Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 27, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:22:34

1403 Stef on the Radio June 27 2009 11am

A freewheeling conversation with the hosts of www.atlasmediaonline.com

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome back to the program. You're listening to the Atlas Radio Show on the legendary oraclebroadcasting.com.
	And this is part one of our multiple-part series on anarchism and things of that sort.
	With us today in the second hour is our guest, who is noted philosopher Stefan Molyneux, who will be with us this hour.
	Stefan is a blogger, essayist, author, and host of the Freedom in Radio series, a podcast living in Mississauga.
	How do you say that word, Stefan?
	Mississauga. Mississauga, Canada.
	He has written numerous articles and smaller essays which have been published on Liberty-oriented websites such as LewRockwell.com, AntiWar.com, and Strike the Root.
	He's recorded over 1,300 podcasts, I believe, if I heard you correctly at your keynote speech at the Liberty Forum.
	It's up to 1,500 now.
	And written numerous books which are all self-published except for his first, which was published by Publish America.
	Sorry about that. I just lost the audio for a second, but I'm back.
	Good, good, good. Well, we are happy to have you with us today, Steph.
	Thank you. It's wonderful to be here.
	I certainly do appreciate the invitation.
	Awesome. And this is the Atlas Radio Show.
	We give a little call out in that respect to the great Mrs.
	Ayn Rand, if you will.
	Absolutely. I am a massive fan of the Rand, so I'm happy to be associated with that.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Thank you. She was about her business.
	So, Stephan, why don't you tell us a little bit about your background?
	One of the things that I'm very interested in concerning your background, and how much time do we have until we've got two and a half minutes, is how you went from computer software programming to being the well-noted anarchist philosopher that you are now.
	Well, I guess I've certainly got into philosophy like many people did through the works of Ayn Rand when I was a teenager.
	I was 16 when I first read The Fountainhead.
	A friend of mine gave it to me because he was a huge fan of Rush, the drummer of whom is a big fan of Rand.
	And that was the rock and roll to philosophy connection.
	And then I studied...
	I studied philosophy, I studied history, and I got my master's degree from the University of Toronto focusing on the history of philosophy.
	And so it really, philosophy was the thing, but philosophy is not so much with the putting the bread in your mouth, right?
	It's good for getting the words out of your mouth, not so good for getting the carbs back in.
	So, of course, I had been interested in computers since I was, I don't know, 11 or 12, and I sort of bought and built my first computer.
	And so I got into IT, and I ended up co-founding a company in 1996, 1995, and was chief technical officer there for seven years, worked at a couple of other companies as technical directors or directors of marketing.
	And I had a long commute.
	And so I started recording podcasts in my car during my commute and publishing them more as a sort of fun hobby than anything else.
	And then after a while, people said they found them, you know, useful enough that they wanted to donate.
	So I opened that up and slowly began to build, I guess, the basis for some sort of income.
	Took a massive, savage pay cut to start doing this full-time about two years ago.
	And that's sort of how I got into it.
	So in a sense, I mean, it sounds like philosophy is a big deviation from, you know, software stuff that I was into.
	But in a way, the software stuff was more of a deviation from the philosophy stuff that I've been into for almost 25 years now.
	Wow. That is really impressive.
	That's interesting. You wouldn't think that that process would kind of happen.
	That path is an odd one to follow.
	We're coming up on a break right now.
	We have Stephen Molyneux, the noted philosopher, freedomainradio.com with us today.
	Coming up after the break, we are going to continue with our interview, so stick around.
	You're listening to the Atlas Radio Program on oraclebroadcasting.com.
	Welcome back to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
	You're listening to the Atlas Radio Program on the legendary oraclebroadcasting.com.
	With us today is noted philosopher Stefan Molyneux.
	I am the HX along with my co-host and partner in crime, Corey, a.k.a.
	Sizzle. We're talking to Stefan.
	And this segment, I wanted to ask Stefan...
	Where are my questions here?
	I wanted just to get what's really important, like, kind of up front and out of the way.
	So you'll be debating the iconoclastic Michael Bagnarik soon.
	And could you tell us a little bit about that, the where's and the when's, and why you think this debate will be interesting and useful toward advancing the understanding of liberty?
	Well, I certainly appreciate that.
	Yes, I have been on Michael Badnarik's show before, and he obviously is a very, very smart fellow and very well-learned, of course, about...
	He teaches a course on the Constitution.
	And so it's going to be in Philadelphia, and it's going to be...
	I'm speaking with Larkin.
	On the 4th of July, it's going to be at an outdoor venue.
	And on the 5th, Michael Badenarik and I will be debating how much government is necessary, which is a fundamental question around the liberty movement, right?
	Which is, since we are very dedicated to the principle that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, And the government is defined as an institution that claims the legal right to initiate force in a given geographical area.
	We have a problem if we're aiming at reducing but not eliminating government.
	And so, of course, Michael Batnarek will be taking the reducing.
	I will be taking the eliminating through reason, argument and moral courage the state.
	And so I think it's a really, really essential, essential debate because we certainly don't want to be aiming at the wrong thing, right?
	I mean, obviously he believes that reducing the government back to its constitutional limits would be advantageous.
	I believe that is not the correct or pragmatic course for bringing about human liberty.
	And I think it's really, really essential.
	So many people are putting so much effort into this cause and so much admirable moral courage, financial resources.
	People are pouring heart and soul into I think we need to hash that out, or at least have the two positions as clearly described as possible so that people can make sure that they are going to apply their substantial efforts in the right direction.
	So if people want to get more information about this, they can go to...
	The homepage of my website, www.freedomainradio.com, and there's a link to a Facebook page which has information about this.
	We have a good long time for a debate and questions, and I can promise you that it's going to be crackling good entertainment, Michael Bednarik.
	It's a very good speaker.
	I have been known to rip off a few good sound bites myself.
	And if people want to know sort of how it is that I present to an audience, there is on the homepage of freedomainradio.com.
	There's also a link to the speech that I gave in New Hampshire.
	In March, I was the keynote speaker for the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, and we had two hours of rousing.
	I'm very much into audience participation.
	I mean, it's not that much fun to just have someone drone at you from a podium.
	So it was a Q&A period for the most part and with some really, really funny and very, of course, very intelligent libertarians, minarchists and anarchists.
	So I hope that people will check that out and will come to Philly.
	It's free, so it's definitely worth coming.
	I think it's going to be a very pivotal debate.
	Yeah, absolutely. Very interesting keynote speech there.
	Full of guns and bad metaphors.
	Absolutely terrible. I think I talked about diarrhea at one point, and I'm not sure that that got my point across the way that I wanted to, but it certainly was memorable, and that's in a way that only diarrhea can be.
	So, yeah, I promise to clean up, and not metaphorically, some of the metaphors for Philadelphia.
	Oh, no, I don't think that would be you if we didn't have the bad metaphors.
	If the metaphors don't go wrong, I'm not driving.
	Right, right. Absolutely.
	You know, and it's interesting that you bring up that keynote speech.
	It was a really fascinating...
	It was a fascinating display on the philosophy in action as opposed to people with other ideas and the whole devil's advocate.
	I found that to be very admirable.
	One of the things that we like to do here is confront dissent more than anything.
	We don't really want to preach to the choir.
	I'm not really so much interested in talking to people who agree with me.
	That's easy. And it doesn't really advance things very far.
	Oh no, now I'm going to have to disagree with you.
	No, I'm just kidding. But during that keynote speech...
	Adam Kokesh was able to ask you a question about the common collective self-defense, and I wanted to kind of get into that a little bit.
	I know that your focus isn't so much the why, or is the why, rather than the how, but let's talk about self-defense for a moment in context with reality, because this is a stumbling point with many minarchists that would otherwise be fully committed to the idea of a state of society.
	Sure. In terms of, you know, we can talk our philosophy really all we want.
	And that's fine within our national boundaries, I think.
	But when you talk about the stateless society, I believe that you have to come at that in context of there are going to be other governments that don't subscribe to this at all.
	So, you know, we'll be faced with a situation where we may be, in fact, able to achieve the stateless society.
	But how do we keep... How do we keep a billion Chinese from stripping the opportunity from us?
	It's an excellent question.
	I have a whole chapter on this in my free book, Practical Anarchy, on my website, but I'll give you two real brief points, and then you can tell me if I'm full of manure or not.
	The first point is that collective self-defense has become enormously cheap relative to the past.
	Of course, in the past, up until the Second World War, you had to have massive standing armies and conscription and huge fleets of ships, and then you had to have massive air force And so it was very, very expensive because there were no weapons of mass destruction.
	Now, it's not the case.
	A country which has a nuclear device, nuclear missiles, has never been attacked at all, ever.
	So to keep a couple of nukes on standby in a stateless society would cost people about three bucks a year.
	And I'm sure that people who care about national self-defense would...
	It's the ultimate deterrent and it's why there's been no World War III, right?
	And of course it's why the U.S. is happy to aggress We're good to go.
	Think of two areas of land.
	You're some greedy guy and you want to go and take over someone's land.
	On one of them, there is a functioning farm which is very profitable.
	It's got cows and chickens and all these kinds of good things.
	It makes a fortune and all the workers are there and they don't leave and so on.
	And another guy's piece of land is just this massive wilderness where if you go in, you're going to have to, you know, with the bugs and the swamps and the leeches, you're going to have to carve out the land from the trees and hack things down and you're going to want to die, right?
	If you've ever had to do something like this in your life, and I worked up north after my high school years, it's a brutal, brutal life.
	If you have this choice, obviously if you want to go and take over someone's land, you're going to want to take over the farm because it's already productive, it's already making money and so on.
	And this is the case between when you take over a state of society versus an anarchic society.
	What you're trying to do when you invade a state of society is to take over the tax collection system.
	But in the free society, there is no tax collection system, so there's nothing to invade and take over.
	Alright, I'll stop because I don't think we've got a commercial.
	Yeah, we definitely got a break coming up.
	Check the interview at the...
	Welcome back to the program.
	You are listening to the Atlas Radio Show on the one and only Oracle Broadcasting Network.
	I'm the HX. With me, as always, is my co-host, Corey.
	And with us today in the second hour is our guest and noted philosopher, Stefan Molyneux.
	And we are definitely not getting any Arab money over here at Atlas Radio, Steph.
	But you were talking about – let's wrap up with the issue of the common defense, if you will.
	You were talking about the guy with the farm.
	Yeah, so if you're going to invade a country, the reason you're going to invade that country is to get a hold of the tax resources, right?
	So I've got a video out there, which is quite popular, which describes countries as a form of tax farming, right?
	So you have these citizens and you collect taxes from them.
	They're a resource, like livestock, like cows, chickens, and so on.
	I actually wrote a song once, not to interrupt you, but I actually wrote a song once where One of the lines is that we're being farmed for our productive capacity.
	So I definitely agree with that.
	Oh, absolutely. And, you know, this has a whole host of other issues like immigration is necessary because intelligent human beings don't breed well in captivity, you know, like great white sharks.
	Which is why birth rates continue to decline.
	But so when you want to invade a country, it's because you want to take over the existing tax structure and that of course is what you see when one country takes over another or when there's a revolution, the first thing that is grabbed is the revenue service and of course control of the money supply.
	And so if you're going to invade an anarchist country, the problem is, well, what are you going to take over?
	Well, you're going to take over a relatively armed population.
	There's no central authority.
	There's no government tax collection system.
	So if you want to collect taxes, you kind of have to go door to door, right?
	Which is kind of a mess, right?
	So I think, first of all, the defense can be collective.
	The defense can be subscribed to.
	But most importantly, it's really, really tough to invade an anarchist society because there's no authority that you're going to displace, take over, and there's no tax harvesting mechanism that you can profit from.
	So it really is not like taking over an existing farm.
	It's like going into a wilderness and having to hack something out.
	It's just not worth it.
	And you would propose that this would be a pursuit that would not be advantageous to an aggressor?
	Well, it's not profitable, right?
	I mean, war fundamentally is about profit, and war is only profitable if you can, what economists say, externalize the cost, right?
	So if you can get other people to pay for your war, then that's great.
	And you do that by taxing your domestic population and also by taking over the taxation system.
	System of the country you're invading.
	So when the Nazis invaded, you know, Czechoslovakia and Austria and France, what they did immediately was to take over the tax collection system.
	And that's the resource that you're going to invade to collect.
	But of course, that resource does not exist in a stateless society.
	There is no tax collection mechanism.
	And so there's really nothing to take over.
	And so it's really, really tough to make any kind of profit.
	I would say impossible to make any kind of profit by invading a stateless society.
	That's a very interesting perspective.
	Well, we'll move on. This show is primarily concerned with activism and updates on various activist causes, Steph.
	And one of the things that I'd like you to do today is to lend us your perspective on those particular struggles, which you find to be the most effective in advancing freedom.
	I would be very happy to.
	That's certainly what I try to be all about.
	So anything I can do to help, I will.
	Absolutely. Absolutely.
	If you could just let us know, like, what struggles do you feel are most effective towards getting us to the point where we need to be?
	Well, why don't you lob me the easy questions like national defense and how to define the movement first?
	Let me just have another sip of my latte and I'll go on.
	Well, I mean, the tag for my website has always been the logic of personal and political liberty.
	And There has been a long and noble, but I would argue ultimately futile struggle to attempt to convince people through intellectual argument alone, right?
	And through political means and so on.
	And I have some, I think, pretty justifiable skepticism towards the efficacy of that approach.
	I just, you know, it's been tried...
	I mean, you could go back to Socrates 2,500 years ago, you could go back to the rise of the classical liberals in the 19th century, or more specifically, the foundation of the modern libertarian party in the US in the early 70s.
	And you could say, well, the goal was to reduce the size of government, but government has continued to grow since these movements were founded.
	So, to me, there's something missing from what it is that we're doing.
	I hope that there's something missing.
	Because if we're doing everything right and we're still getting the crap kicked out of us, then we have no hope, right?
	The best thing we can hope for is that something huge is missing from what we're doing, but that's something that's very hard to see.
	And to me, that comes down to really living your personal values in your personal relationships.
	I think that we need to lead people through the example of liberty and a real commitment to our values.
	And this is, of course, a very controversial thing that I say.
	So I'm certainly happy to take cause questions and criticisms about it.
	But – The phone lines will be open.
	You'll be able to contact us.
	Sizzle, what's the number?
	It's 866-841-1065.
	And the local number is 512-904-8014.
	That's 866-841-1065.
	Actually, not to interrupt what we were at, I actually had a point and I wanted to get this in, but we kind of moved on real quick.
	Not to backtrack too much, but you said that you didn't believe that anyone would try to attack the United States.
	Or anyone that has nuclear weapons, but North Korea certainly is talking about lobbying nukes at Hawaii.
	So what do you think about that?
	Oh, and certainly we attack Pakistan on a regular basis, which is nuclear-armed as well.
	Well, okay. I mean, first of all, I mean, this is really complicated stuff.
	And again, I'll just touch it briefly.
	And if people have questions, yourselves included, we can go into it in more detail.
	First of all, I mean, the reason why North Korea is talking about lobbing nukes is because the U.S. is threatening North Korea, right?
	So in a stateless society, there's nobody, almost nobody, who's going to want to pony up Hundreds or thousands of dollars a year for the local defense agency to go around poking in hornets' nests like Iran, Iraq, South America, North Korea, and so on. And so this is the result of statism, not of a stateless society.
	The defense agency simply would not be able to send a bill and keep its customers if it said, you need to give me $3,000 so I can go and station 100,000 troops along the border of North Korea.
	Of North and South Korea, right?
	That's just not... Nobody would pay for that, so we wouldn't be over there poking in that rat's nest and getting these aggressors to come after us.
	So that would be the first thing that I would say.
	The second thing is that there are wars that are fought that are sort of proxy wars, right?
	So the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. fought a proxy war in Korea and fought a proxy war in Vietnam, to just name a few.
	Well, Afghanistan as well.
	Yeah, and Afghanistan. So what is going on in Pakistan, and I'm certainly no expert, but this is just what I've gleaned, is that there is a kind of proxy what's going on, but of course it's very complicated because the US is supplying an enormous amount of arms in that region, right? The US is the biggest arms dealer in the world, which is kind of like having a police force that makes most of its money arming the mafia.
	It really doesn't make any sense from a rational standpoint, but only makes sense from a status standpoint, because we pay for the guns and they keep the profits from selling them, so it's a good business for them, but it's blood and money for us.
	So I think you have to look at how these things came about, and they came about because of an aggressive and violent and interventionist foreign policy, which is only possible financially under a forced taxation system of statism.
	I would have to agree with that totally.
	I just wanted you to reiterate that because I'm sure that was a question that a lot of people out there were asking.
	Yeah, it was definitely a critical point to raise.
	I think that Stephan makes an excellent point in that I think what he's trying to say here, and you can correct me if I'm wrong after the break because we're coming up on it, is that Is that if we don't have the massive military-industrial complex and we only have those resources which are required for the common defense, then most of these issues won't be arising.
	So, Steph, what you're saying is that they are sponsored out of the state, so in absence of the state, these problems won't exist?
	Well, sure. I mean, the question is, why is North Korea only threatening to lob missiles at America rather than, say, Switzerland?
	Well, because Switzerland is not arming, has not got them encircled with military, with an army and heavy artillery and so on.
	So it is clearly an act of self-defense, of course.
	This is not to say that it's not an evil government, but we're sort of going out there and poking at it, and that's why they're...
	We'll be back on the other side, ladies and gentlemen, with Stefan Molyneux.
	Welcome to the program that welcomes dissent.
	You're listening to Atlas Radio on the legendary oraclebroadcasting.com.
	I am the one and only HX. With me is my homeboy, Corey.
	And we are at the bottom of the second hour with our noted guest, Stephan Mullineau.
	Welcome back to the program, sir.
	Thank you so much. Absolutely.
	And how old are you guys? Just out of curiosity?
	I am 33 years old.
	33 years old. Okay. If I'm less than a decade older, I don't accept the word, sir.
	Just in case you were wondering.
	Oh, okay. All right. If you were 20, absolutely.
	I'm 20, so there we go.
	I'll call you sir. Ajax will call you brother.
	That's right. That's right.
	Keep it correct there, sizzle.
	Sir, yes, sir!
	That's right. And if you're using the word homeboy, you really can't use the word sir.
	I think that just doesn't work.
	I'm multifaceted that way.
	I transition well.
	Let's put it that way. Right.
	We've been talking about anarchism, the philosophy of freedom, self-defense, all these great questions of the ages that I'm forcing Stephan to condense into 10-minute segments.
	So answer all our questions in 10 minutes, Stephan.
	Absolutely. We're going to move a little bit more into the philosophy.
	Yeah. Let me see.
	Is this really just a retarded question?
	Oh, no. Here's the question that I really wanted to ask here.
	What do you feel the philosophy of anarchism says about how we should be acting in our own personal experience in that kind of a society?
	And what kind of identity does the average person have in that kind of society?
	And what I mean by that is that the social identity that Americans have today is very militaristic.
	I believe that one of the only cultures that America is really based on is a military culture.
	It's not like we have several thousand years of art and history behind us.
	All we really have is war.
	And I think that has really shaped the identity of the average American a great deal.
	And those are the kinds of things that I'm talking about.
	So what kind of identity does the average person have in a stateless society?
	That's a great, great question.
	I'm just going to stall for a few minutes and talk about my pets.
	No, no, that's a great question because, of course, a lot of people, of course, found their identity.
	And I'm not saying this is a choice.
	This is something that would just inherit through circumstances and culture.
	But a lot of people, of course, base their identity on things which are not rational, right?
	I mean, so patriotism, which is basically a love of proximity.
	You know, the dirt that is closer to me is better than the dirt that's further away from me.
	That is kind of an irrational fetish, really, when you think about it.
	I mean, it makes a foot fetish look sensible.
	Wow. Now, I've never...
	This is new to me.
	This is absolutely new to me.
	This is a Brand new perspective.
	I've never looked at patriotism in context with fetishism.
	So this is new territory. It is, right?
	Because it is an irrational attack.
	I see your point. That makes sense.
	I bet Glenn Beck gets his jollies off of the American flag.
	Oh, I'm just waiting for him to do that.
	Topless, right? You know it's coming, right?
	There's going to be some clamps in.
	Anyway, we'll get back to that later.
	Sorry for that image to everyone who's still eating breakfast.
	But... But no, I mean, so there's that aspect.
	And whatever your views on religion, and, you know, we don't have to get into mine in particular unless the listeners are interested, religion is certainly not something that people choose, right, but rather something that kind of falls on them as children, right?
	So if you grow up in a Muslim country, you end up, shockingly, mostly Muslim, right, if you grow up in a...
	Christian country, you're mostly Christian, right?
	So it's just something that is sort of accidental circumstance, and it's not the same as a reasoned philosophy from first principles.
	So if you put those things together, and you throw in really dumb stuff like, the guys who wear sweaters that I like is the team that I will support, which is all kinds of nutty, right?
	Because you throw in sports, you throw in local rivalries around neighborhoods and so on.
	And people have founded a whole lot of their personality and identity on these artificial distinctions that have no basis in reality whatsoever.
	You know, everybody's thought of it, I'm sure.
	You watch some sports movie where this team is supposed to be happy if they win.
	But if you film it from the other side, it's a tragedy, right?
	And so it's completely arbitrary.
	You take those things away, then what's going to have to happen is people are going to have to actually start to build their identity.
	On something that is rational and virtuous and moral and kind and generous.
	And they're going to have to win the allegiance of those around them through being good, kind, strong, moral, decent people.
	Rather than, you know, cheering for the same idiot arbitrary team, whether it's government or sports or gods.
	I think that people are going to have to really work to earn their identity.
	And there will be far fewer interferences in that identity because you won't be taught all these irrational things.
	And so I think it's going to be a greater challenge for people.
	But the rewards of what psychologists call authenticity, which is a healthy, rational relationship to reality rather than to these various superstitions that are inflicted upon us, will make people a lot happier spiritually.
	There'll be a lot more self-respect.
	People will be kind to the children, to animals, to each other, because these arbitrary distinctions won't be infecting their souls and turning them away from each other, which I think is just tragic.
	I see. I see.
	I'm not trying to figure out how to phrase this question.
	In the day-to-day activity of the American anarchist in a stateless society, what actions do they participate in themselves that they don't necessarily participate now that support that kind of society?
	Could you speak on how does money work?
	Well, sure. I mean, money is a product, right?
	We think of it as, you know, like there's fish and there's water.
	And we think of money like water and goods and services like fish.
	But it's not true. Money is just another good and service.
	And money has a bunch of things that it needs to be in order for it to be valuable to people, right?
	So it needs to be stable.
	It needs to be predictable. It needs to be convertible from some fiat thing into something real like gold or diamonds or something.
	And of course, these are none of the characteristics that any state-run currency has.
	State-run currency is simply counterfeiting that is called another name, right?
	Which is the control of the money supply or whatever.
	You know, this is the fundamental anarchist position that if it's wrong for me to do it, why is it right for you to do it, right?
	If it's wrong for me to go to Iraq and shoot people, why is it right for a guy in costume to do it?
	If it's wrong for me to print money and type whatever I want into my own bank account, why is it moral for the government to do it?
	This is sort of the basic question that anarchists ask.
	It's a universalization of principles.
	Because if it's not principles, then it's just a free-for-all.
	And let's stop pretending that anything virtuous is going on.
	But if we are going to say that a virtue is going on, then let's make these principles universal.
	And so money is just a service that is provided to allow people to have a medium of exchange.
	So if I want an apple and you want an orange, we don't have to find people in the middle who are going to trade enough.
	So it's going to be a big waste of time.
	So it's just a service, and it would be provided by companies that would all compete to have the most stable and predictable and valuable and useful currency.
	So it's just another good and service that is going to be provided in a free society, and what you won't have are these ridiculous business cycle booms and busts and inflations and bailouts and foreign aid that just...
	It takes money from poor people in rich countries and gives it to rich people in poor countries.
	So it will just be another good and service that is provided with all of the value and worthwhile behavior that volunteerism provides.
	So I think that would be something.
	People will negotiate a lot more because they won't be able to run to the government to force people to do what they want.
	So there'll be much more negotiation and there'll be much more leisure because you won't be spending...
	40 to 50 to 60% of your money, well, having it taken from you at the point of a gun.
	So if you want to work part-time and be home to raise your kids, you can do that and have exactly the same, if not greater, a standard of living.
	We won't have this dread of the future because we all know that the existing system is a bridge to a cliff, right, to a chasm.
	So we won't have this dread of the future and this feeling that we're kind of trembling on the brink of the end days because we know that the existing system cannot conceivably sustain itself because something which mathematically cannot continue will not continue.
	So there will be a stability and a security about the future and a way to build things without feeling like you're building everything you've got on this kind of shifting sand of statism where anything and everything can be taken away at a moment's notice.
	So security, comfort, happiness, virtue, productivity, voluntarism, and negotiation, I think, will be the order of the day.
	Absolutely.
	I could not agree more accordingly.
	Corey, do you have anything to add? No, I totally agree.
	And would you not agree that every state in the past has fallen because a lot of them have fallen because either they were taken over by a forceful monopoly of another state or because the state became an empire and ran out of money.
	I mean, there really isn't many other reasons a state has really fallen.
	And I believe, you know, I would say, I would believe that all states will fall because of this.
	What would you think about that?
	Oh, absolutely. The states fall because violence doesn't work in the long run.
	I mean, we all understand that in our personal life, and every single movie has, you know, most of the movies at least that have criminals have the criminals ending up very badly, though it may take entirely too many seasons, LS Sopranos, but the criminals always do end up badly because violence, while it will get you what you want in the short run...
	Some sort of good and service that you couldn't negotiate for otherwise or wouldn't be willing to.
	It fails in the long run in the same way that you can take heroin to make yourself happy this afternoon, but it is going to make you very unhappy in the long run.
	These artificial stimulants don't work for people in the long run.
	Drugs or violence are two sides of the same coin.
	So states fall in the same reason that heroin addicts tend to die young because those artificial stimulants of violence and so on don't Don't work.
	And we have this continual fantasy that somehow we can get violence to do what we want, that we can create this raging beast and have it obey us, but it never works, and the anarchists understand that, and we're trying to get others to understand that.
	Alright, alright. Well, we're coming up on a break.
	After the break, we'll continue our interview with Stephen Molyneux.
	You're listening to Atlas Radio right here on Oracle Broadcasting.
	Check it. We're back on the Atlas Radio program here on oraclebroadcasting.com with our well-noted guest, Stefan Molyneux of freedomainradio.com.
	1,500 podcasts.
	He was the keynote speaker at the Liberty Forum 09 in Nashua, New Hampshire.
	He is going to be debating Michael Badnerick coming up in Philadelphia very soon.
	So please check his website and stay updated on everything that's going on there.
	Consume some of that media.
	These are messages that need to get out there, need to be heard.
	We are in the last segment of the second hour talking to Stephan, and we're going to continue here in just a moment.
	If you would like to participate in this conversation, you can find us at www.atlasmediaonline.com, and you can simply...
	Click the chat tab and we will be in there.
	Stefan has also been gracious enough to put himself into the free market chat environment of the Atlas Media online chat room.
	So if you've got questions, we're going to be opening up the phone lines in the second hour and you can also Twitter us, right Cor?
	Yeah, on Twitter, at Atlas Media, at sign Atlas Media.
	Go ahead and put that in on your Twitter and it'll show up on my little client I've got right here.
	We'll do a little shout-out, and that's about it, all I can say.
	Just check it out right now.
	Right on. So in the last segment, I think Steph made a really stunning point that I would like to just emphasize a little bit, the idea of tyranny as addiction.
	That's heavy, heavy stuff, Stephan Molinow.
	You know, I do bring the heavy from time to time, there's no question.
	Yeah, I mean, it certainly speaks to the idea of how tyranny tends to perpetuate itself, wouldn't you say?
	Yeah, I mean, if you look at any addiction, addiction is the idea that that which makes things worse will make things better, right?
	And so because it continually makes things worse, you continue to apply the same principle in the hopes of making it better, right?
	So think of the gambler who's at a table and he's playing 21 and he keeps losing money, but he has this fantasy that it's about to turn around, right?
	But of course the house always wins.
	And so it doesn't turn around, at least not in the long run, though he may have particular turns of fate that improve his circumstances.
	Anything which the solution, we're putting out fire with gasoline, we're desperate to put out the fire, but everything we do makes it worse, and we get stuck in that cycle of continuing to apply the same principles that brought disaster.
	To attempt to create a solution, right?
	So state power, you know, messes up the economy, messes up the housing market, messes up banking.
	And so what is the solution to the initiation of the use of force in the financial and economic and housing sectors?
	Well, we are going to apply even more force to the problem through nationalization, through outright bribery, through subsidization, through additional violent controls.
	And so there's this idea that, you know, my chickens are dying because their coop is too small, and so what I'm going to do is I'm going to make it even smaller and see how they do.
	Oh dear, they're doing even worse.
	Let me make it smaller. And of course, we all know where that ends.
	But it is an addiction, fundamentally, because it is the attempt to use that which created the disaster to ameliorate the disaster, which makes it worse, which makes it even more desirable for the crazy people, right, to continue that process.
	Now what we see, and this kind of speaks to something that Cory and I were discussing in the first hour in terms of participation in the state in order to reduce the power of the state.
	And I advocate that anarchistic ideas, anarchistic principles that are being expanded within the state serve to disempower the state and thus further the agenda or further the cause of freedom.
	Let's see, where was that question?
	But for example, things like H.R. 1207, which is the audit the Fed bill introduced by Ron Paul, has over 220 co-sponsors now, and it's got some traction, and people want to know the answer to these questions.
	They need the transparency. I believe that this is legislation that advances our ideas, that advances the cause of liberty.
	Could you speak on that?
	Does that make me a hypocrite as an anti-statist?
	Well, I wouldn't use that label at all because, you know, you haven't heard maybe as many counter-arguments, so you're in a state of knowledge which is perfectly appropriate to what it is you're trying to do.
	I mean, I'll throw a few counter-arguments out and then, you know, you can let me know what you think of them over time, but I try not to, you know, hurl the cannons of negative labels around, you know, prior to real confirmation, which is not going to come very quickly, certainly not in this conversation, so...
	The idea basically is that, according to any kind of universal ethical theory, the government is the most monstrous and evil entity that exists in the world, right?
	Because it has the power of unlimited violence and incarceration and torture and, of course, rape through these prisons, which are basically torture chambers.
	It preys upon the minds of the young by teaching them, stuffing their heads full of irrational boredom and turning them away from knowledge and virtue, unfortunately, most of them when they're very young.
	So it is the greatest evil in the world.
	Hey, Steph, let's take a quick break real quick and try to reconnect your connection here.
	Just making a note here. Great evil continues.
	The evil Skype.
	So go ahead and hang up and we'll give you a call back here in just a second.
	We are speaking with Stefan Molyneux and we're going to try to get him...
	Are we back? I believe...
	Are we back? Yes, I believe we are.
	All right. Sorry about that. So the state is the greatest evil in the world.
	The greatest institutionalized evil.
	Now if the theory is that we can infiltrate this evil organization and use its power to turn it towards some kind of virtue...
	Then I think we can much more easily test that theory without having to worry about the federal government.
	So for instance, you can look at your local criminal gang.
	Let's just call them the mafia for the sake of shorthand.
	So there's a local criminal gang.
	We could speak in literal terms in this context with people like Giuliani.
	So please continue. Right.
	So you have a local mobster gang, a local criminal gang.
	So I think the thing to do is to forget about the federal government.
	If you want to test the theory that you can infiltrate an evil organization and turn it towards virtue, then what you need to do is infiltrate your local mafia and attempt to turn it into the United Way.
	That, to me, would be a really good test.
	Now, you laugh, right? But you laugh because it's a funny and ridiculous idea, right?
	Yeah, absolutely. This is exactly how I look at political action.
	Because the government is much more immoral and evil than the mafia.
	At least the mafia doesn't claim anything other than tribal loyalties.
	It doesn't claim universal logic, right?
	And the mafia doesn't educate your children.
	And the mafia can't take 50% of your money and doesn't have nukes, right?
	So the mafia can't declare war in other countries.
	So the government is much more evil.
	And if we say, well, I have much more control and possibility to infiltrate the local mafia because at least I don't have to get elected.
	I just have to, I don't know, do some horrible blood right or something.
	If we think it's ridiculous to infiltrate the local mafia and turn them into a charity, or at least get them to stop killing so many people and become nicer, then it's got to be that much more ridiculous to think that we can infiltrate the state and turn it towards virtue.
	Well, I guess my point is continuing with the analogy of the mafia.
	If we were to infiltrate the mafia with the intention of taking – and let's add the caveat of potentially successfully removing all the weapons out of the mafia's hands, would this not be advantageous toward disempowering the mafia that we're trying to – But why wouldn't, I mean, so why wouldn't you do that?
	Why wouldn't you have that as a plan, right?
	Because if you want to convince people that you can infiltrate...
	Well, I would say that kind of is the plan.
	No, no, no, but what I mean is, why don't you have that plan with the mafia, that you're going to infiltrate them, instead of wasting your time on political...
	You can't get a lot... Right? Infiltrate the mafia to give up all their weapons.
	You can't exactly get elected into the mafia, though.
	You can probably get in some.
	There's going to be some criminal gang that you can join, for sure.
	Maybe a bunch of... Why don't you infiltrate a bunch of drug dealers and get them to stop dealing drugs?
	Because if you can join immoral groups or institutions and turn them towards virtue, why waste your time with something as abstract and impossible to win as the federal government, say, or even your local government?
	Is it necessary?
	Yeah, is it necessarily impossible to win that way, though?
	Because what we're talking about here is we're talking about institutions that have a toolbox of particular weapons that are used in the way that they're used.
	And in terms of the Fed, we're talking about fiat monetary systems and we're talking about fractional reserve banking and all the things that go along with the Federal Reserve that make the Federal Reserve a weapon of mass economic destruction.
	So in my opinion, like what, for example, HR 1207, which has the traction, it has the support, and it has the potential to successfully, speaking to the mafia analogy, of taking one of the big guns away from the mafia.
	No. No, no, no. Look, come on.
	It has no capacity. I hate to say this, right?
	And I don't mean to be Mr.
	Wet Blanket Guy, and this is, of course, just my opinion.
	But look, I mean, if you feel that counterfeiting is a problem, then why don't you join the local counterfeiting ring and get them to stop counterfeiting, right?
	Because if you can do that, then you obviously have the power to stop people who profit from counterfeiting.
	There's just no possibility.
	This law, even if it gets passed, it's never going to be enforced because the government gets all its money from this counterfeiting, right?
	Otherwise, it will have to raise taxes.
	Well, we'll be right back, right after the break.
	Okay, let's keep going after.
	Alright, alright, alright.
	Welcome back to Atlas Radio right here on Oracle Broadcasting.
	This is third and final hour.
	We've got special guest Stephan Molyneux with us.
	It's been a great interview so far.
	At the end of the show, about half hour after the show, you can check that out, the archive at oraclebroadcasting.com.
	You can also check out the 128K Premium Archive if you are a member of Oracle Broadcasting.
	I believe it's like $5 a month.
	It is totally worth it.
	Go ahead and check that out at our network, oraclebroadcasting.com.
	Alright, before the break, before the end of the hour, we were discussing a little bit about...
	Actually, I forget what we were discussing.
	Oh, it was the bill to audit the Fed, right?
	Yes. Continue on with that theme a little bit.
	What do you think as far as supporting actual candidates?
	I mean, you said that you believe that it's futile to continue in the system, but Adam Kokesh is running for state representative in Mexico's third district.
	If you were a constituent, would you donate money or vote for him?
	If not, why wouldn't you do that?
	I mean, I kind of think I already know the answer, but I just want to continue on with this theme a little bit before the break.
	Sure, and it's nothing against Adam Kokash as an individual, obviously, right?
	But no, no, I wouldn't.
	I don't believe that you can infiltrate an evil organization that is specifically dedicated to preying on mostly disarmed citizens for the sake of nasty profits.
	I just don't think that you can infiltrate the mafia and make it a good place.
	I think that you have to find another way.
	But I think the illusion that we can do so is not good for the movement as a whole.
	I think because if it works, then obviously I'm completely wrong and I'll eat all my words with hollandaise sauce.
	But I think that if we look at the last 40 years of libertarianism as a party, or we look at the last 150 years of trying to control the state through classical liberalism, it hasn't worked.
	The state has grown and grown and grown and grown and grown and grown and grown almost asymptotically.
	So clearly, despite the massive efforts of some truly stupendously brilliant thinkers, right?
	Mises and Rothbard and Rand and all of these, you know, just stone geniuses.
	And despite the efforts of, you know, very charismatic and gifted people like Harry Brown and Michael Bagnarik and other people who have really worked.
	And Ron Paul, of course, is a very, very brilliant fellow.
	They have really worked and we've poured, you know, tens and tens of millions of dollars and, I don't know, you couldn't even calculate the amount of hours that have been poured into trying to reduce the size and power of the state even over the past 40 years.
	And the result has been that, I'm not saying it's causal, but the result has been that the state is now many, many times larger than when it started, right?
	So if you have a cancer treatment designed to shrink a cancer and you take this really painful and difficult cancer treatment for Five years, and at the end of five years, your cancer is 10 or 20 times the size it was when you started.
	I think it's okay to say, I don't think it's working, right?
	I think it's okay to say, we need to find another treatment.
	So, I think the... Sorry, go ahead.
	Do you think the actual campaigning, though, is counterproductive?
	I mean, we have a...
	I used to consider myself a monarchist of sorts, but I really don't anymore.
	But when I was doing this, when I was really campaigning hard for people and doing this kind of stuff, I felt that the actual campaigning may be spreading the ideas of liberty nonetheless, whether or not the candidate is actually winning.
	Do you think that's counterproductive and maybe we should focus more on, like...
	No, civil disobedience and stuff.
	No, I'm just kidding.
	Sorry. I actually want to ask you that, but we're about to come up on a break, so we'll get a little bit into that when we come back.
	We've got about 40 seconds before the break.
	I want to also point out that the phone lines are open this hour.
	If you want to ask Stefan a question, the number toll-free international is 866-841-1065.
	That's 866-841-1065.
	Or if you have unlimited long distance or are in the Austin area, it's 512-904-8014.
	You are listening to Atlas Radio right here on Oracle Broadcasting.
	Check it. Welcome back to the program.
	Absolutely. You know we're going to be in those little Borex spandex bathing suits in a mud pit by the end of it.
	There's no question. American Gladiators 2009.
	Yeah, only slightly less ripped, I think.
	That is funny stuff right there.
	All right. We actually already have a phone call right here.
	It's from my area, so we'll go ahead and go live.
	Atlas Radio, you're live on the air.
	How are you doing today? It's actually Ashley.
	Hi, how are you? I'm good.
	Hi, Ashley. Do you have a question or a comment?
	Well, yeah, actually.
	First, I wanted to say, Stefan, I really respect your work, and I've listened to a lot of your YouTube shows, and I think they're awesome.
	But I had a question for you.
	Sure, I'd be happy, and thank you for your kind words.
	Awesome! And it goes kind of way back to the beginning, kind of, of the show.
	And that is, you started taking donations and And have done your show full-time.
	And I wondered, I understand you have a beautiful baby girl.
	And I was wondering if choosing to do this full-time was a hard decision for you.
	Oh, it was horrible. Oh my God, it was just horrible.
	You know, it really, it was horrible.
	And of course, I made the decision prior to my wife getting pregnant and so on.
	Not to say that's causal.
	Honey, I need to go on the show full time, so I'm awake for, anyway.
	But no, it really was a tough decision.
	My wife practices psychology, and she had just quit her steady pay job to start up her own clinic.
	And I'd helped her for the first year on that.
	I mean, to both be entrepreneurs is like having two wobbly wheels on a very fast car.
	So it definitely was.
	It was tough.
	And I knew that it was a one way street, right, that it was not going to be.
	So I wasn't going to say, hey, I'll do this for a year or two and then I'll jump right back into managing software stuff.
	So it really was tough.
	It was a 75% pay cut, a really uncertain growth potential.
	So it was a very, very difficult decision.
	But like all the best decisions, the challenge was...
	It was only a tough decision because I wanted it so badly compared to...
	You know, putting out another software product, talking about, you know, wisdom, virtue, truth, and goodness with the smartest listeners on the planet, perhaps except for these shows, listeners.
	It is a dream come true, so it was only because I wanted it so badly, and yet there was no certainty at all of success, and it still is a very up-and-down venture, but it was a very, very tough decision to make, but I'm certainly, certainly very thrilled that I made it, and I'm thrilled at the way things have gone.
	That's great. I think it's great that you decided to become an entrepreneur, which is a really scary situation.
	I mean, that's what I'd like to do.
	And I also really like that crutch of having an hourly job or, you know, something that I expect will pay off.
	Well, thank you for the call.
	No, I'm not trying to cut you off.
	I'm just asking if you have any more questions for Stefan or for us.
	What kind of advice would you give to somebody who's about to take that sort of a plunge?
	Yeah, no, that's a great question.
	I would say that the important thing, Ashley, is to manage your capacity for risk.
	We all have a certain capacity for risk, and some people's, I think, is way too high.
	You know, like people who go over Niagara Falls in a barrel, I think, might want to scale back their capacity for risk a little bit.
	But other people who don't want to quit and do what they want to do because they're just afraid, and I'm not saying that's you, I think that they need to up.
	So I think that you want to manage your capacity for risk and not take on too much, right?
	So I wouldn't have been responsible if I just said, hey, somebody downloaded my first podcast, I'm going to quit, right?
	That would be irresponsible from a sort of family guy standpoint.
	So I think that would have been irresponsible.
	I think if I had kept on, Despite the evidence that there was some possibility of making a living at it, I think that would have been too much on the fearful side.
	So I think you need to find that right tipping point.
	I think having a safety net is important, but you know, just like if you're training to be in Cirque du Soleil, at some point you can work without that safety net.
	And that is a scary moment.
	But I think it's really important to be aware of when that can happen and then just go for it.
	But I think having the safety net up front is a worthwhile thing.
	And I think just knowing, trusting your gut when it's right to let it go and talking about it with people, I think is really important.
	And there is no easy way to have that safety net taken away.
	But I think there is the right time to do it.
	And I think your instincts will tell you when that is.
	Well, thank you, caller, for calling in.
	Anyone else wants to call in, the phone number is 866-841-1065.
	That's toll-free international.
	or if you are in the Austin area or have unlimited local long distance or whatever.
	We're back on the program.
	You're listening to Atlas Radio.
	With me, as always, is my co-host, Sizzle, and I am the one and only HX.
	With us today at the bottom, well, close to the bottom of the third hour, is Stephan Molyneux, freedomainradio.com.
	freedomainradio.com is with us today, and we're taking the calls.
	And at the end of the last segment, we were talking about the New World Order.
	And you said that you have absolutely no doubt That there is a corruptive conspiracy at high globalist levels in order to bring about an agenda which many people in our sort of genre of activism and independent research and so forth, we tend to run across this conspiracy and there's a lot of talk about it.
	So would you like Just real quick, you know, maybe a minute and a half.
	Would you like to dispute some of the common myths that are out there about the New World Order?
	Yeah, I mean, I hope there's a New World Order.
	I really do. Because I hope that there's a smart group of people who are dominating our lives.
	Because if there isn't, it doesn't make any sense.
	Like, then we're really dumb, right?
	Like, if there isn't a smart bunch of people out there who are running the show for their own benefit at our expense, who have a huge amount of power that we can't see...
	Well, then it would make no sense that we would be in these cages, right?
	So I hope there's a zookeeper because otherwise we're just here sort of on our own, which doesn't make any sense.
	But to me, you can hunt for the clues and you can do that sort of symbology stuff and you can follow the Bilderbergers and the Masons and all that kind of stuff.
	But to me, that doesn't matter because, I mean, I assume this group exists.
	If there's a war, I assume there's an army.
	And if there's dominance of taxpayer livestock, I assume that there are farmers.
	But to me, it doesn't matter because I'm not going to waste my time chasing down these people and trying to figure out what the skull and bones actually, what those rituals are and who's part of it and this and that.
	Because the whole point is that you get rid of this power and these groups evaporate.
	And the only way you can get rid of this power, in my opinion, is to have a staunch and firm commitment to these ideals in your own life and to be a lighthouse and a beacon for other people to become free.
	Like we were just talking about this woman, right?
	She wants to pursue her dream and she's scared, right?
	So... We could talk to her about the New World Order and that would waste time because what she really needs to do to become free and an inspiration to other people is to find the courage to pursue her dreams, to live free and beautifully and inspire people to do the same.
	And that's how we bring down this tyranny.
	You know, we can't oppose it through force.
	Violence doesn't work.
	And so we oppose it, as I think the great moral leaders in history have always suggested, we oppose it through living better and more inspiring lives than these weasels who run the show.
	Absolutely. And we'll talk a little bit on what the anarchists can do in their daily experience to advance the cause of freedom in that way.
	We have a caller live on the line right now.
	Classy, are you with us?
	Yes, I am. Hello.
	We're glad to have you.
	Please go ahead. You're live with Stephan Mullenow.
	Well, thank you. I'm really enjoying your show.
	I want to say that.
	And what I wanted to comment on was the infiltration aspect.
	You say you can't win by infiltrating the mafia or the federal government.
	I have to disagree with the word because I don't feel candidates like Adam Kokash, Rand Paul, R.J. Harris, they're not trying to infiltrate.
	It's a frontal attack.
	They're coming up and saying it's time.
	To get candidates in that will follow the Constitution and bring to the American public's attention that most of our national representatives aren't representing us in the very least.
	And, you know, in the past couple years, 1% of the country woke up.
	If we can get more candidates to wake up another 1%, another 1%, then we can accomplish something, I think.
	Stephen? Well, and the goal, if I understand it correctly, the goal is to get enough people in to the government that you can go back to the Constitution, which means eliminating, you know, many of the federal functions, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the post office, the welfare state, the military-industrial complex, public education, just to name a few, right?
	This all is going to be shut down through political action.
	Is that the idea? Yes, because so many of those programs are nothing but a total waste.
	The war on drugs is the biggest joke on the face of the earth, in my opinion.
	I agree. And the FDA is another huge joke.
	And what, sorry to interrupt, what time frame would you say, if you had to, I know it's a tough question, but I might as well ask one rather than me ask one.
	What time frame would you say is reasonable, right?
	So it took about 30 or 40 years of the libertarian activism to get to 1% of the population.
	What time frame do you think would be reasonable to assume that a restoration to the limits of the Constitution would be feasible?
	I know it's a tough question, but if you had to put a number out there.
	Because if you have a plan, this is for my business training, you need to have a time frame, right?
	Well, before I address that, I have to disagree.
	It hasn't been 30 years to wake people up.
	I feel that more people have been We've had the attention grabber in the last two years, and now the war has been the so-called war.
	The illegal occupations are totally, there's no end in sight.
	But a realistic time frame, if we have the time, I would say 20 years.
	So you think in 20 years you can get a majority of people who are going to support this limitation of state power to the point where you could achieve some significant gains that way?
	Absolutely. Now, you do realize, of course...
	If I could just raise the point real quick, I think she makes a good point in that what Classy is referring to is there's been a radical advancement of people who have decided to subscribe to these ideas in the past two years.
	And I think that Classy is saying that this comes as a result of very visible and very active and organized campaign efforts that happen to be Sure.
	Let me just point this out, though, that you actually need more than 50% because I think it's between 30% and 40% of people either work directly for or indirectly for or are responsible to the government for their income.
	Right? So those people are almost like, you're not going to get the people in the post, the people who run the post office union are not going to vote for the privatization of the post office.
	The people who are in the unions, the teachers and the people who are in the private sector unions are not going to vote to give up their money on power, right?
	I mean, that would be my...
	My mother-in-law refuses to support any idea that eliminates income tax in the Federal Reserve because she is an accountant and that's what she does for labor.
	Yeah, you've got tax lawyers, you've got people on Social Security, people on welfare, you've got public school teachers, you've got postal workers, you've got soldiers, you've got all the people who work for the military-industrial complex, you've got all the people who work as banking experts and regulators, you've got people who work in universities who get tenure and subsidies through state power.
	So you have a lot of people Who are hugely benefiting from the existing order of things.
	I would say that that would be almost impossible, right?
	That's like going to the Bush twins and saying, will you vote Democrat?
	I mean, there's no point wasting your time on those people.
	So you'd have to get, of the, you know, 50 or 60% of people that you would have a shot with, you'd have to get almost everyone.
	Now the problem is that everyone who is interested in freedom has a mother or brother or sister or cousin or someone, a wife, a child, Who works for the state, right?
	So this is going to be a lot of conflict within this, because we're not all isolated.
	We're all part of these communities, part of these families.
	That's going to make for some pretty uncomfortable barbecues.
	And I'm not saying what you say is impossible.
	I just think that 20 years to get to...
	Virtually 100% of all of the possible people to get them to go against their own families.
	If there's a woman who is getting some benefit from the state and her husband says, I want to get rid of that benefit, then he's lowering his family income precipitously and causing a lot of conflict.
	I'm just saying that the obstacles to me seem absolutely, to use a technical term, ginormous.
	I think that 20 years might be a tad optimistic.
	Excellent points. We are at the bottom of the third hour.
	Stefan Molyneux, stick around.
	Atlas Radio, Oracle Broadcasting.
	We're back on the Atlas Radio program, bottom of the third and final hour.
	Phone lines are open at, locally, you can call 512-904-8014.
	That's 512-904-8014.
	Or you can call the toll-free number at 1-866-841-1065.
	That's 866-841-1065.
	We're with Stefan Molyneux.
	This is the third and final hour.
	And we were discussing a little bit during the break about our last caller.
	Classy, thanks so much for the call.
	You're free to call back if you'd like.
	She said she had a few more points to make.
	I don't know if she wants to call back, but that's up to her.
	Let me see if I can – Steph, you're welcome to – we don't have any more callers on the line, so you're welcome to take off at any point at your leisure.
	But let me just ask you a few wrap-up questions if I can.
	Please, yeah. Happy to. Yeah.
	It's really hard to ask these questions to go real quick.
	What do you think about one of the greatest questions?
	No, no. I'll be compressed.
	No problem. Let me ask you, what do you feel is the greatest threat of corruption today?
	Or what I'm saying is the most egregious offense against freedom today, and what should we be doing as freedom activists to change that?
	Well, bad parenting, I think, is the most egregious attack upon the freedom of the future.
	Bad parenting, and by that I don't mean parents who lose their temper on occasion, right?
	I mean, that happens to everyone.
	But I mean sort of abusive parenting.
	That is my particular stance about what we need to change the most and that which we have the most control over, whether we are going to help confront and educate bad parents that we know in our family or in a social circle or whatever.
	But, of course, bad parents raise children who are fearful, who are aggressive.
	Sometimes if too much bad parenting goes on, these people end up violent.
	And so that is something that we can really do to improve the quality of how it is that we treat our own children and how it is that we encourage the promotion of virtuous and peaceful parenting.
	The non-aggression principle surely applies to children more than anyone else in society because they are the most helpless and dependent and wonderful creatures around.
	So I think that first and foremost, this is why I'm not particularly interested in the Bohemian Grove stuff.
	I can't do anything about that stuff, even if I had some inside knowledge.
	What I can do is I can encourage happy, virtuous, peaceful, benevolent, gentle, kind and loving parenting practices.
	And that is going to raise a generation of people who are going to look at irrational and brutal authority with scorn rather than with fear or rebellion.
	And I think that is where we need to get.
	The government is going to dissolve when we no longer believe that it's virtuous.
	And so we need to build to build to create a parenting paradigms that raise children to be free, happy, rational, able to negotiate, secure in their own confidence, happy with their own righteous anger.
	And that is going to be impossible to rule.
	Those people are impossible to rule.
	And so that would be the first thing that I would suggest and the thing that I think is going to have the most value.
	Living with integrity in your own lives.
	It is really tough. You know, the basic equation goes like this.
	We say the government exists because people support it morally.
	People who support the government morally are supporting the use of force against us.
	How many people are you willing to have in your life who are advocating the use of violence against you?
	That number is pretty close to zero.
	For other people, it's a tougher equation, but I think that is another thing that we can do to really live our principles in that area.
	So for me, it's all about freedom in your own life, your own personal relationships, not relying on a political victory to grant you freedom, not relying on Ron Paul to grant you freedom, however well-intentioned he may be, not relying on some politician's whim to follow the Constitution to bring you freedom, but to build the freedom not relying on some politician's whim to follow the Constitution to bring you freedom, but to build the freedom you That is how we're going to inspire other people to simply stop believing in the virtue of the state.
	And those kinds of examples are going to be far more powerful.
	The example of who you are and how you live is going to be far more powerful than any argument you can bring to bear intellectually or any vote you can cast or any money you can donate to a political candidate.
	And that to me is the approach.
	Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.
	We have a question from the chat room here from a long-time listener.
	If three weeks can be considered long-time, she's around.
	She's one of us. It's Miss Donna Van Meter, and she is connected to someone close to her, is currently a political prisoner that is connected to the Ed and Elaine Brown situation.
	I don't know if you're familiar.
	This is a tax resistor, is that right?
	Yeah, absolutely. And her question here is, what's your opinion on those people that refuse to pay federal income taxes and then they get attacked by the federal government with guns and so forth?
	I guess the question here is, what is our response to the violence that is merited against us from our resistance?
	I don't think that there's any dishonor in complying with violence, right?
	I don't. I just don't.
	I don't think there's any dishonor in choosing to comply with overwhelming force.
	I mean, it's not the system we designed.
	It's not what we wanted. But this is a situation that we're born into.
	I do not fault anybody for having the moral courage to avoid paying taxes.
	I think that it is their moral right to do so if they so choose.
	It's not my choice because I don't think that I'm going to add to the world's freedom by sitting in prison.
	So it's not my choice.
	I don't fault their moral courage, but this is the paradox.
	This is, I think, the problem that occurs with this kind of stuff, just from a pragmatic standpoint.
	There are two groups in society, those who already understand that statism is violence and those who don't.
	Now, if you resist paying your taxes, you will absolutely confirm for those who already know that the government will use force to extract money from you.
	So, in a sense, you're preaching to the choir.
	Those who don't understand that will not be convinced by somebody holed up in his house because they'll just look at that as extremist and loony and it's not an argument that is going to really...
	Do anything other than resonate with people who already know the truth.
	So I think that's not very practical as a solution.
	Hmm. Yeah.
	Yeah. I mean, in terms of practicality, a lot can be said.
	I think in terms of nobility and motive and indeed, you know, the right.
	It's hugely brave. Yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely. Yeah. It takes tremendous courage.
	Tremendous courage. And I think, you know, these these kinds of things always happen this way.
	It starts with a few. And I'm a big advocate of change.
	It starts with me. It can't really start anywhere else.
	It's got to start with me.
	I don't have any influence over anybody else anyway.
	So I can only control myself.
	And I think that these kind of situations, while I can definitely see the merit of your point from a rational perspective, I think there's also something to be said for respecting and I want to really encourage people to live with integrity.
	And if I can show them that living with integrity gives me a beautiful life, a beautiful marriage, a wonderful existence, that is going to encourage them to live with integrity.
	If I focus on a pointless resistance against state violence, then people are going to say, well, living with integrity gets you holed up in your house, starved out, and thrown in jail.
	It's not going to be a very strong incentive for people to live with integrity as opposed to the joys that they can have from living with voluntarism in other areas.
	And again, I'm not going to fault people who do that.
	That's just my particular perspective because obviously they have a kind of courage that I may be lacking.
	I just wanted to sort of point that out.
	And I think regardless of one's position on the effectiveness or the rationality, I think it's important to try and work to help those people regardless.
	The Ed and Elaine Brown situation, Danny Riley, Jason Gerhart, Reno...
	I'm forgetting somebody I know I am.
	But these guys, in terms of Danny Riley specifically, the state is brutalizing this guy.
	And they're brutalizing these people.
	And I don't think that we can be...
	Freedom-loving people without mentioning those who are being so brutally oppressed.
	So I think it's important to, regardless of rationality or what you think is effective, it's important to advocate for these people's freedom as much as possible.
	They deserve it. They participated in a non-crime and are being brutalized and held For basically the rest of their lives because of it.
	Absolutely, and the same would be true of everybody thrown in jail for drug use and so on.
	So absolutely, it is an absolute tragedy, the people who get munched underneath this brutal steamroller of statism.
	And you're right, anything we can do to bring publicity to the crimes being committed against them is time well served.
	Absolutely, Stephan. This has been an absolutely fascinating conversation.
	We're coming up on the final break of this show.
	You can stick around for the next one.
	I do have one more question that I'd like you to go into.
	I'll stick through until one. It's one my time.
	I certainly would be happy to, so I'll be happy to stay for the next segment.
	Absolutely. We're going to talk about what's coming down the road for you.
	We're going to talk about what projects you have in mind.
	Maybe we'll talk about some of your dreams and the wish list of Stefan Molyneux for Stefan Molyneux next, however long you want to talk about.
	Sure. And we're going to get into that after the break.
	We've got about 30 more seconds here.
	I wanted to, you guys can give us a call if you'd like.
	We'll try to fit one more call in.
	1-866-841-1065.
	And we're hitting the break, Cor.
	Yep, yep, yep. You listen to Atlas Radio right here on Oracle Broadcasting.
	Welcome back to the broadcast.
	This is Atlas Radio, live on the Oracle Broadcasting Network, and that bumper music goes out to the Dubai neocons and their ilk.
	That's getting ARAB money up in this piece.
	We're in the final segment of the show, and we've had Stefan Molyneux on with us.
	It's been a fascinating conversation.
	Stefan Molyneux always has interesting and rational and innovative ideas and perspectives.
	Stefan, I really, really appreciate you coming on the show.
	I appreciate that. Since you guys obviously are using your rap names, I just wanted to mention that my official rap name is Big Chatty Forehead.
	Just so that, I mean, if you've seen a picture, you'll understand that I do have the forehead that spans the globe.
	Humorously enough, that brings us into our last question.
	And I'm just going to read it as I wrote it here, Steph, so I hope that's okay.
	What is next for Stephen Molyneux?
	What projects are coming down the road?
	And do you have any new and brainy ideas floating around in that magnificent?
	It's a magnificently gleaming brain box of yours.
	And how can people support your efforts, sir?
	Well, I mean, I am listener-supported, right?
	So if people want to donate money to Help Spread Philosophy, you know, I get 4 to 5 million podcast downloads and video views a year.
	Tens and tens of thousands, 60, 70, 80,000 listeners since the last count.
	So if you want to really help spread philosophy, this, I think, is the place to come.
	It's the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web, freedomainradio.com forward slash donate dot html.
	I am very happy there's little subscriptions or you can throw me some cash, which I use to feed this brain box, as you call it.
	So I hope to feed the world through you feeding me.
	So thank you to those who support and who are considering it.
	I have seven free books available on the website.
	Economics, Anarchy, Philosophy, Ethics, Relationships, and so on.
	Audiobooks, PDFs.
	You can order the print books if you want.
	They're pretty cheap. The podcasts, of course, are all free.
	The videos are all free. There's a True News series that I do, which is an analysis of current events with philosophical clarity, so people can check that out.
	out.
	I'm working on a new book, which is grindingly slow, but I think is coming along very well, called How to Achieve Freedom, which is, of course, my roadmap.
	Because I sound like such a naysayer, you know, I just sound like one of those guys up in the balcony on the Muppets, you know, that approach sucks.
	That's terrible.
	That's not going to work, right?
	So I think people have had it with that and have reasonably said, oh, yeah, punk, what's your solution, right?
	And so I'm working on that book.
	I'm making the case for the things that we can do that I believe will.
	Achieve not only personal, but political and economic liberty.
	So that's in the hopper.
	When that comes out, it should be no more than another month or so before that comes out.
	Of course, I'll make that in my newsletter.
	So that's going on. I'm considering doing a philosophical show for the kids, which I think would be a lot of fun and very interesting.
	Of course, as I'm going to teach my own daughter philosophy, or rather how to think, I think it could be a lot of fun to put together a Interesting that you say that.
	I have also recently had the idea of putting together some sort of homeschooling resource media center type thing for homeschooling parents that would like to teach their kids some things that have actual value.
	So maybe that would be something that we can talk about another time.
	Yeah, I mean, we have SpongeBob SquarePants.
	Why not status SquarePants?
	Just teach the kids that way.
	Absolutely. I mean, the Internet, we can do live video now and interact in ways that were just impossible before.
	So I believe that we could probably, with a little hard work and innovation and some volunteers, we could probably...
	Develop a really, really nice resource for homeschooling parents to utilize in terms of video and interaction and all that stuff.
	I think it's a good idea.
	It's something I've been rolling around for a while, so we'll send some emails about that.
	Oh yeah, no, and I'm obviously, if I'm going to be doing it for my daughter, why not develop some resources for others as well?
	So I used to work in a daycare when I was younger.
	So I'm pretty good at dealing with kids.
	And, of course, I barely outgrow them intellectually or at least emotionally.
	So we are on the same level that way.
	So I'm looking at doing something like that.
	And those are really, I mean, as a new dad, my days are pretty consumed with parenting.
	But those are the things that I have.
	Plus, of course, I have my Sunday show every 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
	People can just drop by the chat room on the website if they want to join in.
	Right on.
	Yeah, I hear that.
	Let's talk about the big dreams, the big wishes.
	What are the big ideas that Stefan Molyneux got?
	Maybe 5, 10 year, 20 year goal or whatever.
	What's the big idea here?
	Well, I think that most people live lives of quiet desperation.
	I go with Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living.
	So I also think that when you awaken a mind from its torpor, as mind was awakened by other philosophers and as I hope to awaken other people's minds, you absolutely light up the world, right?
	It's like from the view from Freedom Aid Radio is like if you've ever been on a hillside when the power has been out in a city and then the power starts to come back up and the grids come on and the lights come on and the searchlights come on.
	That's what it looks like when you are, from the vantage point that I have, seeing minds light up around the world with the joy and power of philosophy.
	So as long as I can keep those fires burning, that electricity running through people's minds, a mind once stretched by a new idea never regains its original shape and dimension.
	And when you teach people how to think rather than what to think, there's no limit to the amount of wonderful and amazing stuff they can come up with.
	So for me... To simply be able to continue doing this absolutely amazing thing of being able to engage people's minds, to teach them how to think and to watch their lives and their relationships light up with the joy and power of truth and virtue, that is a life that could not be lived better from my opinion.
	And so as long as I get to keep doing that, and I'm happy to travel and talk and engage with people as far as that goes, so more of the same with more personal engagement with people is where I want to head, and I think that is an unstoppable force.
	Once people think, they will always, through reason, come to truth, virtue, and happiness, and so just getting those sparks flying to light up the tinderbox of people's minds is all that I want to do.
	Absolutely. Stephan Molyneux.
	I applaud your efforts, sir.
	I couldn't be more happy with this conversation.
	I think you've been really candid with your responses.
	I just really, really appreciate the opportunity to talk to you.
	We've been consuming your media now for some time, and so often people get a little bit of popularity or a little bit of attention, and they become inaccessible to the grassroots.
	That's one of the indicators for me personally into the character of the speaker whose opinion that I'm spending my attention on is how accessible are they to the grassroots and to the idea that I could contact you and say, hey, let's do a show together and expose my listeners to these ideas.
	And you're like, cool, do it Saturday, man.
	Wait, sorry. Are you telling me this isn't CNN? I can't believe it.
	My agent misbooked me.
	I'll be in my trailer. I can't work like this.
	Sorry. No, that's great.
	I hope that I'm never that vainglorious that I can't speak to people who have similar values and who I really respect their communication skills and the approach that they're taking, which is you guys.
	So, absolutely.
	I hope that I'm never that big, that that becomes an option because it is at this level that the real traction is occurring.
	Yeah, it really is the grassroots.
	All power is derived from the earth, and that's where I get my private property paradigm from and all that stuff.
	We've got about a minute, 30 seconds left in the program.
	Stephan, would you tell us one more time where you're going to be with Michael Beck-Derek just real soon?
	Absolutely. You can go to www.freedomaderadio.com.
	There's a link on the homepage.
	July the 4th and the 5th in Philadelphia.
	I think we're part of a tea party, and on Sunday, Michael Battenarik and I will be having a rousing and exciting debate.
	Absolutely, you want to be there for that.
	That is going to be a lot of fun and very electric, I think, at Drexel University.
	And if you want to see a previous speech of mine, freedomainradio.com, there's a link to my speech at New Hampshire.
	I think you can see how much the audience enjoyed it, and we only had to cut it short because the room was needed for something else.
	And tons of stuff that people can download that they can listen to on the go.
	So I really do thank you guys for the opportunity to speak.
	I also wanted to thank your listeners who had some fantastic questions and you guys who had, you know, I'm sweating.
	This is the amount of energy that gets you, like, I'm basically walking back and forth in a pool here because you guys had some fantastic questions and I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak to you guys who are obviously very smart and to your listeners who are very smart as well.
	So it was a great workout for me and I really do appreciate the opportunity.
	Thanks a lot, man.
	Thank you for joining us.
	The rest of the day today on Oracle, we got...
	Yeah, Cordite Country, after the Iconic Class Report, coming up next, right here on Oracle Broadcasting, and make sure you catch Oracle Unleashed tonight at 1 a.m.
	Eastern. All right, thanks again, guys.
	Great job.
	Thank you very much, Stephan.
	We appreciate that, man.
	We'll be in touch.

▲