're at all interested in the process.
Sorry if there's a little wind. How things go in the old podcast-rooney developmental department.
This is the R&D department of the podcast planet, known as Free Domain Radio.
And there are two things that are two ideas that I'm sort of floating around with at the moment.
One is this question of a bait and switch that occurs whenever you debate statism with people as a whole.
And the bait and switch is quite interesting.
And the way that it works is sort of like this.
So whenever you talk about, just say, taxation, then the way that taxation is always framed in these discussions when you're talking with a statist is that it is voluntary.
It's the price we pay for living in a civilized society.
It is a social contract.
It is all these kinds of things that are all considered to be voluntary.
You know, we agree to taxes by living in a society and, you know, everybody knows this nonsense.
So it's all considered to be voluntary.
If you don't like it, you can work for change or you can leave.
And your consent is required for this approach to work.
Now, of course, the logical response when someone tells you that something is voluntary and you don't like it is to stop, right?
That would be the logical thing to do.
If you're told that something is voluntary and you don't like it and don't agree with it and don't approve of it, then you are obviously allowed to stop.
Why? Because it's voluntary.
Right, so that is, you know, if, let's say you're forced to get married by the state, and state picks your partner, which is sort of the equivalent of state picks how charity is going to work and so on, and you then don't like your partner, you don't like and you then don't like your partner, you don't like being married, and then you say, okay, well, I don't want to be married to this person anymore, and they say, well, there's voluntary for you to be married to this person, and then, of course, you will naturally say, okay, I don't want to be married to this person, because it's
And then, of course, you will naturally say, okay, I don't want to be married to this person because it's voluntary, so you get a divorce.
So marriage is voluntary, and even if you don't agree to it up front, you can get a divorce.
That's sort of the definition, by any stretch of the imagination, of what is meant by voluntary.
And that's how taxation is portrayed by statists and so on.
And then, when you take the logical conclusion of the premise that taxes are a voluntary thing, right, and that's why you're responsible, it's like a contract, right, then you say, well, I don't approve of what happens with taxation, and since you say that it's voluntary, then clearly I have the right to secede from taxes.
Because it's voluntary, right?
If it's voluntary for me to be married, clearly I have the right to be divorced, right?
I have the right to disengage from this voluntary thing.
And then you get, this is the bait, is the voluntarism, and then when you apply the logical consequences of voluntarism, which is disengagement, then clearly what happens is you get the switch, and the switch is, well, you can't disengage, right? You can't say no to taxes, right?
And that is really, really fascinating.
It's a fascinating bait-and-switch.
So, freedom of association, right?
So, you're free to associate with whoever you want, but you have to be married to this guy.
Oh, well, if I'm free to associate with whoever I want, then surely I have the right to not be married to this guy.
No, no, no, no. You have freedom of association, and you have to be married to this guy.
Well, of course, that make no sense at all.
And I think it's really important to notice when we go through these arguments with these people, when the switch occurs.
Because if you don't see when the switch occurs, I think it'll be very hard for you to...
You kind of get and point out and process yourself what's actually happening.
And this, of course, is the really frustrating, if you don't see it, and impossible situation that we run into all the time when we're debating with statists, in that they say, no, no, no, you see, you're responsible for paying for taxes because it's a voluntary thing which you agree to by being part of the society, and it's the price we pay for a civilized situation.
And so it's sort of akin to you lease a car, right?
Or a phone contract or whatever.
And... And therefore, you must pay because it's a contract.
And then you say, well, I didn't sign a contract.
I don't approve of the contract.
I can't help where I was born.
No one owns the country and can charge rent, right?
Because owning a country and charging rent is totally not UPB compliant, right?
If a human being has the right to own a country and charge rent from whoever he wants in the form of property taxes or whatever, then that's a universal human right, which cancels itself out.
So you say, you owe me $10,000 for living on my planet.
I say, no, no, no, you owe me $10,000 for living on my planet.
It all cancels out and you don't get anywhere.
So the idea of the government owns and you have to pay rent to live where the government owns everything is...
Completely not at all UBB compliant, and therefore we know it's an invalid ethical theory.
But it's really important to notice this bait-and-switch and how it occurs.
And this bait-and-switch where it's voluntary, and that's why you're responsible for it, and then you say, okay, well, if it's voluntary, then I'm going to secede.
It's like, no, no, no, you can't secede.
Right? Because the whole statism collapses if you can secede, right?
If you can say, I don't want to pay taxes.
Then it's just another charity, right?
It's just another educational group.
It's not a government as we know it.
Oh, I think Missy's getting a little peckish.
Okay, sweet dums, we'll go get you some nice dums.
So I'll pick this up again in a few minutes, but I think that debate and switch is really interesting.
And when you get the scent of this, you'll see it happening all the time in your conversations.
Okay, darling. Alright, sorry about that.
So, to continue, where does the bait-and-switch show up elsewhere?
And please understand, I don't imply, or I don't mean to imply, that the bait-and-switch is occurring through some consciously malevolent motive.
I really don't. And I hope to make that at least somewhat clear during the course of this.
There's two other places that, well, it's three maybe, but let's just talk about two.
Other places that sort of immediately spring to mind is where this kind of stuff shows up.
The first, of course, is when you are talking about ethics, then people will tell you that, you know, there's no such thing or it's all relative or whatever, right?
In other words, they're making absolute statements about the inapplicability of absolute statements, right?
So when you make An absolute statement, they tell you that everything is relative.
When you point out that that is an absolute statement, you will get either a switch of topic or some quote from some obscure thinker or the generalized statement, well, it's complicated, right?
Or you'll get some other kind of foggy device.
And that's not particularly a pleasant experience to go through.
And you can go round and round that mulberry bush, of course, pretty much forever.
Like, over and over again, you can keep taking that spin cycle, right?
Nothing is true. Oh, that's an absolute statement.
Yes, but only this one.
Or whatever, right? So, nothing is true.
Okay, something is true. But the only thing that's true is that nothing is true, right?
So, you keep going round and round.
Because if somebody says...
That there's no such thing as truth.
They actually can't correct anyone and so on.
Because, you see, everybody wants the fruits of philosophy without the restrictions of logic and evidence.
Everybody wants the fruits of philosophy.
In other words, the ability to correct people, to have moralizing or at least universally preferable behavior and so on.
But they don't want the universality that comes with that.
In other words, everybody wants a rule that they themselves are accepted from.
And that, of course, really is the nature of government, right?
Government is a rule that is universal except for everyone in government.
And so this idea that you want a rule that you're accepted from, I mean, it's very profitable to have a rule that you're accepted from.
If you're the only thief in the world, there won't be any...
Nobody will protect their property because the odds of them running into you will be almost nil, right?
So if you're the only thief in the world, you can pretty much take whatever you want.
Whereas, of course, if there's a lot of thieves in the world, there'll be lots of anti-theft measures and alarms and people will have guns and so on, right?
So the more thieves there are, So it's very profitable from a mere biological standpoint to be the only exception to the rule.
But everybody wants to create that one exception to the rule, right?
There's no such thing as truth.
Well, that one statement is the only exception to the rule.
Well, if there's an exception, it's not a rule.
That's pretty clear, right?
Newton's theories are not valid at the speeds and distances that Einsteinian Theories go, so there's, you know, Newton's stuff may be appropriate to certain situations, but it's not valid, right?
If you can find a single exception to a scientific theory, that scientific theory is thrown into significant, significant question.
I mean, if you find one exception to the inverse square law, gases expand when heated or whatever, you know, the whole theory is thrown into significant doubt, and everybody realizes that we kind of have to start again, right?
But in philosophy, everybody wants to create that one exception to the rule, because it's really, really easy.
And of course, we know that if counterfeiting is immoral, except for the Fed, the Fed and those who control it and those who benefit from it have a license to print money.
And that is hugely profitable if they're the only exception to the rule of counterfeiting, right?
They're thieves without, with illegal, the competition is illegal.
So everybody wants, and we have a sort of biological drive to create rules and then create exceptions for ourselves, right?
So that is something that will always occur, right?
So everybody who's religious looks at the other 10,000 gods or 10,000 religions and says, "Well, those people are all silly.
They're all wrong. Mine is the one true faith, right?
In other words, other superstitions are completely wrong.
My superstition is completely right.
And that, of course, is the one exception to the rule, right?
It's not like, well, half those religions are true and half of them are false, because that would be an arbitrary statement.
But the religion that I grew up with is the one that is true.
The religion that other people grew up with is obviously nonsense, right?
I mean, that's something that's just, you know, your god is the only exception to the other 10,000 gods, the rule of which is that they are not valid and not real and not true.
Or your prophet, right? All the other prophets are silly.
Moses was a real prophet, so the Jews.
Jesus was not. Or Jesus wasn't a prophet, but Muhammad was the real prophet, so the Muslims, right?
You just see, like, there's this rule, and then there's this exception to the rule, and that's where the exploitation and corruption and falsehood and all that kind of stuff is, right?
every company wants there to be a free market in every area except its own.
And it wants it even to be a free market in every area, including its own, except for itself, right?
Every company, the first company to break the arbitrary rule of free market and create its own government protection and subsidization, you know, makes out like King Bandit, right?
But, I mean, if you're the first steel company to get steel barred from importing that is just like your steel and not like anyone else's, you make a fortune, assuming demand remains constant.
So everybody wants to create this exception to their own rule, right?
So you see this with our statists, you see this with religious people, and not to reopen the debate, but this was my constant experience and eventually just complete exasperation with the determinists, right?
That, you know, they want the fruits of choice, as I pointed out in this debate, right?
They want to be able to correct people while simultaneously affirming that there's no possible preferred state because everything's unrolling according to the laws of physics, right?
So, everything is unrolling according to the laws of physics and therefore there's no such thing as a preferred state, but you are incorrect and you should choose the preferred state called correctness, which is determinism, right?
So, there's this rule and then there's this exception, right?
And philosophy really is all about ironing out these exceptions, right?
Because it can be really maddening to just go round and round this mulberry bush, right?
Here's the rule and here's the exception.
And when you look for that situation, when you look for that cycle, you will see it just about everywhere.
Well, hopefully except here, right?
But you will see that Just about everywhere, right?
So I wanted to sort of point out this bait-and-switch, this rotation, as a very, very consistent and constant process.
People create rules and then create exceptions for themselves for biologically advantageous reasons.
And, you know, we are all subjects except the king, who makes up someone he's supposed to be subject to who doesn't exist, called God, right?
So that he can basically just have his whim be called the divine rule, right?
So everyone is a subject except the king.
And so this is something that's very, very important to understand, right?
This creation of rule, creation of violation of the rule, it occurs almost simultaneously, and you will switch back and forth So when you question the rule, you're introduced to the violation.
When you question the violation, you're introduced back to the rule, and back and forth you go, not making any progress.
And the question, I think, as always, is why is this even remotely believable?
Why, sweet dumbs? Tell me why.
I must know. Only you have the answers.
And why would this even be remotely believable, this creating the rule and violating the rule?
Obviously, I get a lot of flack for talking about the family, but people don't really seem to understand, maybe you do, but a lot of people don't understand that it is my optimism that causes me to focus on the family.
It is my optimism and my belief in the potential for rationality of the species that causes me to focus on the family.
And the reason for that is, I mean, obviously, if...
Let's take an extreme example, right?
So, someone, I don't know, goes around strangling kittens, right?
And we say, well, unfortunately, that's just genetic, and there's nothing we can do about it, right?
Then, really, there's nothing we can do about it, right?
I guess we could punish him, but it wouldn't have any kind of ethical stand to it, right?
But if we say...
Well, people strangle kittens because, you know, cruelty to animals and their family, their parents treated them like dogs or whatever, badly.
And then what we have is a correctable situation, right?
The degree to which I focus on the family is the degree to which I say the problem can be solved.
If I didn't focus on the family and I said, well, I guess like the Marxists would say, it's all class, which doesn't make as much sense to me, or it's all environment, or it's all genes, or it's just whatever human nature is something that people invent to establish their prejudice of human nature.
Human beings are just inherently violent.
Well, if you say human beings are just inherently violent, then there's nothing you can do to solve the problem.
Whereas if you say, well, people who experience a lot of violence and abuse when they're very young children or young children end up with different brains, they end up with a lower capacity to defer gratification, they end up with very volatile stress and anger responses and lack of thought for consequences and so on, and you're they end up with very volatile stress and anger responses and lack of Then you say, well, that's human nature.
There's nothing you can do about it.
If you say, well, this has something to do with the quality of the parenting they receive, then you can improve the world by improving parenting, right?
So the focus on the family is about as optimistic a thing as I can think of, right?
And if I were to say with regards to this create a rule, create an exception to the rule, well, that's just human nature.
Then there's nothing we could do about it, right?
Human nature is just this big, inviolate, blank, absolute, right?
Which you can make up to be pretty much whatever you want.
But if I said, well, you know, or if we said the reason that people believe in God is human beings are just programmed to believe in God or...
You know, it's genetic because a belief in superstition was somehow advantageous to people in the past in a primitive society and therefore we have this biological need to, right?
Well, of course, that just doesn't explain the exceptions, right?
But... And people say, well, why do we have governments?
There must be something innate in human beings that we want governments and therefore we're going to always have governments.
And to imagine otherwise is, you know, to imagine that human health can be improved if we could learn to digest sunlight.
It's like, well, that's just an arbitrary bit of nonsense because we're never going to learn to digest sunlight directly and we're not going to be plants.
And therefore, you know, whatever relies on human beings digesting sunlight won't ever work.
And so if it's just human nature, the way that our bodies need proteins and carbohydrates and sugars and vegetables and fruits and all that kind of starches and so on...
If I have a solution called, well, we need to eat sunlight, you know, then it's never going to work, right?
And if human nature is just, well, human beings are inherently violent or inherently need a government or prefer a government or inherently like gods or like religions, then they just have an absolute that you can't do anything with, right?
Whereas if you say who we become is heavily, heavily influenced by how we're parented when we're young, then the possibility of improvement becomes considerable, right?
Because if you improve parenting, then you improve the...
You know, the outcome. It's the GIGO principle, right?
Garbage in, garbage out. And so, when I focus on the family, I'm focusing on what we can do to improve the situation, right?
Not coming up with some...
It's not because I'm anti-family, it's because I'm pro-future, right?
Pro-solutions, pro-improvements.
And so, if, say, people's addictions to religion has something to do with how they're raised, and if you change how they're raised, then people should become less religious.
And this is an empirical fact, right?
And people who are raised in non-religious families tend to be less religious than those who are raised in religious families.
And so, focusing on the family is important.
So, when you have this bait-and-switch, right, we either say, well, it's human nature to have this bait-and-switch, it's biologically advantageous, therefore we're always going to have it, therefore there's no point arguing against it, because that would be like asking human beings to digest sunlight, right?
That wouldn't work, right?
Whereas if we say, well, why do people have this bait and switch?
Well, if it has something to do with how they're raised, then it is an unconscious reproduction of a prior trauma or hypocrisy or problem.
Well, then we can do something to solve it, right?
Because we can then improve parenting to the point where the bait and switch becomes obvious to people and they won't be as susceptible to either falling prey to it or utilizing it, right?
So that's something that I think is very important.
Now, the bait and switch that occurs in the family is, as I talk about it on truth, and I won't go into it here in particular detail because you can get it from the book, is the switch between power and virtue, right?
And the parents say, well, you should obey us because we're virtuous, and then you ask them about virtue when they get angry and inflict power, right?
And then you point out the power, and they say, no, no, no, it's for your own good, and I'm just doing the best I could, and they go back to the virtue thing, right?
So, virtue and power. And I've got Virtue and Power Love Story.
It's an early podcast you might want to check out about this.
But that's where this bait and switch comes from, right?
That it's all about virtue, which is you pay taxes because it's a contract.
And then when you say, well, I want to opt out, then it becomes about force, right?
So parents say, well, you should obey me.
Some parents or a lot of parents say, you should obey me because I'm virtuous.
You ask them about virtue, they get angry.
And, of course, if the situations are reversed, the principles should halt, right?
So, if it's like, well, when you live in my house, you do as I say, then when your parents come to your house, you should be able to order them around, right?
As an adult. But they won't accept that, right?
So, these rules will constantly be violated, right?
So, create a rule, but I'm the only exception.
Right? So there's a universal rule called, when you live in my house, you'll do as I say.
When your parents come over to your house for lunch and you want to tell them to do something, they'll get upset and offended, right?
Because that's the rule, but they're the exception, right?
And because we can't see this very clearly in our families, because it's, you know, kind of annoying and traumatic thing to have to live through.
We then find ourselves very susceptible to this bait-and-switch problem in debating as a whole, in our pursuit of knowledge within ourselves and within the world.
So I hope that this helps, and I hope that this gives you something to look forward to in terms of unraveling in your conversations.
Thank you so much for your continued kindness, support, generosity, and donations, and I will talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection