All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:10:37
1416 Sunday Call In Show 19th July 2009

Barak Obama advocates hitting children, an unwanted child, and the geneosity of donators!

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, hello everybody.
This is Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
Thank you so much for joining us.
We have recently extended the ghostly arm of philosophy to embrace blog talk radio.
So if anybody's out there listening in blog talk land, thank you so much.
This is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web, which is interesting because, of course, philosophy is not about being large and popular, but I'd like to throw it out there anyway, just to differentiate ourselves a little, little bit.
So this is a show really designed to help you to think from first principles to reason with reference to empirical evidence and to bring the challenges and beauty and excitement and sometimes rank terror of philosophy into your life with the goal, of course, of achieving happiness.
Although it sometimes is a bit of a tough A tough road to hoe, it definitely does get you there eventually.
So I hope that you will enjoy the show.
If you'd like to check out free podcasts and books and videos, you can have a look at freedomainradio.com.
So to start, unfortunately, we talk a little bit about family stuff here, and one of the things that occurred, I am on a...
A listserv for some people who are interested in the application of psychology to history and to society.
And they posted this statement that was made by Barack Obama, a speech he gave to the NAACP in July of 2009.
And he said this to the NAACP. He said, and by the way, It means we need to be there for our neighbors, sons, and daughters.
Applause! Cheer! Cheer!
We need to go back to the time, back to the day, when we parents saw somebody, saw some kid fooling around, and it wasn't your child, but they'll whap you anyway.
Laughter and applause, or at least they'll tell your parents.
The parents will. You know, laughter, laughter, applause, applause.
That's the meaning of community.
That's how we can reclaim the strength and the determination.
And the hopefulness that helped us come so far, helped us make a way out of no way.
And this really is a remarkable statement.
It is always amazing to me the degree to which ethical standards so often remain invisible.
To society as a whole.
I'll do a short intro speech and then you're welcome to call in to have a chat about philosophy or politics, personal liberty at 347-633-9636.
But when we think back about something like slavery or societies where there were no rights for women or for children for that matter, And we think back and we say, well, how could it have been that people just couldn't have seen this obvious moral fact?
That slavery is immoral, that women are equal to men, that children deserve dignity and respect and to be treated with care and solicitude.
How is it that people couldn't see it?
But then here we see a man who was considered by many to be progressive, to be a new generation, a new style, a new type of man.
And a man who, by all reports, has not used corporal punishment or spanking or hitting on his own children.
And what really is amazing to me is that if you imagine substituting women or wives for children in his speech, the degree to which every reasonable moral human being in the world Would come down on him like a ton of Bugs Bunny bricks if he had said, well, if you see some woman messing around, you whop her!
Or you tell her husband, so he'll whop her!
I mean, that would just be astounding to talk about hitting a woman as a means of controlling her behavior, as a means of putting her in her place, as a means of keeping her down.
And yet, are not adult women Almost infinitely more free than helpless and dependent children.
Your average seven or eight-year-old child who can't leave, can't get a divorce from his parents, can't get a job, has no independence legally or economically or nutritionally.
He's utterly dependent upon his parents for protection, for food, for shelter.
And, of course, it would be utterly immoral to talk about hitting women, although women have many more freedoms than children do in any world that will ever be.
Children will just forever be biologically dependent upon their parents.
So if it's wrong to laugh and joke about hitting women, then why would it not be even more wrong to talk about hitting children?
We understand that any adult who would hit someone in a wheelchair, hit a man in a wheelchair, would be a coward and a bully and so on.
And yet a man in a wheelchair has infinitely more freedom and access to independence and resources than a child does.
You hit a guy in a wheelchair, he can call the cops, he can get you arrested, he can move town, he's got his own place, his own income, his own life.
Children don't have such latitude.
And surely it is because of this disparity of power that we should treat children with even more gentleness and solicitude and care and concern than we would an adult.
We understand that the more helpless the being, the more tenderly the care is that he needs.
And there are no beings in the human world more helpless and dependent than Children.
And this is passed unremarked, except for a few people in society.
People making up excuses.
Well, he means whoop them into shape emotionally.
Well, come on.
We know that's not the case.
He's a populist, right?
He says what people want to hear.
And surely he can't imagine that if there is an excess of corporal punishment...
In black households that this has no relationship to the violence that consumes the black community.
He's not an idiot, right?
He's corrupt, but he's not an idiot.
And people will look at this stuff in the future with even more horror than we would look at someone talking about beating or hitting a woman.
If there was some Teddy Roosevelt or I have no idea, some crazy classical male chauvinist pig talking about hitting women at the Empire Club and everybody laughing and cheering, we would look upon that as primitive and vile.
But this goes completely unremarked in our culture because the protection of children is, I think, the largest and most significant moral barrier that we still need, not even to overcome, but just to see.
That spanking is enormously harmful to children.
All you teach a child when you hit a child is that violence solves problems.
And people say, well, but children have diminished mental capacities and therefore we should hit them because you can't reason with them.
Well, does that mean that we can hit people who are cognitively deficient?
We can start hitting people who have an IQ of 80 or below.
Or what about older people who have early onset dementia or Alzheimer's or even if they just become forgetful, right?
If grandmother forgets her keys for the third time that week, do we then get to hit her to teach her better behavior?
Well, of course not. Of course not.
Diminished capacity means greater tenderness and care, not greater aggression and violence.
But we are still in the early days of this Awakening the world to the treatment of children.
And obviously we have a ways to go if this can pass utterly unremarked.
Who stands up for the children?
Who stands up for the children who have no voice, who cannot speak for themselves?
Well, this show, of course, and some other very hard-working and very good people in the world are starting to try and wake people up to this reality.
But... We have a long way to go if the leader of the free world can joke about hitting children or letting their parents hit them.
If you see them fooling around, not even if you see them doing something dangerous or doing something monstrous.
He didn't say clip the children or hit the children if you see them torturing a cat.
You just see them fooling around. Wham!
Hit them. Well, I think that's Completely immoral, utterly corrupt, vile, vicious base.
Surely, almost all the evils of the world arise originally from the mistreatment and brutalization of children.
And so, as we begin to try and turn the light on in this room, this room of the maltreatment of children, which is not to say, of course, that all children are maltreated, but...
Enough are that it's a huge issue that we need to continually keep pointing out.
As we begin to turn the light on, people see things that they don't want to see.
People are exposed doing things that they're enraged at being caught and ashamed of having committed.
And there's a blowback.
There's a backlash against people who turn the light on when it comes to the treatment of children in society.
Everyone who is interested in ethics and carving out a better world from the corruption to the present must focus his or her efforts, I strongly urge and argue, must focus his or her efforts on helping people to understand the necessity of kind, generous, benevolent and peaceful treatment of children.
There are so many options.
There are so many options for disciplining children without using Your hands in anger without using a fist, without using a belt, without using a spank or a slap.
It's hard to remember.
Just children are so small and so frail.
It's hard to remember.
If you're a child, six or seven, and some guy gives you a spank, he's four or five times your size, if not more.
A giant hitting you would be terrifying.
For you as an adult, it's so much worse for children.
So, I just think that it's really, really important that we focus on this stuff.
There's so many options, so many alternatives, so many options to hitting your children when it comes to discipline.
There's tons of resources out there for non-violent methods of disciplining children or helping to protect children.
And I hope that if you have this in your history or this in your presence, in your family, that you will absolutely take the opportunity to look into these resources.
I got a letter a couple of weeks ago from a parent, and I was amazingly impressed and proud of this parent.
She wrote to me, Mr.
Molyneux, I have been enjoying... And I did get her permission to read this as now identifying characteristics.
And I get these letters fairly frequently.
It's just that I rarely get a chance to actually read them out because people want to keep them private.
A parent wrote to me and said, Dear Mr.
Molyneux, I've been enjoying your podcast.
Thank you very much for making them available to everyone and for free too.
So I've made some realizations and I want to be a better parent, but I'm having a hard time.
I have a 2.5-year-old child...
For which I've received mixed support from my family and people that I meet.
Until listening to your podcast, I always accepted a certain amount of their excessive worry and criticism, make wrong, etc.
And now I want to resolve some issues and surround myself with only loving and supporting people.
The other day, my son didn't want to lay still so I could put his diaper on.
And I physically forced him to lay down while angrily yelling, lay down!
I have to put your diaper on, goddammit!
He cried. And I got the diaper on.
I calmed down. And then he asked me for a hug and we moved on.
I told him I was sorry.
And I think he understood.
But what's to keep me from repeating that over and over again?
Steph, do you know of any therapists or support groups or anyone that I might be able to speak with who understands some of the basic principles you discuss on your podcasts?
My experiences with parenting, quote, authorities, has been mixed, as have been my experience with therapists.
I don't know of any church or organization I can go to that won't tell me I should be bullying my child.
If I were to bring up this diaper-changing experience to anyone I can think of, they would just say, what's the big deal?
It's not like you hit him. Or, he needs to learn to listen to you.
Help. Thanks again, and I'll be happy to make a donation soon, because I really like hearing what you have to say.
Sincerely, this mom.
And I wrote back...
And I said, hey, thank you so much for writing.
I think that is amazingly brave, generous, kind, thoughtful, and wonderful of you.
For what it's worth, I am enormously impressed at your desire to avoid frightening your son in this way.
And I think it is just magnificent for you to reach out for help in this manner.
I don't know of any specific therapists in your area, but I would strongly advise calling around to find someone who has heard of people like Alice Miller, perhaps, and question him or her before even going to meet him.
About their attitudes towards aggression in child raising.
You are, of course, also welcome to post on the Freedom Main Radio board.
You can create an anonymous account and ask other parents about their own experiences or whether anyone knows of a therapist around.
And I gave her a link to the parenting section.
So please let me know how it goes.
And if you cannot find anyone, I would be more than happy to talk about this on a Sunday show or more private if you would prefer.
Thanks and please do keep me posted and congratulations again on taking such a brave stand with your child.
Best wishes, Steph.
And then she wrote back, The following shortly later.
Hello, Steph. I'm so happy to hear back from you.
I was able to find and meet with a therapist yesterday who lent me her copy of the drama of The Gifted Child, and I've already started it.
That's a book by Alice Miller.
I highly recommend it. I'm gradually getting the feeling that who I think I am is not really me, and I'm going to get to meet the real me soon.
How on earth is it possible that it's taken me this long to really identify my childhood experiences as the origin of my dysfunction?
If I would never have had a child, would I have ever thought to take a good hard look at my parents for who they really are and for what they have done to me?
What a trip! Your supportive words have helped me so much today.
Any reassurance that I'm doing the right thing helps.
I always thought I had to be really messed up to see a therapist and that I wasn't messed up.
Then after about an hour and a half of talking about all the things that bothered me about myself and my parents, I realized I was pretty messed up.
That's good news because that means I can get better and my son has a much better chance of realizing His true self.
I'll keep you posted. Wish me luck.
And I posted this as I asked her to on the board and people said some of the responses that people had from Free Domain Radio.
One fellow wrote, what an amazing and powerful letter.
I felt an enormous amount of joy and gratitude reading this.
It is really moving. Someone else wrote, I started sobbing reading this correspondence.
I felt a lot of loss realizing that my parents could have stopped.
Thought about the way they treated me as a child and found the help they needed so they didn't continue.
I'm happy to see that there are some parents doing the right thing.
Someone else wrote, wow, that's seriously fantastic.
It gives a great feeling of both hope and validation for my anger at the same time.
That is fantastic, completely amazing.
Wow, sounds like the beginning of a true happily ever after story.
That is absolutely wonderful, other people write.
So this is, dozens of people wrote on the thread to congratulate this woman, and I think that she should be entirely congratulated.
This is magnificent and wonderful stuff that parents are doing.
Two questions. To recognize that coercion is not the way to solve parental issues.
I think it is absolutely essential that we raise children as peacefully and positively as possible to have a peaceful and positive free world.
We can't get rid of the state.
We can't get rid of corruptions in the world.
We can't get rid of prisons.
We can't get rid of the problems that are inherent in public schooling and so on.
We can't get rid of gangs. We can't get rid of drug use, both selling and abuse.
We can't get rid of prostitution.
We can't get rid of things like that until people have Happier childhoods.
And that means childhoods without the option of violence being used to control them.
I just wanted to start off with that.
It's an introduction to people who are listening both through the regular feed and through the people who are listening through the Blog Talk Live.
The phone number, again, if you would like to call in, 347-633-9636.
And if you would like to ask questions or make comments about These topics or any other topics philosophically related that are on your mind, I would be more than happy to listen in.
So I'll just pause here. If you want to jump in, just remember to unmute yourself on Skype or to dial in if you would like to.
And I look forward to hearing from you.
Hey, Steph, it's Kyle.
Hello. Hi.
I had a question for you about one clarification thing when we talked last week.
Um, you said that, and I think that this, um, is true too, but you said that you think that some of the, um, reason why people don't have the fight, uh, when they, like, go out into the world, um, like the will to fight against, um, kind of like evil, um, and like injustice and stuff is because they have, they kind of use it up in childhood fighting their, um, parents.
Um, And the question that I had though was because that makes sense because they don't fight against authority like state and religion and I guess their own parents too but it seems that if they are in a position of authority then they have the fight back because those people then grow up into parents who then will fight with their kids and kind of keep the cycle going or become the president and then get people to cheer about That kind of stuff.
So I was wondering what you think or why they would lose it to fight against it, the position of authority, but when they're in the position of authority, they have all the fight back where they can then use it to crush other people's desire to fight against authority.
Right. Well, that's a big question because I think, if I understand it rightly, what you're really asking about is the roots of the cycle of violence.
And while, of course, it's not absolute, it certainly is a real phenomenon that those who have gone through aggressive or abusive childhoods have a higher percentage of becoming abusive themselves when they gain positions of authority, particularly as parents.
Is that what you mean, sort of how that cycle sort of works, in my opinion, or is it something else?
I want to make sure I just really get to the core of your question.
Yeah, I think that is the core of it.
Because I can definitely see why they wouldn't want to fight against the authority if they've been abused by authority for so long.
But then, why do they then, when they get into positions of authority, why do you think they would then continue that abuse down against the people who don't have the authority?
Right, right. Well, just the usual caveats, of course.
I'm certainly no psychologist, but these are just my thoughts or opinions or theories, if you will.
So take them with all the grains of salt in the world.
But this is sort of what I think happens.
Have you ever, when you were a kid, did you ever have, like you're in a swimming pool and you have a beach ball or something like that and you try and push it down underwater.
Did you ever sort of do that or play around with that when you were a kid?
Yeah, and it tries to just push you back.
Yeah, you know what happens, right? You push this thing down, and then when you let it go, it sort of erupts in this sort of the prisoner kind of way.
It erupts out of the water, and it goes up into the air, right?
That, I think, is a reasonable way of looking at this kind of stuff, right?
So... When you're bullied as a child, you are humiliated, and that creates a lot of fear and anger, right?
Because it's a fight-or-flight mechanism which is designed to kind of have us do stuff in life, to run away or to fight whatever is threatening us.
But as children, we can't run away if we're aggressed against.
We just have to find ways to deal with it in this situation.
So what happens, in my opinion...
A lot of anger and humiliation are built up.
A feeling of powerlessness is built up.
And then what happens is, when someone grows to be an adult, and they then gain a position of authority, right?
They could be a boss or a parent or something like that.
They have all of this stored up anger and humiliation that they want to balance out.
And because the degree of anger and humiliation that's been stored up in them as children is so great, That what happens is, they then want to, they have an excessive desire for control over others.
And for feeling, they have an excessive thirst for power.
Because they've been so humiliated, right?
Like if you're in the desert and you haven't had a drink for a day and a half, you have an excessive thirst.
And then if you get to an oasis, you're going to drink yourself until you develop gills, right?
And so when we have been powerless and controlled and humiliated for many, many years, when we get to a position of power, we have such a hunger for power and control because it's been so denied to us that we go overboard like the beach ball coming springing out of the water that's been held down.
We go too far the other way and we attempt to...
Balance out our feelings of humiliation and helplessness by controlling and humiliating other people as if going to the opposite side of the pendulum is escaping from the cycle, which of course it's not.
But these are all ways, and I did an elegy for Michael Jackson video lately talking a little bit about this, and this is of course in that free book Real-Time Relationships on my website.
You can go into this in more detail.
But... It's an attempt to try and avoid dealing with the actual feelings of helplessness and anger that come out of having been abused as a child.
If you try to say, well, I was helpless and controlled.
This all occurs at an unconscious level.
I was helpless and controlled, but now I have power, so I'm going to go the other way.
That doesn't actually solve the problem of being helpless and controlled.
You just go from victim to abuser, so to speak.
You actually have to deal with the feelings of fear and helplessness and anger that occurred if you had an abusive childhood.
And that's why I always suggest go to therapy, go to therapy, go to therapy, go to therapy, go to therapy, because that is the best and only tool that has been scientifically proven to really help ameliorate the effects of early childhood fear and controls.
So that's my constant urging to people.
And I say this to everyone.
It's sort of a broken record.
Because I sort of look at people who want to get into philosophy and into self-knowledge.
This is the old Socratic thing.
The first knowledge is always knowledge of the self.
So that you can take any distortions you have from your history out of the way that you look at the world.
And so I think that when people say, well, I want to get into philosophy, what they're saying to me is, I want to be an Olympic athlete.
And we would never consider or imagine trying to become an Olympic athlete by reading a couple of books or chatting about training methods with our friends.
No. We would, if we wanted to become an Olympic athlete, we would try to find a coach.
And a good coach, right?
For one-on-one training, right?
That's certainly not what I do.
I just put out general principles and have sort of one-time feedback with people about If we want to become an Olympic athlete, we would get into a relationship with a coach one-on-one to help us achieve the greatest thing we could in the realm of athletics.
But the same is true in philosophy.
You need to look inward and to learn about yourself and to understand your history and how it's affected the present so that you can have a choice about where you go in the future.
And to do that, I think everybody who gets into philosophy should also take a run of therapy.
I really, really do. It's just because you need that kind of one-on-one coaching to achieve real excellence in any and every field, why would you not need it in the hardest field of all, which is philosophy?
I hope that rather long-winded response answers your question, at least to some degree.
Yeah, but I actually have another little question that I'm out of that.
Because I can see that if they were sort of suppressed, like the beach ball underwater, that they would pop up and maybe go farther.
Because then I could see wanting to get even more control since they were deprived of it for so long.
But at the same time, it's like with you and Isabella, you have a lot of control over Isabella, but you're not using it to humiliate and shame her.
In your opinion, do you think that they then recreate those same kind of negative effects with their Authority and power because that is how they have seen power used?
Like, that is their experience?
Well, no, we've got a caller who's calling in from the 917 code, so I'll get to that person in just a sec.
No, I think you want to find the causal explanation that is not common to all situations.
I mean, I certainly saw a power being abused by many, many people when I was a kid.
And as you say, I don't do that when I was the boss of a bunch of people, and I don't do that as a parent or anything like that, and I hope I don't do it as a show host.
So just seeing that corruption that can occur in people who have positions of power is not enough.
I think that the causal thing, I think the reason that I was able to be an effective leader and a gentle and kind father...
I'm not prescribing anyone any pills I haven't taken myself.
I went through years of therapy and really did confront those demons and the fear and the humiliation and the anger that occurred from my childhood.
And therefore, I can deal with the present without all of that.
I can find real balance in the present, not swinging between feeling humiliated and wanting to control others and all that kind of nonsense.
So I think that the one thing that is the differentiating factor is, you know, has the person done the work and gotten the help that they need to deal with those issues?
So I think that's the one thing that really does seem to differentiate.
That's how someone ends up dealing with authority as an adult.
Okay. All right. And do we have a caller from...
Thank you. I appreciate it. It was a great question.
I'm sorry. I tried to do that all in one breath, but I think I did need to take one in the middle.
Okay. So we have someone from the 917 area code.
You are on Free Domain Radio.
Ah, he's calling from the MIME school.
That may not work as well as we'd hoped.
No.
All right.
If we would like to grab somebody else from the Skype pool, if you would like to unmute yourself and ask a question, make a comment, share some information, some success, some failures, we are all with the ears.
Waiting for callers on Free Domain Radio.
Thank you.
If you're talking, remember to unmute.
All right, well, while we wait for callers, I thought I saw...
A show the other day, and Billy Bob Thornton, let's jump around a little, he raised an interesting point, or an interesting question.
And he said that there's a dividing line, like he said, think of music, music that will be listened to as culturally or artistically significant in a hundred years.
Listen to music.
And he said that if you kind of draw a line around the late 70s, and you look at the acts who started in music at some point before the late 70s, and you look at people who started after that period, that you can easily come up with like 100 people or 100 acts or bands that would...
Qualify as culturally significant in 100 years that people would still be listening to and find sort of rich and deep and innovative and creative.
And so on, but after the late 70s, it's really tough to find those acts.
And so I just sort of throw this challenge out because I know that a lot of people who listen to Free Domain Radio, the average age of the listener I think is about 35 or 40, but there are a smattering Of younger folks around.
And if you think of the acts, I don't know, just off the top of my head, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton and Cream, Queen, Iron Butterfly, ACDC, just sort of popular musical acts, Bruce Springsteen, The Police, that people will find, I think, significant, musically significant.
Pink Floyd, all these other kinds of bands and acts.
You can sort of go on and on and easily come up with 100 people.
Almost everyone who played at Woodstock, Joe Cocker, The Who, all of these kinds of people that you would find them still count really significant in 100 years.
But it's really tough to come up with people after sort of 1979, 1980.
So if you're listening to this, you're in the chat room, then...
Type up if you'd like, and we will sort of do this intermittently if there are breaks in the call-in.
We will do this intermittently through the show.
And if you can come up with acts after the late 70s that will be considered, or that you think will be considered culturally significant in 100 years, I certainly would be interested.
I think, yeah, we've had one which we'll hold back if no one comes up with, but it's really tough to come up with them.
So, just again, the call-in number is 1-347-633-9636.
If you would like to talk or if you're on Skype and you're in the Freedom Aid Radio chat room, just give me your Skype names and we can...
Sorry, trying to do some work with the baby in the room can be quite exciting.
I'm happy to hear the caller from the 917 area code, but I didn't hear before here when I asked.
Britney Spears and Spice Girls.
You two started, I think, in the late 70s.
Yeah, they started. I don't think they got a record deal until 1980, but I think they started in the...
In the late 80s.
What do we got here? Michael Jackson.
Good heavens. No, he started in the 60s.
Britney Spears. Please.
Madonna. Yeah, Madonna does come to mind.
Culturally significant. I don't think musically significant, though.
I don't think Madonna will be considered musically significant.
I think she will be considered culturally significant for resurrecting the pointed 50s laser bra, but I don't think that she will be considered musically significant.
Do you? No, but she's not musically very innovative, right?
So she did Isla Bonita.
She did a few songs.
She did one Marilyn Monroe ripoff and so on.
Yes, but she did Evita, and so she may be remembered as a performer, but not as a musician in that way.
Like she's not creative or innovative in the way that, say, Pink Floyd and Queen would have been considered.
Yeah, Pink Floyd will be remembered for a long time, but of course they started in the 60s, actually.
Deep Purple and Thin Lizzy.
Led Zeppelin, absolutely from the earlier period.
Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead.
I think Radiohead, maybe.
Maybe. Christina can't name a song that Radiohead did, but since it's not on a Barbra Streisand album, I'm not sure that Christina would be able to come up with a song that Radiohead did.
Did they ever cover memories?
That's my question. Christina's saying, if they're supposed to be culturally significant, you'd think that Christina would have heard of them.
What that means is that No, no.
It means that cultural significance is defined by the bands that my wife knows, although she rarely listens to the radio anymore.
But that is the touchstone.
It really is the prism, the lens.
It all goes through her.
And that's why I know I'm going to be culturally significant, because she can't shut me up.
Loverboy?
Good heavens.
Depeche Mode? Um...
I don't know. I think Depeche Mode started after the 80s.
I don't think they started in the 70s.
I saw them live twice when I was younger, and I thought they were good.
I don't know that they're going to be considered musically innovative or creative.
I mean, they were very synth pop.
They were very new wave, I guess, when they started.
Boy George. Boy George.
Boy George. Oh, wait.
Are you talking about a band or just your new nickname for me?
You should see what I'm wearing.
It's a full-on common Miranda Doe.
Boy George. Now, I think culturally significant may be advancing, I don't know, gay rights or gender crossing perceptions.
Elton John was a 70s.
Millie Vanilli.
Oh, don't make me come down there.
The Smiths. Christina Aguilera, she's a great singer, but I don't think she'll be perceived as musically gifted or significant in the way that some of, like the Beatles or the way that people who really broke really wild new ground.
Black Eyed Peas.
Yeah, I thought of those. I thought of them as well.
But I don't think that what they're doing is particular.
I mean, I really like Ella Funk.
I think it's a fantastic album.
But I don't think that the Black Eyed Peas are doing anything that people would consider musically really innovative.
I mean, what they do, they're fantastic at what they do.
And it's really catchy and very energetic stuff.
But I don't know that they'll listen to it in 100 years and say that musicianship was just really remarkable.
I mean, for instance, when was the last concept album?
Think of something like The Wall, right?
I mean, or Dark Side of the Moon.
I mean, some really wild and deep concept albums.
And you just don't really see that as much anymore.
I mean, Death and All His Friends, not exactly a concept album.
I guess it's sort of touted that way.
And Coldplay, yeah, it's good.
I enjoy it, but I'm just not exactly sure that it's going to be...
I'm sorry?
Yeah, they're kind of like a pop band, and there's just not a lot of really, really...
Stevie Ray Vaughan started in the 70s, and then he unfortunately didn't last too bad.
Iron Maiden, 70s.
It's interesting to think about, because I'd like to do some research and figure out why it would be so specific to a particular time period.
Like, not sort of the late 70s, it's a real cut-off year, and it's a really interesting...
My guess would be there's something to do with copyright, royalties, government regulations or something like that that has made it less possible for really creative bands.
I think also bands have to make it quicker younger now than they used to.
Pink Floyd had Oma Guma and a couple of other albums before they really had anything big.
Those early albums were just completely insane.
And so...
I think people have to kind of hit it big.
Maybe it takes so much money to launch an act these days and get them on the radio that you just don't have the chance to go through that creative flowering process that bands need to go through.
So I'm just...
I don't know.
There's something about it that has really cut down on the innovation.
And we talked about this on the last Sunday show.
It's cut down on innovation quite a lot in art.
And you just don't see as much really new, different...
You know, music and movies, they all seem to be kind of cut from the same press.
Paul McCartney said something the other day, more than the other day, where he was saying that there's music kind of falling into two categories these days.
The one category is, it's really dark and evil and ugly and all that.
And it's also just total, you know, cheesecake pop, the sort of Britney Spears stuff.
And he says there doesn't seem to be that much in the middle.
And I think that's a bit of an over-characterization, but...
It's just, I can't remember how long it's been since I turned on the radio, heard a song and went, well, that's different.
That's new. That's, you know, that's really unusual.
I'm sorry? I did hear the latest from the Black Eyed Peas.
Not the whole album, but a song.
And it was enjoyable and catchy.
How is it different?
From what? Here we go.
Here we go. No, no, you bring it up.
She's contradicting me. Live on air.
It must be substantiated.
What was the name of the song? Do you remember?
Gotta... Gotta Get Get.
Gotta Get Get? Okay.
Are you stuttering or is that the name of the song?
Okay. All right.
I'll have to listen to Gotta Get Get and see whether it matches Bohemian Rhapsody.
That's, of course, that's the touchstone of...
I mean, isn't that the touchstone of jaw-dropping music when you heard that song and just went, what are they doing?
What are they doing?
Right? So... I just wanted to sort of mention that.
David Bowie was 70s for sure.
And Dylan and all that kind of stuff.
Leonard Cohen. Guns N' Roses.
Guns N' Roses? When did they start?
Guess who was 60s?
Anyway, okay, enough of that.
If you do think of these things, do let me know if there are bands that I've missed.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the newest music around, but I would like to hit the Scorpions.
Okay, listen. Tight-panted, big-haired metal bands from the 80s are automatically...
The White Stripes, the Metallica, the Scorpions are simply not to be counted as musical innovators.
As far as innovation in gel and tiger skin trousers, I will absolutely grant them that.
But music? Not so much.
No, it doesn't have to be someone who started in the 60s.
It has to be someone who started after the late 70s.
So, I just wanted to...
Innovation in Tiger Skin Trousers would be a great name for a band, I think.
Because you would get the band and you would also get the look down as well.
Alright, so if you'd like to...
This is supposed to be a call-in show, so if you do have a question or a comment, I'm certainly happy to hear it and respond as best as I am able.
But... So the way that you do it is if you're in the Freedom Aid Radio chat room, you can give me your Skype name if you're not already in Skype.
You can talk. If you're on Skype, remember to unmute.
Or you can dial 347-633-9636, which sounds like free sex.
And if we don't get any callers in the next 10 minutes, that may be on the table as well.
So it's really up to you.
And thank heavens this is not a video show yet.
So, Boney M, you must know...
Rah, rah, Rasputin lover of the Russian queen.
Again, when it came to spandex trousers that you could actually see your own reflection in, they were absolutely innovative, but not so much with the actual music itself.
All right, we have a message in the Skype.
We did do something new just by talking about contemporary music rather than philosophy.
But I think it could be a lead into a show about intellectual copyright, which really is much more interesting to listen to even than Bohemian Rhapsody.
All right.
Time for questions, people.
Time to exercise your call-in show mania.
Questions, please. Questions, please.
Questions, please. The Cure?
The Cure started in the 70s, apparently.
So, that's something to remember.
In Excess? In Excess, I think.
I think they started in the late 70s, because their first album was in the early 80s.
I mean, a great band, a great singer, a great performer, but I'm just not entirely sure that they would be considered musically innovative.
The Philosopher Kings, that's the band for free-domain radio donators.
So, I just wanted to mention that.
Everybody, Galileo!
Galileo. All right.
Just going to add someone else in who wanted in.
Enya. I'm sorry, even the name.
Don't get me wrong. I think Enya's very nice, but you need some coffee.
Yanni. Okay, now people, come on.
Let's... Oh wait, no, actually Yanny is very innovative.
He is very innovative.
It's not often you get to share a hairdo with a Freddie Mercury mustache, so his presentation was really, really innovative.
Al Yankovic.
Absolutely, nothing derivative about that at all.
What about new music like Regina Spector?
Oh, and isn't there a woman?
I saw her on YouTube.
She did a press conference with a mask on.
Her name was Lady Gaga.
And apparently she was named after the Queen song, Bohemian Rhapsody.
I don't know any of her music, though, so...
Hello?
I think I'm getting two windows at the same time.
Hello? Hello? Yes, hello.
Can you hear me, Steph? Well, if I've said hello, I can't hear you.
Oh, sorry. Sorry about that.
No problem. First time caller.
I wish I had a noise for you.
Woo! Ding, ding, ding.
Go ahead. Just a couple of questions.
Probably fairly broad, but we can try something.
The first one would be, I've just started listening to your podcast and reading your books and some of your articles that you've written.
And I find it very tough.
It has become very tough to deal with people around me.
Anytime you want to talk to them about, say, it's as if I've learned all this great new language that nobody else speaks.
And every time I try to talk to somebody and try to put things in a way so they don't understand what's going on around them and what could be causing some of the problems they'd be having, I just get blank stares.
For example, some people will complain that the taxes are high.
And they're going higher. But at the same time, in the next breath, they'll just say about how they want to get all these extra government benefits and whatnot.
But they just cannot make the step and they just cannot make the connection between them wanting more things from the state and the state putting higher taxes on them.
That's just one example.
I'm sorry, just because if you ask me five questions, I'm sure I'll forget one of them.
So can we just take a pause on this one right now?
Sure. Okay, so you say that when you talk to people about sort of freedom and the relationship, the economic relationship between wanting more from the government and higher taxes, you say people can't see that connection?
Yeah. Why do you think they can't?
Why do you suppose? I would argue differently.
I could be wrong, of course, but why do you think that they can't see that connection?
Or what is your evidence that they actually can't see that connection?
Well, for example, somebody will say, you know, we deserve all these things from the state because we pay taxes.
And they'll just say, well, the government has all this money that they can just spend and spend and spend and give us all these things.
I'll try to tell them, well, you know, for them to be able to pay all this stuff, they'll have to tax you until you make no money at all.
And they just don't make that connection.
But what is the evidence that they don't make that connection?
Because that's a pretty simple connection to make, right?
Like if you want more from the government, someone's going to have to pay more to the government, or they're going to print more money, which is going to cause inflation and your value of your dollar is going to go down and stuff's going to cost more, right?
So that's pretty simple.
And I would invite you to have more respect for people's abilities to reason, because there's a very big difference between genuinely not understanding something And evading something.
Does that matter? I'm not saying that's proven, but I think that...
Do you just understand the difference, conceptually?
Yeah, it's possible.
You could be right.
You could be right. And the reason being that people understand that the government doesn't have all this money, right?
I mean, they know that, right?
Because the government's not Bill Gates or a business or a trust fund.
I mean, it is... I mean, it takes money and then it gives it out, right?
They just take money from us.
Yeah, they take money at gunpoint and they give it to their friends and those they want to buy votes from, right?
And so, the people understand that and the way, and this is just, you know, a tip, whether it works for you or not or is even true or not, you can decide for yourself, but when you bring this up to someone, this basic fact, If you were to look at it in really slow motion, right?
You talk about taxes and violence.
If you were to slow it down to quarter speed, what would the emotional response of the person you're talking to be if you could see it in real detail?
Probably disbelief, maybe.
Well, okay, but disbelief is not really an emotion.
Right. Sorry.
I'm going to be an annoying 20 questions guy, but because I think trying to get that emotion is really, really important.
Because if you don't see that emotion, I don't think you'll be able to get the truth across to people, if that makes any sense.
Vaguely, yeah. So, you say to someone, you know, the government has no money and it just taxes people.
What is their emotional response to hearing that?
Good question. I haven't, I gotta honestly say I haven't really detected it.
Maybe I haven't paid attention to the answer or to the emotion that they're experiencing?
Well, and I think, you know, I have a huge respect for people's intelligence.
I really do. And I have a huge respect for your intelligence.
And so I actually believe you do know, right?
But I'm not saying you're withholding anything from me.
But I think you do know if you've had this question a number of times or this conversation a number of times.
Because if I thought that people as a whole...
Like, you know, the argument that the libertarians and the anarchists have, which is taxation equals violence, right?
That when you use the government to do something, that you are using violence to solve a problem.
Now, the fact that taxation equals violence equals the initiation of force against usually disarmed citizens, that's not brain surgery.
That's not quantum physics.
That's not the theory of relativity.
That's... What happens if you don't pay your taxes?
Well, they come and they send you a letter, they bring you to court, but eventually...
You ultimately get arrested.
Yeah, you get arrested, and if you resist, they'll shoot you down like a dog, like a rabbit dog, right?
And there won't even be animal rights protesters to complain, right?
So, that is such a basic equation, and this has been the challenge I've been working on for years and years, is that if people...
I'm sorry. Let me squeak a little higher and try and blow your fingers out.
If people are too dumb to understand that taxation equals force, then there's no hope for freedom in the world at all.
Because you're trying to explain quantum physics to an anthill, right?
It won't work, right?
And that is what generates all this frustration.
Well, yes, but that's not true.
But it's not true. Because you and I have had conversations.
Like, okay, let me...
So, we just...
If you were listening, we had this little conversation that was kind of fun about bands, you know, innovative bands and so on, right?
Now, people couldn't think of innovative bands after 1979 or something like that.
Or maybe they could. But nobody got offended.
Nobody got upset. Nobody got tense, right?
Because it was just an intellectual exercise, right?
And if you give people Sudokus or brain teasers or crosswords or whatever, they're not going to get tense and offended and upset.
They may get a little frustrated, but they're not going to be offended, right?
Yeah. But when you're not giving people brain teasers or you're not giving people crosswords or Sudokus or you're playing chess with them or something, when you bring fundamental moral questions to them,
about the true nature of the society that they live in and the people around them I think people freak out at a very deep level and I think they could absolutely grasp it totally easily right I mean I used to work in a daycare there were like 30 kids aged 5 to 10 in the room that I was in charge of and The five-year-olds could figure out when somebody was using force to take a toy from them,
when someone pushed them over and took their toy, they would come and say, he pushed me, that's wrong, right?
And I generally think that if a five-year-old understands something completely instinctually, that it makes no sense that a 30-year-old would not also get it completely instinctively with all of his additional experience and knowledge and understanding, right?
So if a five-year-old, and it actually works even younger, a two-year-old, Would get this.
You push a two-year-old over.
I'm not recommending this, right?
And one kid pushes another two-year-old over and takes his toy.
The two-year-old says, that's wrong.
Cries, gets help, you know, says it's wrong.
And of course, the other two-year-old knows that it's wrong because he'll immediately say, well, he took it from me.
I was just taking it back. He'll give the self-defense argument, right?
So all we're trying to do is get humanity to the intellectual, moral, and emotional level of your average two-year-old when it comes to understanding the nature of coercion in society.
So I have to grant that human beings are more intelligent than two-year-olds if we're going to talk about philosophy at all, right?
Yeah. So you have to...
People, they do get it.
They do get it. Because if someone gets it when they're two, they'll get it when they're 22 and 52 and 72 and 102.
So they do get it.
The question is, why do they resist getting it?
And I think there's lots of answers that I've talked about in my book.
It opens up a whole can of worms when it comes to the society they live in and it comes to the people around them.
And if they're so resistant to it and they start talking about the truth, other people will be that resistant to it.
Yada, yada, yada. But I think if you try and bypass the emotional resistance, the tension that people have.
Because people aren't tense about things that they don't know.
If I come up to you and say, you know, what is the capital of Japan's northernmost province, right?
And you say, I don't know. But you're not tense about it, you just don't know, right?
And so if people genuinely don't know something, they'll just be curious.
They may not be that interested, but they're not going to be tense.
They're not going to be irritated, right?
People get irritated, and this goes all the way back to Socrates, right?
People get irritated. When you're bringing up enough that they already know and they're actively avoiding and they're ashamed about it.
When they're not proud of their avoidance and you bring it up, they will get angry.
I mean, read your average Socratic dialogue.
What is he doing? He's going to all of the people who claim to be so wise and so knowledgeable.
90% of them don't even want to talk to him.
Because why? Because they know.
They're just bullcrap artists making stuff up to fleece people of their money, right?
They're just con artists, right? And they know that, and that's why they don't want to talk to him.
And those people who do want to talk to him end up getting so angry at him that they whip up the populace into a frenzy, claim he's corrupting the young, and end up putting him to death, right?
And that's the basic problem of my question.
When you get all these people around you, they know the truth within them, they know what's really going on, and they resist it.
They get anxious when you ask them something, but they start getting defensive, they start attacking you.
And it gets to the point where there's barely anybody around you that you can have an honest conversation with.
Barely anybody. But you know, barely anyone is really important, right?
Look at it this way. Yeah.
Let's say that you're really hungry and you see a table and from a distance it looks like it's completely piled with food, right?
And you're like, damn, I'm hungry.
I want to get me some of the food from that buffet table, right?
And you go running up and you find...
That the food is all made out of plastic.
You know, it's plastic fruit and it's imitation bread and so on, right?
And you're ripping through all of the stuff and you're saying, oh man, there's nothing here to eat.
And then you come across, you know, three sandwiches that are real and great and tasty.
Wouldn't you be hugely relieved?
Yeah. Right, but this is what I'm saying with philosophy, because I get this question a lot of times.
As people start out in philosophy, when they're just starting with philosophy, they say, ah, I'm friends with everyone, right?
And then when they start to really go through philosophy, and they start to ask questions of themselves and those around them, then they say, well, there's only three people left, right?
Or two. Yeah.
Or one, right? You don't have as many friends as you thought.
Right. But...
What people say is, if you were trying to eat from that buffet and you got three great sandwiches when you were really hungry, you wouldn't say, well, this buffet sucks because most of the food isn't real.
You'd say, man, I'm really glad that I found these three sandwiches and didn't eat all that plastic, which would have made me sick, right?
Yeah. Like, focus on the people who were there who you can talk to rather than the people who...
Get hostile or weird or defensive or avoidant or aggressive or whatever, right?
Because that's just plastic fruit as far as satisfying our field.
That's probably the only way to survive.
The only thing is that while you're surrounded by plastic food, you have to keep telling yourself, do not eat, do not eat this, do not eat this.
And basically what that means is that most of the time you don't talk to those people or you just talk about...
Things that don't matter.
You talk about the weather and this and that, but you don't really have a real conversation with them about the things that matter.
That's true. That's true.
So those conversations I can only have with one or two people and one of those, one of whom is yourself.
Well, I appreciate that. And it is tough, right?
But the important thing is to keep looking, right?
There is real food in the plastic buffet.
There really is. And it's important to mourn the loss of relationships that didn't make the transition to the truth.
That's why I say at the beginning of my first book, it's going to mess up your relationship.
It's going to mess up your life.
I say that from experience.
I don't prescribe anything I haven't taken myself and found to be beneficial, but it is a very, very tough process for sure.
And, you know, I just don't eat plastic.
You know, go for the carb.
Go for the real nutrition. Don't eat the plastic.
And, of course, even when you're really into philosophy like myself, 90% of my day is not philosophical, right?
I mean, that's just the...
I mean, I've got these conversations.
I have conversations with my wife.
But I don't go to the hairdresser and talk about Kierkegaard, right?
Because, you know, haircuts are pretty short.
You just have to hold yourself back.
Well, it's just not appropriate, right?
In the same way that I don't show documentaries on quantum physics to my seven-month-old daughter, right?
So it's just the appropriateness of where you are.
You know, I think you had a very, very good story on one of your podcasts.
You were talking about a bunch of people, say if you're living somewhere where most people thought that vitamin C was really bad for you and everybody's got osteoporosis and they're all in walking chairs and in walkers and whatever else and they're just passing around a nerve ball very slowly and kind of gently so they don't break their bones just doing it.
And all of a sudden you've been training for like two or three months and you've got a real football and you wanna, you're looking for somebody to toss it to.
Right? You just have to remember that you just cannot toss that ball to one of these people that stayed away from vitamin C their whole life because they're just going to break when that ball...
Well, and actually, the metaphor could be slightly improved insofar as you're actually spiking it with full force in the way that they perceive it, right?
Ah, why are you attacking me?
I'm just playing. No, no, you're attacking me with a ball, right?
You just figure out how to play...
You know, real football and you just want somebody to play with.
Yes. Effectively, right?
You just gotta remember that these people, they can't play.
Well, yeah, I mean... But sometimes that's hard to do.
And sometimes, I guess, and I don't know what your podcast is saying, it's like, just opening your mouth and saying something is like dropping a conversation bomb.
It just, everything freezes.
Yes, it does. It does.
And this is something which hopefully with this amazing new technology, because we can talk here for free, right?
We can cure it. But it is a transition.
And, you know, I make suggestions.
Obviously, the people at the Freedom Aid Radio Board, and, you know, there's lots of people who are happy to chat with you if you have Skype or whatever.
So, you know, there's lots of people who are in the same boat.
So just try and stay in contact with people because we are a little bit like stars in the night sky.
There's a lot of darkness between these points of light.
And I think it's important to try and...
Really try to connect with other people so that the loneliness doesn't overtake the enthusiasm.
Now, I know you had other questions.
Sorry, I do apologize if you have another caller waiting, but hang on the phone because just in case we get some more dead air, I'd be happy to have you come back for another question.
Okay. All right. Thank you so much.
The caller from area 917, I believe, may be back on the line unless he or she got so bored that...
I... Hello? Can you hear me?
Yes. Hello?
Hello? Yes, Steven.
Now, is Steven your name, or are you mispronouncing my name?
I'm sorry. Can you pronounce your name correctly?
I think I can, yes. Would you like me to?
Sure. It's Stefan.
And sorry, just for the person who was just talking, I think you're still...
If you could just mute yourself while I talk to this next fine gentleman.
Okay, Stefan. Yes.
Yes, hi, this is Robert.
I was not the previous caller, the one that you lost from 917.
I'm actually a new 917.
Oh, you moved? Sorry, just kidding.
Go on. Well, you actually did.
I just moved to New York City.
Oh, congratulations. I have recently caught on to your...
Your website and your book and I watched your debate about your state versus anti-state debate and I loved it.
And before I get into the serious question, I wanted to ask you, what do you think about the new book by Chris Anderson called Free?
Oh, yeah. Thank you for reminding me.
I have not read it, although I hear that it is free, but I read a review of it that I think is very interesting.
Do you want to give it a synopsis, just for those who haven't heard anything about it?
Well, Chris Anderson, personally, I think, has no idea about economics, says that there's this thing called free.
It's a new economic system that allows people to consume information and products without paying a cent.
Except for someone has to pay for it.
But the title sells.
So I think you should read it.
I was really fascinated.
I read a review of it and I was just fascinated with this idea that there is an economics called free.
And of course, since that has been my business model for the past, I don't know, four years or something like that, I'm quite fascinated to read about it.
I do think that in the realm of digital media, it is going to have to go that way.
And it really is only, unfortunately, the Status addictions of copyright and these kinds of protections that is barring people from creating more innovative ways to provide value.
I love the free model.
I mean, you would not believe how much it challenges me to come up with innovative, new, creative, exciting stuff for people to think about and contemplate.
But it's not really free.
But it's not really free.
What do you mean? Well, I mean, someone always pays.
There's always labor put into anything.
And so it's, you know, I don't know if it's really free.
No, no, no, it is free.
It is free. Listen, the people who donate to Free Domain Radio is a couple of percentage points of the total listeners.
Most of the people consume my material and never give me a penny.
Now, of course it's not free.
Of course I have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for For servers and bandwidth and equipment and time and computers at home and microphones and software and hardware and cameras.
Absolutely, hugely expensive.
But it's free for most of the listeners.
It certainly is not free to produce.
Of course not. But it's free for most of the listeners.
And I think that's a very interesting thing.
But just because some listeners are paying for it and other listeners aren't doesn't mean it's Free, it just means it's free for some, but I don't know if that would be the correct term, you know what I'm saying?
It's not free. No, no, sorry, you're conflating the term free in two ways, right?
In terms of the producer versus the consumer.
Right, so for me, the producer, it's certainly not free.
And for the person who downloads it without paying...
It is free because they're not paying for it.
Right? So it isn't free in an abstract economic sense because somebody has to pay to create it for sure.
But it certainly is free for the people who download it without donating or paying for it.
Okay. Alright.
I'll concede to that.
No, but I agree with you.
If they were to say it's a free podcast, you wouldn't know whether they were referring to their own particular consumption of it, i.e. it's free for me, though I understand that it costs money to produce, or whether they're saying it's free because magical bit elves get together and do a philosophy dance on a server at hard disk somewhere, and therefore I get this magical or whether they're saying it's free because magical bit elves get together and do a Right?
So you'd have to be asked to be precise about what they mean.
Okay.
My only point was that economically, for it to stay free, someone has to pay.
And that will still be the case, even if you're correct and that's the way most media goes in the future.
Yes, absolutely. People will have to pay, for sure.
Right. For sure.
But I think that...
I mean, fortunately, I'm here because there are enough...
You know, generous and kind people who understand sort of reciprocity and, you know, returning value for what is a pretty unique show.
There are enough people that they're, you know, happy to, or at least willing to, subsidize the others.
And, yeah, I mean, I'm hoping, of course, if I keep talking about, you know, ethics, virtue, responsibility, integrity, and so on, that people will finally get it and donate a little bit of money to the show that is pretty unique in the planet and...
But, you know, it can be a bit of a slow process, right?
Yes. Now, not to turn it into a downer here, but can I ask you my serious question?
Yes, you can. Let me just put my forehead on the ground to get myself in the correct position.
Okay. Okay.
This is a bit of a downer.
I'm sorry to your audience, but I'm 22 years old, and I became involved with a woman sexually.
Who was married.
And she became divorced while we were together.
And one day, well, we broke up.
And she, you know, I still liked her sexually.
So I invited her to come and visit me.
And we had sex.
And she became pregnant.
Alright, sorry. Let me just retread here.
I just want to make sure I get the sequence. So, you got involved with the married woman.
She broke up from her marriage, or she got divorced while you guys were going out.
Yes. And was that because the husband found out about the affair, or was it some other reason?
No, her husband had cheated on her.
Oh, so she found out about the affair while she was having an affair, and then she divorced him because he was having an affair?
Well, apparently he had had the affair earlier and she had found out about it and they were no longer really speaking to each other.
And so she got involved with me and, you know, the divorce was in the process.
Oh, so were they sort of a trial separation stage when you guys got married?
got involved in the divorce or the divorce was on its way kind of thing?
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay.
Yeah.
And then she got divorced from him.
No.
Sorry.
And then let me just get the sequence if we just make sure I get it clear.
So she got divorced from the guy.
You guys went out.
You broke up with her.
But then she came over and you had sex and she got pregnant.
Yes. She led me to believe that she just wanted to have sex and she came to visit me from another state and we had sex that night on a Friday and actually she was supposed to stay there for the weekend and leave on Sunday.
Sorry, stay there means stay with you?
Stay with me, yeah, for the weekend.
But we got in a fight on Saturday morning, and I told her that I wanted to go home.
And I told her to go home.
And she was very upset.
Now, this is where it gets a little tricky.
She was very upset, and she left.
And within an hour of leaving, she was involved in an accident where three people died.
Oh, my God. All right.
Yes. She was involved in an accident where three people died.
She has now recovered.
This is very recent.
This just happened. I was just informed that she's pregnant a few days ago.
It leads me to believe that she was driving erratically because she wanted to get pregnant to keep me, to keep a hold of me, to get me to Marry her or something like that.
Well, I'm sorry to interrupt, but did she indicate to you that she wanted, like when you broke up or whatever, did she indicate that she wanted to get back together or she wanted to get married?
Was that what her preference was?
No, she just told me she was in love with me.
So she didn't want to break up?
She wanted to keep going out?
She didn't want to break up. Okay, okay.
She didn't want to break up, and when she came back to visit me for that one sexual visit, she told me that she was more than just interested in sex.
She was still emotional.
Yeah, so for her, it was not casual sex, right?
But for you, it was, right? Yes, exactly.
And was that your position with her ahead of time, before you had the sex?
Did she know, or was it clear to her...
That it was only sexual for you?
It was clear to her, she knew my sexual background, she knew I was promiscuous, and she knew I cared for her as a friend, you know, because we had been friends for years.
But she, you know, I never told her that I loved her.
So what you're saying is, I mean, I'm just trying to catch the chase here, right?
And I appreciate that, that your directness, but...
But she didn't know that it was not anything other than sex for you, right?
Because she was, I love you, and obviously she wanted to get back together or have a future together.
But she was not clear, it sounds like, that for you that was not a possibility or an option and that it was just sex at that time.
No, you know what, you're right.
She was probably not 100% clear.
All right. Because you see, I'm not 100% clear now, and you're telling me the story later, so I guarantee you she wasn't 100% clear at the time.
So, sorry, go on. Yes, she was not 100% clear that I did not want a future with her, but she knew a lot about me, and about my personality, about how I am a young guy, I am very selfish, interested in my career, and And sorry, if you could just give me a rough...
I don't want any details, but if you can just give me a rough sense of how old is this woman in her late 30s, early 30s, late 20s, early 20s?
I'm 22, she's 23.
Okay, all right. Okay, I guess we'll get some details.
So, um...
And she also used to be religious when she was younger, and she led me to believe that she was now an agnostic, but she...
Got pregnant and she told me there's no way in hell she's going to have an abortion.
Now, if I can just ask you what your question is.
I mean, I certainly appreciate the story.
Well, my question is...
Actually, my question just has to do with the child support questions.
And maybe if you think there's a way of convincing someone to have an abortion, that's kind of a lesser...
Question, because I guess from what I've taken from what you've said, it's probably impossible for me to convince her to have an abortion.
And your preference is that she have an abortion, is that right?
Absolutely, I do not want a child with her.
Okay. I want to control where my genetics ends up.
Right, right. Look, it's a hell of a situation.
I gotta tell you, I mean, the person I sympathize most with is the fetus.
But, I mean, obviously it's a difficult situation for you as well, right?
Because the fetus is just in there, growing away, thinking, yay!
You know, I get a crib, I get, right?
And you're sort of sitting there saying, let's get this thing out.
And she's like, I'm going to take it.
But then you're kind of bound to this woman off and on for 20 years.
And so it's a mess.
Now, I'm not going to get all kind of moralistic and say...
Condoms can solve this kind of problem because you've already thought about that 10 million times.
I understand that. I'm also not going to get moralistic and tell you that having sex with people you don't love can have really disastrous consequences because you've already thought of that 10 million times, right?
So the question is more specifically around what to do now?
Yes. All right. Well, I'm certain...
So I have... I mean, apparently I have no rights.
Apparently I have no rights now to protect myself from being prosecuted by the law.
Well, you have obligations.
Obligations based on your previous exercise of the right to have sex without a condom, right?
Right you you have the right to have sex with whoever you want to right and you have the right to not use a condom But if the girl gets pregnant, then you have obligations.
It's not to say that you don't have rights It is in fact the exercise of free rights, but I have obligations legally I I have obligations morally.
I have obligations philosophically.
What kind of obligations do I have?
The obligations you have now are legal, right?
There's no particular point talking about philosophical obligations because you're in a legal situation here now, right?
And legally, my understanding is that you are now going to be on the hook for child support, right?
Correct. Well, the thing is, there's updates on that, but I'm just trying to find out if there's a way to fight this.
Is there a way to make a court case out of it?
Is there a way to protect myself?
Well, obviously for that you need to talk to a lawyer.
I wouldn't even hesitate to guess as to whether or not that would be the case.
So your major objection is, what is your major objection to if the child is born?
Just step me through what your major objections are or what is particularly egregious to you.
Well, now that I have no control, now that the child is going to be born, and I do not want to be involved in the life of this child, I don't want to be That I can't be involved 100%.
Go on.
That's my issue.
If I can't control the life of my offspring, I don't want to be involved at all.
What do you mean, control the life of your offspring?
I'd rather disassociate myself.
I'd like the child to live with me.
I'd like him to be raised as an atheist, as an anarchist.
I'd like him to learn to play golf and speak my language and be part of my life.
Not part of the life of a West Virginian woman from the Appalachians who smokes cigarettes and has a family where her mother is divorced and her grandmother is divorced and all those things.
Because my parents have been married for 30 years.
There is no divorce in my family.
It's a very tight-knit, small group of people with different values.
Et cetera, et cetera. Sorry, go ahead.
We're just very highly educated, affluent, et cetera, et cetera.
Right, okay. Sorry, I could just hear a bit of a clacking or clicking noise on the line.
If you're not talking, if you could please mute, or if you are unmuted and talking to me, if you could try and make sure there's no background noise, that'd be great.
Okay. Sure.
Now, what do you think the child would prefer?
Oof. That's tough.
It's actually not that tough, but it may be tough emotionally.
It's not that tough intellectually.
I mean, what do I think the child would prefer?
I think...
What do I think the child would prefer?
All I know is I was raised by two parents who have been together for 30 years and love each other to the day and only think about the children.
That's the only thing I know.
And then I have my friends who have divorced parents And I know that they do drugs.
I know that they are not happy.
And I know that they're most likely going to divorce from their spouses in the future, statistically.
Right. And just by the by, I mean, just to throw a counter statistic in there, my parents split up when I was six months old.
I barely knew my dad.
And I'm very happily married and have never done drugs.
So, I mean, so, you know, it's not determined, right?
But the difference is, right, the difference, sorry, just let me interject before I go on, because I do want to hear your answer.
The difference is that I had the intervention of philosophy when I was a teenager, right?
So if you're not around for this kid's upbringing, then the kid's going to be raised by a woman you say is irrational, and he or she is not going to have any exposure to your, obviously, impressive cognitive and reasoning abilities, right?
If not necessarily the best sexual judgment, at least cognitive and reasoning abilities, right?
I mean, you may be, in fact, I would say that you very likely would be the only lifeline that this child would have to a more rational world if his mother is, as you say.
I'm not saying that makes any decision for you, I'm just saying it's a factor, right?
Yeah, I mean, it's true.
I mean, you would be the only rope going down that well, right?
Especially given where this child would be raised, which would be West Virginia.
Well, yeah, I don't want to malign all of East Virginia, but East Virginia, absolutely.
West Virginia, not so much. But you understand, right, that if you don't have any involvement in this child's life, then there are chances of achieving the rationality that you claim to possess, which you do, obviously, as it sounds like, with regards to philosophy and atheism.
That the odds of that child getting a hold of that will be much, much, much lower than if you are any part of that child's life.
Yes. Was there more to the question?
No, no. I just wanted to point...
So, as far as what the child wants, the child wants to have access to your philosophical abilities.
Does the child want that, though?
Absolutely. Yes.
Have you written about this?
Have you written about how within every child there is a philosopher wanting to come out?
Is that a fact now?
Do children like to be able to think and reason?
Absolutely they do. Look, again, I'm not claiming to be any kind of child expert here.
I mean, I was a child, I have a child, and I taught in a daycare, and I have nieces.
Whether you consider that to be enough, I find that children really like to think.
And my own personal standpoint is that because I was raised by a single, irrational mother, And the intervention of philosophy was a huge boon to me.
It's been a huge boon to a lot of the people who listen to this show who've written to me.
Whoever it was who got you into philosophy, since no one has invented it themselves, whoever it was who got you into philosophy did you a huge boon.
So it would seem kind of churlish to say, well, but there are kids out there who don't want to know how to think and reason for themselves.
But I guess what I could say to that, well...
One is that I don't think that every human being is introspective.
I think there's a lot of people that just because of their personality, they are not interested in thinking about things in a deeper way.
Absolutely. And look, if you're in the kid's life and then you find out that the kid hates philosophy and hates everything that you have to offer, then the kid won't want to see you and it'll be, you know, the problem will be solved, at least to some degree, right?
But you can't make that decision ahead of me.
That's true. But I don't have an obligation to teach this child.
Even though he is connected to me genetically, I don't have an obligation to teach him anything, right?
Well, that's a very complicated question.
I don't think that's something that can be easily resolved.
The kid is your kid, right?
I mean, forget the mom, right?
Forget the mom, because the kid is not responsible for the mom, right?
It's not responsible for you having sex with a woman you don't like without using a condom, right?
The kid is not responsible for anything, clearly.
It's a completely innocent party in the transaction, right?
That's why I don't want him to be born, so that he doesn't have to go through any of that agony of not having two parents that had him out of a loving relationship.
But by that logic, right, then people who aren't born into loving, stable parents, they should all want to die, right?
They should all want to commit suicide because life is just too terrible and we should make that decision for them, right?
No. Well, I don't know if I'd go that far.
But that would be the logical consequence, right?
That the agony of growing up in a non-stable parental family is so great that we should prevent these people from being born at all, right?
That's kind of eugenics, right?
Well, it sounds to me, though, that you were not involved in a custody battle.
You simply didn't know your father.
No, I knew my father.
I knew my father. I mean, I visited him.
He lived in Africa, and I did visit him for sure.
I would spend months sometimes with him.
I would also go and see him.
He would come to Ireland, where his family is in the summers, and I would spend some time with him there as well, so...
And he wrote me like every week.
I mean, so there was interaction of a kind.
And you love your father?
Do I love my father? No.
Okay. Are you bitter against your father in any way?
In any way? Well, I don't know.
I don't really sort of sit there and say, oh my God, I'm bitter.
I certainly do.
As I've become a father myself, I do find it somewhat incomprehensible that Someone can just move to another continent and see his kids very rarely.
I just can't imagine that.
I mean, my daughter, I mean, heaven forbid, anything happen between my wife and myself, I mean, I would move next door if I could, you know, and that would be my focus because she's just completely charming and absolutely wonderful and perfectly innocent of all that came before.
Now, do you think that a viable option, if you can't have that, would be to just not have any contact with the child?
I mean, that's been my conclusion.
My conclusion has been the best thing for this child is to just completely stay out of the child's life.
And how do you know that's the best thing for the child?
I mean, I don't know that that's the best thing for the child, but I think that's I mean, with my reasoning, I don't like the mother.
I don't want to even have to argue one second or not be able to train him in philosophy every day.
And so I don't want to confuse him if he's brought up religious by his mother or anything.
I think that the best thing would be to just stay completely out of his life, never initiate contact, And she told me she would do me the favor of not putting me on the birth certificate and not telling him about me.
Look, I mean, I feel for you in that it is a really, really tough situation.
Obviously, if you could go back to that Friday night, it would be a very, very different thing, right?
So, you know, there is...
I mean, how frank do you want me to be?
I mean, this is a question.
I can pussyfoot around, or I can give you my perspective for what it's worth, and it's just an opinion.
I can give it to you straight, and you can tell me why.
Give it to me straight.
These are my thoughts and completely amateur perspective and opinion, so take it for what it's worth.
Look, if your family, if your parents were so wonderful and loving and happy, why would you be making these decisions that you were making?
Right? Around sex with this woman when you didn't care without a condom, right?
So, look, I don't know.
Like, if a perfectly happy family produces you, who you say you're promiscuous and you're selfish and you have unprotected sex with women you don't like, if that's what a stable family produces, then divorce might not be so bad, right?
As far as how kids end up, right?
So, because you yourself said that you were selfish and obviously, you know, somewhat thoughtless about this matter and kind of greedy about A night of sex relative to, you know, kind of integrity to values, right?
So that would sort of be my first thing, is to say, you have an artificial dichotomy, in my opinion, between your perfect family and this woman's screwed up family.
But I'm telling you, if you're having sex with her, you can't claim to be superior to her.
In my opinion. No, no.
I don't.
I don't. Yes, you do, because you say her family is all messed up and your family is also together and healthy, right?
No, no, no, no. I'm sorry.
Let me clarify on that.
All I'm saying is what I would prefer the child to grow up in, since I don't know what the child wants, because you asked me that question a few times, since I don't know what the child wants and I don't know what the correct formula is, To a healthy childhood is, all I know is what I was raised with and that's what I prefer.
Of course I have a bias.
Okay. All right. Well, you listen to how you – I'm not going to argue this because you can listen to how you described your two different families and your perfect, wonderful, loving, self-sacrificing parents and her crazy divorced family.
And you can tell me whether there's any kind of neutrality into that.
You can email me after you listen to this, but I won't revisit that discussion because when you hear it again, I don't want you to keep making this argument because you'll feel really silly when you listen to this again, right?
So – And this is a horrible, difficult situation.
You're a young man.
You've got your man member caught in something kind of unpleasant from very challenging consequences.
And it is tough, because if you get involved in the child's life, and then you find out that the child really needs you and loves you and respects you, Then you obviously can't sustain the argument that it's better not to be in the kid's life, right? What was that last question?
Well, you can't sustain the argument that it's better not to be in the kid's life if you are in the kid's life and he or she really loves and needs and respects you.
Right. And the only way that you would be able to sustain the argument that the kid doesn't want you in his life is if you try to be in the kid's life and the kid doesn't want you in his life.
But that's the kid's choice to make, right?
I don't think you can make that choice for a child.
You're right. I guess, I mean, look, yes, I cannot make that choice for that child, but I can make my choice to associate with him or not, right?
Yes, but please don't tell me it's for the best interest of the child.
The best interest of the child is to have a father in his life.
Yes, but in my opinion, what's in the best interest of the child is to have the father who's there all the time.
Yeah, but so what?
We don't say, look, it's best to have a chef-cooked meal every night, and therefore I'm not going to eat a submarine sandwich, right?
I mean, nobody gets the perfect thing.
That doesn't mean we go from, we can't get 100%, and therefore the only option is 0%, right?
So if you can only get 50% of you, that's still a lot better than 0%.
It's not 100%, of course, right?
But it's better than 0%.
And how do I explain to him when I do marry a woman I love and have children who I give 100% to, how do I explain to him why he can't get 100% and these children can, these half-brothers of him?
Daddy was selfish. Daddy was short-sighted and he has 1,400 condoms.
Daddy was selfish or mother was irrational and wouldn't have an abortion?
You can't put this on her.
Right? It takes two to tango, my friend.
You know that, right? You can't say this is all her fault.
It's not my choice to have this child.
You had unprotected sex with a woman you didn't love.
Without being clear to her that when she wanted to get back together with you and without being clear to her that it was just sex for you.
I mean, you're not coming off lily white in this interaction.
And I don't mean this like you're a bad guy, right?
You can't put this all on her, right?
Mm-hmm. I mean, I know you want to, but that takes a burden off your emotions.
It's not reasonable. But the thing is, being an atheist, for me, it's completely...
Having the child is a choice.
For me, as an atheist, it's completely a choice.
That's my problem.
You know what I'm saying? Because for her, it's not a choice.
For her, it's murder. Sure.
And it's not murder for me.
And she was not religious when you had sex with her?
You know, she doesn't go to church anymore.
But sorry, was she an atheist when you had sex with her?
Was she an atheist? Yeah.
Oh, no. Right, so you had unprotected sex with a woman that you knew if she got pregnant that she was not going to want to have an abortion, right?
And again, I'm not trying to throw you under the bus or pin you to the wall here, if you understand.
I'm just trying to give you how it looks from the outside.
I'm not trying to say, and therefore you're a bad guy and blah, blah, blah.
I'm just pointing out the sort of circumstances.
Look, I understand where you're coming from, and if you remember being a young bachelor for...
Wait, let me cast my mind.
No, no, no. Yeah, yeah.
No, look, I understand.
I mean, look, condoms can break.
There's an unspoken understanding.
Oh, an unspoken understanding that she's on the pill?
An unspoken understanding that, I mean, unless explicitly, you know, spoken of, you know, yeah, she's on the pill, and every other girl has been on the pill, and I've had unprotected sex before, and there's been no issue.
But not since, right?
And look, this is bad luck to you.
One of your guys got past the goalie.
I mean, no question, that sucks relative to your life's goals and so on.
Clearly, you were in grade 7 health class, you know that this is a risk and you know that if you don't make it explicit and you don't find out for sure and this and that, and of course it's not just around pregnancy but STDs and this and that.
You know, I'm just going to be an old fart, boring guy.
Yes, I was a young bachelor.
And yes, I did not always end up in bed with people I was having perfectly long-term relationships with.
But, you know, you roll on the Michelin, right?
I mean, that's my suggestion because that obviously, okay, it's not quite as fantastic, but it's, you know, the downside of less sensation is greater than the downside of this, right?
Yeah. Right.
Now that I know what your opinion is about the child, I wanted to ask you, what do you think?
Do you think it's fair that if I have no involvement in the child's life, absolutely no visitation, I should be forced to pay for this child for his welfare?
You know, that's a really, really tough question.
I haven't really spent much time thinking about it, so I don't have...
A really clear, absolute answer.
I can tell you that I can see both sides of the argument very clearly.
I can certainly see that, look, if you want to have the kid and I tell you right up front I'm not going to be involved, then it becomes the woman's responsibility and she can make that choice of her own volition, knowing that the man's not going to be involved.
So I can certainly see that argument.
I come back to the kid, right?
Because it's obviously fundamentally and eventually it's not about you and her.
It's about this innocent child who's coming into the world without any moral responsibility for what came before.
And I think if we were to put aside your interests and the mother's interests and to look solely at what would be beneficial for the child...
It is beneficial for the child to have a father.
It is beneficial for the child to have the benefit of the additional financial resources that you, you know, may be forced to provide.
So if we only look at...
But I have no money.
I'm sorry? I have no income.
Well, but that will change, right?
Because if you're going to be a father, you have to have an income, right?
I mean, I can say I have to have an income, but we are in a recession, and I don't have a job.
Okay. Well, but, I mean, we're not talking about just this recession, right?
We're talking about the next 18 or 20 years, or college, 22, I don't know, right?
And again, look, I feel for you, this is a huge tree that's falling across your future, to say the least, right?
So I really do sympathize with the situation, right?
And there's probably a lot of guys who are listening to this who are, you know, wiping their foreheads saying, oh, my God, never again with the unprotected sex.
Right.
So, I mean, I really do sympathize with the challenges and difficulties of the situation.
And it's real easy for people to just say, oh, you know, bad guy, pay the money, blah, blah, blah.
But that's just to me, that's just jeering from the stands because when you're actually in this spotlight, it's a really, really tough situation to be in.
I mean, here's the facts.
We had unprotected sex for six months, and the day that she wanted to come back, after we had not seen each other for two months, she came back and that night she got pregnant.
That night was the night that she wasn't taking birth control, you know?
I don't want to be mean.
No, and look, I'm a little more in the trenches with you than Carste Gasper.
I hope that you sense, at least get, that I'm, although I'm certainly pointing out some of the moral realities, I mean, I hope you understand that I'm not just sitting here flinging stuff at you, right?
That I really do sympathize with the difficulties of this situation.
But as an anarchist, what do you think the fair thing is, as an anarchist?
Forget it. Separate yourself from your morals.
Ethically, should I be obligated to pay?
Look, I mean, the law is going to compel you to do stuff, right?
So there's no point talking about that.
The question is around you, right?
Now, I'm going to just give you two seconds of, again, purely bullshit, bullcrap, nonsense, amateur advice, right?
But you can take it for what it's worth, right?
Mm-hmm. The relationship that may exist is between you and your son.
Let's just say son so I don't have to do all this gender-neutral stuff, right?
It's going to be between you and your son.
Right now, you're focusing on your relationship with this woman, right?
Because you talk a lot about her, and I completely understand that.
But what's tough is that you have a historical relationship with With a woman that you don't obviously like very much at the moment, to say the least, right?
And that's overshadowing what you can't see right now, which is the relationship you can have with a child in the future, right?
Now, if you only focus on the disasters of the relationship with the woman, Then you're going to feel that it's all bad, right?
And you're just going to want to get away, right?
Right. But what I'm going to try to make a very brief case for is that you don't know whether your relationship with this child in the future might not be the best damn thing that ever happened to you.
You don't know that. Because you're judging the situation based on your relationship with the mom, right?
But you don't know.
Part of what I'm saying is, should you feel obligated, well...
If you do it out of obligation, it's not going to work, right?
Like, if you're just like, well, I'm court ordered to show up here and you drag the kid off to the zoo or something and sort of surly don't talk to them and drag them past the monkey cage and then throw them in the car and take them home, then, like, forget the obligation.
Forget the obligation.
Think about the possibilities.
Like, first of all, you're going to grow up in a hurry, right?
I mean, you're just going to have to, right?
I mean, this selfish thing, which again, I understand, right?
Early 20s and so on, right?
So there's going to be the benefit that you're going to take better care of where you drop your junk, right?
That's good, right?
You're going to have to accelerate growing up.
And look, people became fathers in their teens in the past.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility for this to occur, right?
You have, you know, a relationship with a child, and I say this as a completely besotted new dad, right?
The relationship. And I know it's not the same situation, so, you know, I'm not going to try and equate that.
But until you've held that baby, until you have, you know, smelled that baby, until you have seen that baby's fingers curl around your fingers, until you've seen that baby try to kiss you for the first time, until you felt that baby nestled up against and falling asleep until you felt that baby nestled up against and falling asleep on your chest, you just, you don't know what that is as But can't I get another chance?
Can't I get another chance to do that with another woman?
You will get another chance to do that with another woman.
Absolutely.
I'm talking about the child.
I'm not talking about you.
I'm not talking about the next mom.
I'm not talking about the mom to be now.
I'm talking about the child.
Right?
I'm not talking about your future.
I'm talking about your relationship with this child.
That it might be, like, I'm not trying to say you should get involved with this child's life because it's the right thing to do and you had sex and blah, blah, blah.
Because I know that stuff's not going to mean anything and that sure as hell doesn't make anyone into a good father, right?
What I'm trying to say is that, and I'm not going to convince you in this call.
I'm completely aware of that.
I'm just trying to creak this door open just a tiny little bit.
To say, what is the possibility that this could be the best thing for you?
I know, again, it's mind-blowing, right?
And maybe I'm completely wrong.
This is just my opinion.
I'm only putting it out as a possibility that this might be the best thing for you.
Because you might have a relationship with this child.
Look, not every parent is compatible perfectly with every child, and every parent has their favorite child, whether they like to admit it or not, for right reasons or for wrong reasons.
And maybe this is the child that you will actually have the most in common with.
Maybe this is the child that you will have the closest relationship with.
And maybe this is the child who will When that child grows up, if you do hang in there and do what you can in the situation, maybe this is the child who will say to you when she's old enough to understand, I really, really, really appreciate you not leaving me behind.
Not leaving me washed up in the crazy foothills of West Virginia with mom.
But thank you so much for dropping a rope down that well and pulling me to a better place.
And that may be the proudest thing that you do in your life.
Yeah. Or else she's...
Well, because I have this experience with my...
My uncle has this exact same situation.
He's got the bastard child who is full of tattoos and he's got no control over the kid's life and the kid's a mess.
Right, and you can talk to him and say, what did you do that was wrong that I could do better?
Oh, I don't know about telling family members about this situation.
I live with my parents at the moment, but I don't know if I should tell them, you know, if I decide to not ever have contact with this child, I don't think it would be a good idea to tell my parents what happened.
I mean, why spare them the grief, you know?
Oh, I mean, good heavens.
I mean, they're family, right?
I mean, look, again, this is just my opinion, right?
right?
I'm just some guy on the internet.
So don't take anything I say with any solidity.
But I mean, good heavens, I tell you, if my daughter ever got into this kind of trouble, I would want to know.
Yeah.
I might tell my father, I might tell him, He's one of my best friends, so I might tell my father, but I don't know about telling my mother she's a grandmother.
yeah I mean I mean I think that you need to tell your parents because of the wisdom that they will have that they can see that you don't have because you're not a parent right and again I know when I was not a parent that people would tell me that and it's completely annoying and I totally oh you don't know you're not a parent I know it's annoying but they will have incredible things to bring to your perspective on this issue as people who've raised children now
I don't know what those perspectives will be but I think that they have a lot to offer you in this in this situation can I tell you what happened with my conversations with the mother with What my ignorant 22-year-old perspective brought out of this so far?
Your conversations with your mother about what?
No, no, no. With this woman who I'm having a child with.
What happened? So she called me and she told me.
And first, of course, I was in disbelief.
So I thought she was lying to me.
And you are going to get a paternity test, right?
Pardon? You aren't going to get a paternity test.
I mean, I figured that was obvious, right?
I just wanted to mention it. No, I was not going to get a paternity test.
I would... No, what actually...
Actually, what happened was that I told her that I wanted nothing to do with the child.
This is my first reaction.
And I told my best friend, and my best friend said, you've got to...
You've got to nip this in the bud.
You've got to either convince her to have an abortion, or if you can't do that, have nothing to do with the child.
And I completely agree.
This was my first instinct.
So I told her I wanted nothing to do with it, and she told me that was fine.
And then she ended up calling me and telling me that she was going to force me to pay child support.
And eventually, three days later, I called crying to her, and she told me that I would not have to Pay child support as long as I could chip something in once in a while and at least see the child once.
And then today, just a few hours ago, she called me while I was at the gym and she called me and she said, here's the deal.
I'm going to let you choose right now.
Do you want to have a future with this child?
If not, you can be completely absolved.
I will not write your name in the birth certificate.
I will not be seeking child support as long as you promise not To reach out in the future.
Right. That made me feel a lot better.
That was like a godsend to me.
Right, right. Sure, I mean, I can get why you would feel that way.
I don't mean to sound cold or anything, but...
Right. Of course, the problem is that a week has passed, or, you know, five days has passed, and I've been preparing for...
Having to do something with this child.
So now I don't know how I live with what I had to prepare for in five days to now I've been absolved.
So now it's, you know, but I told her, okay, I don't want you to put my name on the birth certificate.
And I told her I would not be contacting her or the child.
Well, we might still keep in contact, but not I and the child.
She has plans on finding another man I mean, yes, but considering I was on Twitter and I saw Anarchy RSS post that you were doing your radio show, and I respect your opinion, I thought I'd call in and Right, no, and I appreciate that.
We've got two and a half minutes left, because the show, unfortunately, is going to end on blog talk at six.
But listen, obviously, I think you need to talk to your parents about this.
I really do. And I don't think you want to just talk to one parent, because if your parents are 30 years married and close, you can't have a big secret with one and not the other.
So talk to your parents, and for heaven's sake, please, dear God, Talk to a therapist before you make any final decisions about this stuff.
Go and talk to somebody who's got some expertise in this.
There's a lot of facts about children who grow up without fathers that you need to get a hold of so you can make an informed decision about whether you want to be in contact at all because it's going to have an effect on the health of the child mentally.
So talk to a therapist who's got some experience with these kinds of stuff.
Even if you end up doing the same thing, at least talk to an expert about this kind of stuff so that you can get the facts about what the decisions that you're making, the effects that they're likely to have on the child, if that makes any sense.
What about bi-mental health?
Well... That's something that talking to a therapist will help with, right?
The therapist will be able to balance or have some experience in balancing these kinds of issues.
In my opinion, your mental health is simply less important than the mental health of the child.
Why? Because she's the innocent party.
The child is the innocent party, and you are not an innocent party in this.
This doesn't mean that you're a bad guy, or that I think that you're a nasty person in any way, shape, or form, but the child is the innocent party in all of this.
And you did get involved with this woman, and you did have unprotected sex with this woman, and she did get pregnant, So when you say, well, what about me?
You're still not an innocent party relative to the child who's coming into the world.
But that's, I think, something for a therapist to talk about with.
And I hope that you will at least accept that possibility to go and talk to someone.
This is a huge decision, and you don't want this to haunt you in the future.
Okay. All right? And I hope you don't feel like I'm just, you know, launching all kinds of moralistic cannons at you.
I mean, I really do feel for the situation.
I just hope that you will talk to someone, including your parents, but I think talk to a therapist about this.
I think it's really, really important because this kind of stuff can stick with you in a way.
Like, you may feel relief on getting out, but you are an intelligent and imaginative fellow.
It will be hard not to picture this child in the future and to wonder what's going on.
Right. Yeah.
I mean, I was just planning on keeping tabs and not contacting and just seeing what happens and watchful eye.
And also talk to a lawyer.
Maybe what she's talking about has no legal validity, right?
She may say, don't, don't, don't, right?
But talk to a lawyer and say, well, does this have to be in writing?
Does she have to sign away all rights?
Does she have to, I mean, because just, you know, hearsay over the phone doesn't mean anything, right?
I mean, oh, people can decide anything they want in private, but it's what the law decides that really matters.
Ten seconds. Anyway, I'm sorry, we've got to cut the call short.
I really do appreciate you bringing this matter up with me.
I hope that I've been of some help at least.
Yes. Thank you very much.
All right. Best of luck. And if you do ever figure this stuff out, or even if you don't, if you could drop me a line and keep me posted, I really would like to know what happens.
Absolutely. All right. Thank you so much.
I appreciate you bringing this up.
I know it was very difficult, and thank you so much.
Thank you. All right. Take care.
Bye-bye. Well, I think that's all we have for the blog talk.
We only booked it for two hours.
If anybody had any particular comments, feel free to come to the Freedom Aid Radio chat room.
Give me your Skype number. We can continue there.
But I think that's it for blog talk.
And thank you so much to James for allowing us to use this great resource.
And we can have other comments as we like.
Thank you.
We have time for calling.
We have time for comments.
Or maybe people just want to digest for a little bit and we'll stop the call right now.
Also, somebody can try calling if we like 347-633-9636.
You can try calling that to see if we can take the call or whether that's been shut down by a blog talk.
Alright, last call for questions.
Last call for questions.
Let me just type that in here.
Last talk questions.
I would like to appreciate that.
I really do appreciate this guy bringing this topic up.
It is a very, very tough topic to talk about, and it's very complex, and it has all kinds of legal, moral, familial, relational dimensions.
So I just wanted to thank you for bringing it up, and I hope that you will keep us posted about what happens.
All right. Well, I think everybody is staring open-mouthed at their screens and not talking to me.
So I think we will sign off on the show for today.
Thank you so much for dropping by and for participating in this.
And we did try earlier to have a technical test where we had video streaming as well as audio, but we were unable to get all of the sound working in just a minute.
The way that we wanted.
So we would perhaps try for that next week.
This is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
Thank you so much for listening. I look forward to donations.
Freedomainradio.com.
And for those who have been pestering me, and rightly so, about the Philadelphia monster Badnarik Molyneux debate, how much government is necessary, the audio should be out within a day.
It has been cleaned up to a near shiny perfection.
And I sound a little bit less like a Cylon and a little bit more like Lord Vader, which is really where I was trying to come from.
Oh, we do have one gentleman who has a question, if it's not too long.
Jimmy. Okay.
Can you hear me, Steph? Arr. Okay.
It goes back to the gentleman that called earlier about free.
And... My thoughts on this is that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Although you rely on people donating to you to run your show, let's say for argument's sake you were not in the relationship that you are with your wife and you were doing this and all of a sudden the donations stopped you.
Coming in. You mentioned earlier that you have, you know, lots of money that you have to put out in order to pay for servers, cameras, you know, computer equipment, and stuff like that.
What would you do then?
I would get a job and continue to pay for it out of my own pocket.
Okay. But it wouldn't make it free, obviously, right?
Right. I think that's what the caller, the impression that I got from him was alluding to, that You know, certain circumstances like yourself does allow you to produce what you produce right now for free because you have listeners that, you know, willingly donate to your show and you are able, from those donations, to do what you do.
But if you did not, Yes, but I think that if people weren't going to donate, they probably wouldn't buy, right?
Well, you could have people that donate and it's not necessarily those donations that actually make enough money for you to live your life, your lifestyle that you're accustomed to or even a lesser lifestyle, whichever – whichever lifestyle you choose to live.
If you just want to get by in life – If you don't have enough of those donations, what I'm trying to say is that you would have to, like you said, go and get a job somewhere, or you would have to start charging for your services of providing the information that you provide.
Right, and of course that's how it started, right?
Right.
I mean, I did the show for quite some time before I even ended up asking for donations.
And it really came out of listener suggestions that that became the case.
And even then, for quite some time, I continued to have a full time job while working on this show on the side.
So that's how it sort of started.
And then when I took the decision to come full time, it was I mean, it sort of worked out in a way.
It's been worked out in many ways, but it really was jumping, jumping off a cliff and hoping somebody was going to throw me a parachute because it wasn't enough to live on when I went full time.
But then I worked very hard, particularly in the writing of books.
We were stuck around situations of particularly ethics and relational issues and to some degree determinism.
We're stalling the show continually and that's why I worked so hard on the books that I wrote to help move the conversation forward.
But I wouldn't have been able to do that if I'd still been working at a full-time job.
So it starts off that way and then once you realize that people are willing to donate, then you can make the leap to full-time.
So it was a risk but still I think a somewhat measured risk.
I think it's great that you are able to provide the service and information that you provide to people for free.
In essence, on the fact that people volunteer their money to you to do that.
And, you know, the concept and the idea behind it, you know, is great.
But I think that what some people, some people, how they perceive that is that, and I think that's what the gentleman was trying to allude to, is like that people shouldn't expect certain things to be free.
Well, sure, absolutely. I mean, it is very much against the universality of the philosophy that I talk about that people should expect other people to pay for them, right?
I mean, I'm all about universal values.
And of course, if people who don't donate say, well, donation is bad, but the show only exists because other people do donate, then they fundamentally don't get universal values to begin with.
So I hope that's just a stage that people are going through.
They look at the show as a kind of entertainment and at some point they really get it or not, right?
I just don't think that the gentleman understood the way that you were explaining it to him that people are donating in order for you to offer this service and your podcasts and your books for free.
I think he was thinking that now it becomes expected.
Oh, expected that it's free?
Yes. The things like healthcare.
I mean, you know, it could be now led to believe that, oh, you know, Stefan Molyneux, because he gives stuff away for free, now advocates that, even though you don't, now advocates that healthcare should be free based on the backs of other people.
Do you get where I'm going with this?
Well, yeah, but I think that...
And that's not true. I know that's not true.
You're able to do this And you volunteer your services for free because you have people that support you.
And I don't think that came across to the gentleman in that way.
No, I agree. But what I would say is that I think the healthcare system would be a hell of a lot better if the doctor didn't charge you, but you just paid what you thought his or her services were worth after you got better.
Then I think that's the free model.
Right? Because the way that this works is like, hey, take what you want and pay me the value that you find it.
And some people find it very valuable and a lot of people don't want to pay because they still don't get what we're talking about, right?
And that's okay. But can you imagine how great healthcare would be if...
was never guaranteed payment but had to be so incredibly great and solicitous and helpful and positive and give such great follow-up that we just like damn I'm gonna tip this guy cuz he's so great right that would be great healthcare imagine how much better and more innovative movies would be if there was a donation box on your way out and they had to just blow your mind if they wanted to get you to donate that
That would just cause people to become so amazingly creative and innovative in a way that I hope that this show at least approaches from time to time.
I love this model of this.
It demands such creativity and innovation and such a continual escalation in the provision of value.
I'd love to see more situations.
The reason it doesn't ever occur in healthcare, of course, is because there's a doctor's monopoly and the reason it doesn't occur in the Postal services because whatever, whatever, right?
I mean, I just, I like the model as a whole because I think it really does put the power in the hands of the consumer.
It requires the producers to just blow their brains out with creativity.
Well, I think that would be okay if you weren't indebted yourself.
I mean, if you were a doctor and you bought all this equipment and the, you know, the companies that you bought it from, you know, they allowed you to buy it on credit and, you know, you were paying for this every month and then every patient that you had You know, you said to him, okay, I'm gonna treat you for cancer and Six months from now, I'm going to have you definitely cured and you pay me then.
I mean... Yeah, but do you imagine how much greater...
I mean, I agree with you. In some situations, it probably wouldn't be very feasible.
But just imagine...
What if you put a dollar in the till?
You know, and said, there you go.
You've cured me. Right. Here's what I thought that was.
Absolutely. And because the doctor would know that, he'd have to be so great that you'd really want to give him money because it would just be like, thank you so, so much for everything you've done.
Right? I mean... I started out as a waiter where I got almost no money except for tips.
You just had to be a great waiter.
You had to be really friendly.
You had to be really positive.
You had to make people's mealtimes enjoyable.
A couple of jokes, a compliment, and make their mealtime a really great experience.
And they then paid me after the fact.
They didn't do it ahead of time.
And again, I'm not saying this works with every conceivable model.
But just imagine how great your doctor would have to be if that was the model.
And again, maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, but I'll tell you, it sure as hell works for me.
It does work for you, and I'm very grateful that you do have these loyal supporters that do donate to you and are able to keep you doing what you are doing.
This is fantastic.
You know, it's so wonderful that, you know, I want to try and help and...
I mean, you're donating, right?
You've given me great help with this technical stuff.
I mean, and no one's making you do it.
You just, you know, like the conversation, right?
So... I like it because of the message.
I mean, at the end of the day, there's a message here.
And it's trying, you know, trying to get people to have the ability to reason...
And to understand about the difference between living in a controlled society versus one where you're free to do basically what you want, providing you don't use force and fraud against others.
And what you're doing is, like I said, it's fantastic, and I want to help.
Market this message to get more people to come and listen and to get you in more debates with people because the debate where the guy called in was fantastic and the other people on the Skype that called in.
It's fantastic, the involvement here.
Yeah, and we had 3,000 to 5,000 people watching the debate in Philadelphia online and there'll be even more once the video is up.
Yeah, it's a great model and it's getting philosophy out to a wider audience than it's ever been out to before.
But philosophy, in terms of its practical applications to one's life, is such a new concept that people simply won't pay for it ahead of time, I just don't think, because they don't see the benefit for quite some time after they start.
Anyway, excellent, excellent points.
Yeah, somebody said it works in music.
Radiohead released an album that way.
Monty Python recently just said, okay, everybody's been stealing from us for years and putting our stuff on YouTube.
We'd really appreciate it if you'd buy X, Y, and Z. And they shot up in the Amazon sales to the top 10 or something like that.
Of course, I'm able to live fairly comfortably on the generosity of the listeners and the value of In bringing stuff to people who wouldn't otherwise have access to philosophy.
It's very interesting. I won't go any further until I've read this book because I've been meaning to read it for a while.
Linux is another example, of course, of a free...
I use Audacity for my podcast.
That's completely free. There's a bunch of other freeware software that I use, which I will donate to from time to time.
It's just an interesting alternate model.
I certainly think that we would be much further along that path if it wasn't for statism, but that's perhaps a conversation for another time.
All right. All right.
Well, thank you, everybody.
I really do appreciate your time.
And again, sorry about the delay in getting the Philly audio.
I was listening to a bit of it last night.
It's a damn good debate.
So I hope that you will get a chance to listen to it and...
I hope that I represented the Thought Tang clan relatively well.
So thank you everybody so much for listening.
Have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful week, my darling.
Beautiful, wonderful, brilliant listeners.
▲
Export Selection