Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 29, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:57:14

1519 Freedomain Radio Sunday Show Nov 29 2009

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, everybody.
	It is Stéphane Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio, the 29th of November, 2009.
	And thank you so much for joining this Sunday afternoon, dark, dim, and grisly, like a nightmare out of a Charles Dickens Christmas ping-pong ball.
	Here in Canada, perhaps sunnier and nicer when you are.
	Judging from the new Freedom Aid Radio listener map on the new website, it looks like there are some people who are enjoying sunnier climbs.
	Than I as we head into the dark shark mullet nore of winter up here in Canada.
	So I hope that you've had a chance to have a look at the new website and enjoy it.
	And thank you again so much to the people who helped out in getting it up and running and maintaining it.
	It's been doing beautifully.
	We've had almost no errors.
	And I'm very, very pleased with it.
	So thank you everybody so much.
	The map, if you're wondering where it is, it is at freedomainradio.com.
	On the left-hand side, there's a listener map where people who are registering have the option to put down their geographical location so you can get some sense of where people are.
	And we may optionally be adding a way to communicate with people who may be in your neighborhood who enjoy philosophy as much as you and I. So I hope that you will avail yourself of that.
	That feature should be up there shortly.
	Other new features...
	When you click on a podcast, you will have a chance to leave comments and rate it if you like.
	And if people do end up rating stuff, I may float rather than have the newest ones at the top.
	I may end up floating the most recommended.
	All right. Well, I don't really have much to say, I guess.
	Oh, I guess, well, other than a little bit of boring parenting updates.
	The beast. It walks and it talks.
	It's really, really just been an amazing, amazing week.
	In the Molyneux household, Izzy started using words about three weeks ago.
	She is 11 and a quarter months old and she started using words about three weeks ago.
	She is now up to 15 words that we have counted, which she knows and understands.
	It's like she'll ask for something or she'll point to something and know what it is.
	It's just mind-blowing that she can actually say I want to play with the ball by going, ball, ball, ball, ball, over and over again, much like I do when I'm hungry.
	It's really just amazing.
	Of the 15 words, the ones I'm most impressed with is the one that, when she points at daddy, fatuous.
	I think that's really, really quite an advanced word for somebody her age to know.
	So she's talking, which is, it's just this first opening of the window into her mind, which I've been waiting for.
	To get to for these many months.
	She's slightly ahead of schedule, I suppose.
	I don't really know much to compare it with, but it seems to me that way.
	And it's a perfect thrill.
	And she is starting to talk.
	And she's starting to walk.
	She's done a total of 12 steps in a row before gracefully swan diving to the ground.
	And it is just fascinating to see the level of persistence and pleasure that she takes in the expansion of her skills.
	And it's also very interesting.
	To me, at least. To see the degree to which she imitates.
	Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness.
	So when I take a sip of coffee or a drink, I will often go, ah, afterwards.
	And I didn't realize for a day or two that she was imitating that as well.
	So she really is sponging up and imitating.
	And the degree to which, I guess, toddlers are a mirror of who you are is quite moving to me.
	It's beautifully moving. And it's beautiful and interesting to see the degree to which she is a mirror, to some degree, of who you are and reflects back to you, in a sense, I think, your true self.
	Because, of course, babies, they don't care how educated you are.
	They don't care how tall you are.
	They don't care how nice your hair looks.
	They don't care whether your teeth are white.
	They don't care, really, about any of these things.
	They only care whether your heart is as wide open as a rational cathedral to them.
	And that's really... Really all that is necessary.
	And that is really a beautiful thing to see.
	All right. Well, that's it for me.
	Unless we have the massive staring at the toes gap from the listener population, this is your show to bring up your comments, your issues, your problems.
	You can tell me what you think about the website.
	You can tell me how many times you voted for Freedom Aid Radio in the podcast.
	It's really cool to be up for people's choice.
	I wasn't expecting that.
	And it certainly is better than the alternative.
	Which is being up for Dolphin's Choice, which would require that I do an even higher pitched and squealier podcast than I do right now.
	And that is, that would even for me be a challenge.
	So this is the time for you to speak.
	speak if you have questions if you have issues problems sprecken ze up well just while we're waiting for people to speak somebody commented in the chat window I posted a picture of Izzy with with Santa and they said oh my goodness I can't believe you introduced her to Santa And I'm sure that was a joke, but it's, yeah, of course.
	I mean, and I read her stories about Rapunzel and Rumpelstiltskin and so on, which is not to believe that, you know, seven dwarfs will take care of a saucy, black-haired woman.
	But it is interesting.
	I do want to expose her to issues of fantasy and make-believe and magic and all those wonderful things.
	But I'm not going to tell them to her as if they're true.
	I'm going to tell them to her As a story.
	I think that to me would be the way to go.
	It's a fun story.
	It's an enjoyable story. But I'm not going to tell her that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
	If she says, does Santa Claus exist?
	Or when she does ask, is Santa Claus real?
	The purpose for me would not be to give her the answer any more than the purpose for any teacher would be to give a student the answer.
	It would be an opening, I think, for a wonderful, wonderful conversation about what's real and what's not real.
	You know, he's in pictures. Well, everything that's in pictures is real.
	Well, you know, there was a Santa Claus at the mall.
	It's like, well, that may be true, and certainly people did call him Santa.
	But when people dress up on Halloween, do they actually turn into witches and goblins?
	No, they just put costumes on.
	And it's a fun thing to do.
	And does that mean that you actually, like, if I put on a pair of wings, can I fly?
	No. Well, it's just a pair of wings, right?
	So costumes don't change really who you are.
	And so it's really just getting her to To reason through the questions.
	You know, does he deliver goods to children?
	Well, could he do it at that speed?
	Could he go down chimneys or other themes?
	You know, every house at night, where would he get the money?
	Where does he buy it from? And so on, right?
	I mean, it would just be ways of asking her questions that I think would be a lot more fun.
	Than telling her, wow, there's no such thing as Santa Claus.
	It'll just get her to think through it herself.
	That to me would be a lot of fun.
	Hello. Hello.
	I've been trying to think this over, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it.
	I learned something about myself a few days ago.
	About this feeling that I... Well, I don't know, but I have a theory that I have looked for relationships to make myself feel as if I exist.
	That you look for relationships to make you feel that you exist, is that right?
	Yeah. Go on.
	And I think that's because my parents neglected me as a child.
	Maybe as an infant.
	And like, just for, let's see, an example.
	An example.
	I really hated, like, when I was younger, like an older kind of teen or something, a kid, I was really big on loyalty to my friends.
	There was this big thing about not wanting to be left or abandoned or deserted by other people.
	And I didn't want to do it to them, and I didn't want them to do it to me.
	Does that make any sense?
	Yeah, it makes sense to me, but go on.
	Okay.
	And with my friends back then, the way that we stayed loyal, which, you know, to get that effect you know, to get that effect of loyalty, we, it was, there was like this thing, like, like don't change you know we had to stay the same
	um uh i think i had some other thoughts but um Sorry, can you tell me a bit more about what don't change means?
	Don't change, like...
	We liked the same music and it provoked a lot of anxiety in me when at one point one of my friends started getting into other kinds of music because I guess that was one of the ways we sort of bonded was through the music artists and songs that we liked.
	Right, right. And so when her interest changed and she made that visible, I got really anxious and I thought that she didn't like me as much anymore.
	She didn't want to be my friend anymore.
	Things like that. Right.
	So the loyalty was not, in a sense, to intimacy or personhood or principles, but the loyalty was to a kind of conformity that if somebody broke out of that conformity, it threatened the sort of collective identity of the people who were In a sense, clinging together in this way.
	Is that a fair way to put it?
	Right. And it was all about just staying together.
	That's it.
	What do you mean? Just staying together.
	Because I really hated it, being left...
	So, sorry, when you say it was all about staying together, you mean that it was about spending time together or having the same interests?
	I'm just trying to understand what you mean by staying, it was all about staying together.
	No, staying together, like, just, you know, not leaving.
	Sorry, but I'm trying to figure out what that means in real-world practical terms.
	Does that mean not leaving each other's houses, not leaving a playground?
	What does that mean in sort of practical terms?
	I guess not leaving the relationship.
	Okay. Okay.
	Okay. I think I understand. And was there more that you wanted to add?
	Would you like some feedback on that?
	What would be best for you?
	I'd like some feedback.
	Yeah. Right.
	Well, my understanding is that the studies seem to show that the more insecure the attachment between parent and child, the less the child explores.
	The more a child feels paralyzed, the more insecure the child, and the more separation anxiety or stranger anxiety the child has.
	I don't know if you've ever read, but you might want to do some reading on that kind of stuff.
	That's just my understanding of it, so please look into more detail.
	You can find a lot of really great information out there about...
	It's usually called attachment disorder.
	It is when there's not a proper bonding or intimacy between usually mother and child.
	And it has a huge amount of effects upon the child's development.
	And I think it can go one of both ways.
	And I'm not sure why it goes one way or the other.
	But I know that for myself...
	I did go through a bit of a phase of that...
	And it would be to do with the fact that my brother, if I wasn't there, my brother would often talk about what a great time was had.
	And so he kind of painted this big portrait of how, you know, everything's a beer commercial whenever you're not there.
	But then when it would go somewhere, it would be a lot less fun.
	I went to a little bit more towards, I preferred to be on my own.
	I preferred, I found other kids, very often as a kid, I found it very stressful.
	I found it, and I'm actually re-experiencing some of that.
	When I go to the library with Isabella and I see these, I mean, the kids are just wild.
	They're just banging and running and, you know, it seems to me at least that there's no connection or little connection with their parents other than the parents issuing a steady stream of don't do this, don't do that, do this, don't do that.
	There have been some exceptions.
	There was one guy the other day who was there who was an oriental dad who was actually a really nice guy who was down there with his kid and she and Isabella interacted a little bit and the guy kept her safe.
	But I'm just constantly having to run blocking guard against these kids careening around with the baby.
	And she loves it there so I want to take her there.
	But it sort of reminds me just I found children overwhelming for the most part.
	I found them You know, dangerous, you know, like a wolf cub that's just on the edge of puberty.
	It's like fun to play with, but you're just not sure if you're ever going to lose an arm, right?
	So that was sort of my...
	So I found it generally less stressful to be alone.
	And of course, like a lot of people in my sort of situation, I took refuge in books and drawing and fantasy and games and so on.
	You know, that typical, I have tuberculosis or I'm a traumatized child, so I get a rich imagination kind of stuff that I think is fairly common.
	But you're right. Some people, of course, do go to clinging to others.
	And that does provide a temporary relief, but it's very restrictive, right?
	It's very conformist. And it's very hard to grow in that kind of really tight embrace.
	I actually have a kind of hybrid because I grew up that way, the way you said.
	But I always wanted at least one friend that I could be really close with.
	Or that I thought I would be really close with.
	Just somebody. And to have more than...
	More than a few friends, it's really stressful, just the idea for me.
	It still is. Right, right.
	Yeah. I'm sorry to interrupt, but it just struck me and tell me if this is the case for you as well.
	Because I think this, I'm trying to figure out, I'm not sort of trying to say our experiences are the same, we are one, but I'm just trying to make sure I sort of understand or try to empathize with where you were based on some things that happened to me.
	I know it sounds a little bit like I'm trying to sort of talk about my stuff, but you can tell me if it fits with you at all.
	When I was in England, after I was in boarding school, I was in public school and then we moved to Canada.
	For the couple of years that I was in public school, I think 8 to 11, or 9 to 11, I wrote a lot of stories and my language skills were very advanced.
	And so I was sort of hived off from the class as a whole.
	And another guy who was also very advanced was...
	I was hived up with me and we were sort of given our own little area in the in the in the paint sort of section in the art section at the back of the class where we could sort of read books because we were just so bored with the stuff that everything everyone else was reading we were reading like I don't know three or four grades ahead and whatever and and this guy this kid's name was Bruce and and I thought we were pretty close I mean you know we basically it was he and I in our own little classroom reading and writing and you know we sort of got to know each other and chatted and so on it's actually quite nice And then at one point,
	you know, we were given books to read and I just said, you know, I'd like something more challenging.
	I read this years ago and so I think the teacher got a little upset maybe at our precociousness or my precociousness, I suppose.
	And she advanced. She said, okay, read this, you know, and it was really, it was a tough, it was a tough read.
	It was pretty advanced. Actually, it was very advanced, and we were supposed to write a book report on it.
	It seemed a little punitive, and I was a little surprised, but I actually ended up really enjoying the book.
	I can't even remember what it was.
	And this Bruce, the Bruce kid, you know, after this has been like six months, we've been in this little classroom together pretty much, reading and chatting and all that.
	He got really mad at me because I had said that I was bored with the stuff we were getting.
	And he got really mad at me. And he's like, well, why did you bring that up?
	Now we've got this stupid book report to write.
	And he got really huffy. And he didn't talk to me for the rest of the year almost.
	And I found it really, really surprising that you could feel like you had these relationships.
	But... If something happened that displeased the other person, it was like, wham!
	Like a decapitation, like a guillotine of any kind of cord between you.
	And I found that to be really surprising, and that made me quite cautious and shy, those experiences.
	This is just the one that I came up with.
	I could think of quite a few others, but...
	Yeah. That kind of reminds me of recent relationships where the person...
	For whatever reason, I haven't figured it out, you know.
	But they just, like, they get mad and they want to leave.
	I mean, they don't want to, like, leave the relationship, but they'll stop talking to me.
	Well, to me, that's leaving the relationship.
	I mean, the only... Do you know what I mean?
	Oh. Like, if this kid and I, we didn't have a friendship anymore.
	In fact, it was really...
	Instead of it being kind of pleasant, it was actually really uncomfortable.
	I wanted to go back into the regular classroom because sitting alone with this happy kid, I mean...
	The degree to which he just got mad and then held on to this grudge.
	Like, you know, you think it's going to fade away after a day or two and you'll be best buds again or whatever.
	But I just found that this kind of stuff, that relationships, no matter how much you invested in them, it was like, you know, it was like pouring sand into a bucket with no bottom.
	You know, it would go right through.
	You keep pouring stuff in, pouring stuff in, and it would never fill up.
	You'd never build up any capital anymore.
	In the relationship, because when the other person would get upset, it would be just like, bam!
	Like, it was like you're dead to me now, you know, you get that food on both cheeks or something, and I just found that to be terrifyingly common, and to me, that indicated a lot of, you know, what I would now call attachment disorders, you know, again, just as an amateur, but I think that is very common, and that has, as you're right, that has very big and powerful and terrifying effects on adult relationships, right?
	What happens if Do something that someone disagrees with.
	Does it just completely hit the wall?
	Does it atomize?
	I mean, it's very strange, right?
	Yeah. And I'm like on the opposite end of that particular spectrum.
	When a person does that, I have this real strong, like freaking strong urge to just go to them and be like, please, can I talk to you kind of thing.
	And like, since I learned RTR, it's...
	I'll say, you know, how I feel and stuff.
	But I get really, like, panicky, you know?
	Desperate, kind of. And I've always kind of had that with people who have left.
	Because it has happened a lot.
	And I don't know.
	I haven't figured that out, you know?
	What do you think about that?
	That side? Sorry, you mean the panicky, the desperation?
	What do you mean? Yeah, like, yeah.
	It's like I don't accept that it's over.
	Right, right.
	Well, I think, I certainly, I think I understand that desperation.
	You know, you have a friendship that's been chugging along for a while, and something happens that displeases the other person, and suddenly you're like, Persona non grata.
	They don't return calls.
	And I think it does create a kind of desperation.
	I think it does. And the desperation is, A, don't be that kind of person to me, right?
	I've earned better treatment than this, I think is a reasonable thing to say to a friend.
	Like, I've earned better treatment than this cold shoulder, this immature, not working things out.
	And so I think there's that kind of desperation.
	Like, don't be this kind of person. There's the desperation because you've invested a lot in a friendship.
	And to have it sort of atomized over, you know, generally fairly minor quibbles, I think is tragic.
	And it is, you know, if a friend vanishes, you've lost a lot of resources that you've invested in a relationship.
	So there is this kind of desperation.
	Like if they wander off with $50,000 of yours, you'd feel pretty desperate about that too.
	Yet, of course, there's been a lot of investment in the friendship.
	And it's not like that doesn't pay off in the time, but you invest in a friendship hoping that it's going to grow.
	And, you know, with any luck, we all grow together and, you know, you know each other forever.
	Yeah. So I do think that there is a kind of desperation because of the investment that is revealed to be non-existent.
	Like you think you've been building a house, but you've just been building a house of cards, and then a slight breeze brings it all down.
	I think there is that kind of desperation.
	And I think there is also, when you've had it happen a couple of times, or a number of times, there's a desperation like, I don't want to really find out that I'm living in this world now.
	Of really tenuous, quote, relationships.
	Because that means I have to be frightened of everything my whole life.
	Of offending someone, of two friends having a conflict, of putting my foot wrong, of saying something wrong.
	I'm just going to end up being paranoid about people getting upset and offended and wandering off or stalking off or storming off for the rest of my life.
	And that's, you know, very much like my childhood.
	And so I don't want to continue to live in this dysfunctional, foo-based planet.
	For the rest of my life, so please don't confirm that possible thesis.
	I mean, I would feel that level of desperation as well, if that makes any sense.
	Yeah, I can totally relate to all of that.
	Sorry, I don't want to keep talking.
	Please go ahead. I don't know what else to say right now.
	Go ahead. Well, I mean, I think my silly theory is that, I mean, it has to do with parenting styles.
	And, you know, I may do some podcasts on this, so I'll just touch on it briefly here.
	But, you know, basically, most people parent with the paradigms of punishment and reward, right?
	Like, I will punish my child if she does something I don't like, and I will reward my child if she does something that I like.
	And that to me is bad parenting.
	It's bad, bad parenting.
	And it doesn't matter how mild the punishment and rewards are.
	I mean it does obviously to some degree, but it doesn't fundamentally matter how mild the punishment and rewards are.
	I think anything which you would use to train a bear to dance or a dog to stand on its hind legs is not appropriate as a way to instruct the growing tender young mind of a rational animal like a human being.
	We should not use dog training techniques With human children, that's just not appropriate.
	We don't feed them in a bowl on the floor, we don't put collars on them, and we should not teach them with punishments and reward systems that are more appropriate to animals.
	So I think that people are in this punishment and reward system, and that punishment and reward system fundamentally is around the exercise of power on the part of the parents.
	And the problem, of course, is that system only works as long as the child is dependent upon the power of the parent, right?
	So when the child gets older and the child no longer relies upon the parents for punishments and rewards, then the teenager is going to turn around and give punishments and rewards back to the parents.
	Now the teenager has growing power and independence and so he's been taught that the way you deal with conflicts is punishments and reward and you exercise power over another human being in order to, quote, Negotiate or solve problems.
	It doesn't solve any problems, of course.
	But the punishment and reward system is just wretched.
	It's appropriate to animals and it is entirely inappropriate to adults.
	And the reason that I'm bringing this up is that one of the most fundamental punishments that a child can receive is the threat of the withdrawal of parental affection or the actual withdrawal of Of parental affection.
	That is the greatest and most terrifying.
	I mean, anything, anything is better than that, right?
	Being hit by a parent is better than the parent not caring about you anymore.
	Because you can survive being hit as long as you get fed.
	But you can't survive not being fed and sheltered as a child.
	So the ultimate punishment, worse than anything, is the withdrawal of parental affection.
	And I think that it is a very common...
	It is a very common punishment, the withdrawal or threat of withdrawal of parental affection.
	And it's really, really terrifying.
	That makes a lot of sense. Sorry, go ahead.
	Yeah, that is.
	It makes a lot of sense.
	Before I forget, I want to try to bring something together.
	This, I mean, I'm applying what you say to my life, right?
	And I'm thinking, you know, maybe this is like a Simon the Boxer thing.
	Maybe I pick people who are kind of like I give them power and it's tenuous and I just keep repeating that kind of quote pond or something.
	I was thinking before that I was thinking that maybe I'm seeking out some kind of affection that I can't get.
	But I don't know. Is that making any sense?
	I think it does. Yeah, I think it does.
	I think it does. And so let's see if we can, I think, try and tie these things together.
	So we're taught that if somebody...
	If we do something that displeases our parents, not everybody, but very often, they will reward us when we please them and they will punish us when we don't please them.
	And so when we become adults, we're just used to punishment.
	We're not used to negotiation.
	We've not been taught how to negotiate.
	I mean, I must say that there has been no conceivable...
	Instance or situation under which my daughter has ever been in need of any kind of punishment at all.
	There has never been a single conceivable situation where she has been in need of any kind of punishment whatsoever.
	And of course, they used to say this about wives, that you would train your wives...
	Right? In that Shakespearean fashion, right?
	That you would train your wives and you would need to punish them and reward them to break their spirit and break their will to make them obedient because they needed to be trained.
	And in the future, and of course now we consider this, and rightly so, completely barbaric.
	And in the future, the fact that we look at children as beasts that need to be punished and rewarded...
	In order to elicit desired behavior, it will be looked at as astonishingly brutal and primitive in the future.
	I mean, she needs no punishment.
	There's nothing that she can do that is remotely...
	And I think as a result of that, that she's never been exposed to a harsh word.
	She's never had anyone raise their voices at her.
	She's never been punished. She's never had a withdrawal of affection.
	She's just consistently been, you know, showered with love and enthusiasm and all that.
	And as a result, she completely missed a phase that is considered to be typical in children, which is the phase of separation anxiety, when if the child is out of sight of the mother, usually, or I guess the father, if he's the primary caregiver, then the child will become anxious and hysterical and so on.
	And this, she's not had at all.
	She's not had at all.
	I was grocery shopping the other day and packing up the groceries with, you know, 20, A two-pound baby in your arm can be a bit of a challenge, especially if she's squirmy.
	And I don't feel comfortable putting her down in that environment.
	And fortunately, there's a woman there who's taken her shine to Isabella.
	And so she took her and she took her off to chat with other people while I loaded up the groceries for 10 minutes or so.
	And when I took Christina out for her birthday, we went to a restaurant and the waitress took her for 15 minutes or so to another room and they're just passing her around.
	And And she'd never had any complaints at all.
	So she has no separation anxiety.
	And I think that's because we don't ever, I mean, it's inconceivable to threaten her with any kind of withdrawal of affection because she can't do anything wrong.
	She's a baby and she's incredibly enthusiastic to learn and grow and mature.
	So there's nothing that we need to do to shape who she is.
	There's nothing that we need to do to correct who she is because we're incredibly happy with who she is and incredibly grateful and wonderful to have her Grateful and happy to have her in her lives.
	So I think when people are adults, if they've gone through this paradigm of punishment and reward, punishment and reward for pleasing or displeasing others, when they feel displeased in a relationship, they literally have no language, they have no knowledge, They have no understanding of what to do.
	The only thing they can do is model what was done to them.
	When there's a conflict, you either attack or you withdraw.
	You do not negotiate.
	You either punish through passive aggressive withdrawal or you punish through active attack.
	And really, the exercise of power is the only thing, is the only method that people have to resolve disputes.
	Exercise power, dominance.
	Exercise power, dominance.
	I exist, you don't. I win, you lose.
	Or you win, I lose. Dominance or submission.
	That's all people have. And then we say, well, I wonder why people have this knee-jerk reaction where they turn to the exercise of power in the social context to solve problems.
	We have a problem of poverty.
	Let's take people's money and impose power.
	Right? When I say in shows, as I often do, people, they can't think of any other solution than the state.
	Right? But the reason for that is that this is how they've grown up.
	The imposition of power is the only way to solve conflicts, disputes, or problems.
	And therefore, that's what they do in their personal relationships.
	That's what they do at work. That's why we have this hierarchical boss-employee structure, which is economically ridiculous and medieval.
	And this is why we have the state.
	And also, this is why we have religion.
	How do I get my kids to submit when my power is waning?
	Well, I invent an omnipotent friend who's going to take care of them, and they will forever be infants to his endless glory.
	And so what I see being played out is the lack of negotiation, lack of respect for children.
	Children, you know, people have sent me emails and so on in a variety of ways about parenting and have said, well, so what are you saying?
	What are you saying? Are you saying that we should treat children as adults?
	No, I'm not saying that at all.
	That would be a ridiculous thing to say because all the adults who are in my life are there voluntarily, right?
	We need to treat children much better than we treat adults.
	We need to treat children with more respect and dignity than we treat adults.
	Because adults have the chance to leave us and children don't.
	So if you're a husband and your wife is not there voluntarily, it's an arranged marriage or something, if you want her to love you as much as if she had chosen you, you need to be a 50 times better husband than if she had just chosen you voluntarily.
	You need to treat her 50 times better Than you would just your average wife.
	In order to get her to love you the same.
	Because she's not there voluntarily. I'm very conscious of that with my daughter.
	She's not here voluntarily. So in order to have her love me as much as if she were, I need to treat her much better than I would treat the adults in my life.
	But this is something that is not even close I think that's what's playing out.
	People are just basically saying, the only way that I know to resolve disputes is to exercise power through abandonment or attack.
	And it's really, genuinely and fundamentally tragic.
	And it's the source not only of conflict and destruction within our relationships, but of course, you know, you give people weapons and it's the world and war and prisons as a whole.
	Yeah.
	There's so much here.
	Is it possible to be addicted to...
	Sort of like addicted to...
	To being abandoned or something like...
	To being on the lower end of that power struggle?
	Well, I would say so, but again, this is just my silly opinion, but I would definitely say so.
	I think that human beings are constantly searching our patterns.
	We are pattern-making machines.
	Our brains are constantly imprinting with patterns, and then we reproduce those patterns.
	Doesn't mean we can't change, but the default is to reproduce what we experienced when we were young.
	That is the default position of human beings, is to consistently reproduce.
	Our brain is just, every day is a photocopy A photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.
	And changing what's on there takes a lot of work.
	So I think addicted is probably too strong a term because I think that implies some sort of personal I think that can happen for sure.
	And I think that takes a lot of work.
	But it's not you who've become masochistic and are addicted to this kind of thing.
	It's just that you don't speak the language called voluntaryism yet.
	You don't speak the language called negotiation yet.
	I mean, if I'm dropped in China, I don't feel stupid for not speaking Chinese, right?
	It's like, oh my god, I'm addicted to being unheard.
	I'm addicted to being misunderstood.
	It's like, no, I don't speak that language yet.
	I know the language is important.
	I know I can't live in China if I'm not going to learn Chinese.
	But I don't speak it yet.
	That doesn't mean that I'm stupid. That just means that I have to recognize that I've never learned this language.
	This language called negotiation.
	This language called mutual respect.
	This language called win-win.
	And, you know, again, if you read...
	I'll pimp this book again.
	Parental Effectiveness Training is a really, really great book to read.
	Even if you're not a parent, or perhaps especially if you're not yet a parent.
	Parental Effectiveness Training is a great book to read because it talks about win-win negotiations.
	And it's a heartbreaking book.
	To read if you come from a destructive family because you realize, again, just how much...
	Not only were you not taught Chinese, but you were hit or abandoned or aggressed against for speaking Chinese.
	And that means that you have an aversion to Chinese, which is the language you need to survive and flourish as an adult.
	So I would really, really recommend that book.
	It talks a lot about this training and exercise of power as well.
	Yeah. I can see my lack of negotiation even in all those things.
	Like... It shows up even in things like economic trades and things like that.
	Yeah. Right.
	Yeah. Also, the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell is also very good.
	He talks about the degree to which children are taught how to negotiate by their parents and that the greatest differentiator between success and failure is the style of parenting that the person receives.
	And it's really, really fascinating stuff.
	Plus, you know, stuff in about music.
	What book is that again? It's called Outliers, O-U-T-L-I-E-R-S, by Malcolm Gladwell.
	Thanks. Oh, you're welcome.
	And again, if you can talk to a therapist about this, I'm sure it would be great.
	But keep a journal. And the most important thing I would strongly, strongly suggest to everyone who's struggling with learning...
	The Chinese that we were attacked for thinking about, I mean, children are born negotiators, and they are very reciprocal, and they are very generous.
	I mean, Isabella, even with her favorite food, will always give me some, and has been doing that for months.
	And that's, I mean, it's a beautiful thing.
	So I think that children are naturally empathetic, and naturally generous, and kind, and naturally negotiation, and look for win-win.
	But the most important thing, I think, is, you know, don't self-attack.
	For what your history did to you.
	Right? Okay.
	Don't do it. Right?
	Yeah. You know, if somebody pushed you and you sprained an ankle, you wouldn't call yourself lazy for not going for your morning run, right?
	You'd say, well, I have a I'm sprained ankle and I need to be gentle and take care of it so that it heals and so on, right?
	I think that's really important.
	You know, we've grown up with particularly configured brains, biologically, physically, neurologically.
	We have grown up with particularly configured brains and now we're trying.
	We're trying as best we can.
	It's amazing faculty that we have as a species.
	We're trying to evolve into a different environment as adults than we were trained to, right?
	If the whole world were abusive, we'd never need to change, right?
	But the fact is that we can choose better lives as adults, but our brains are configured in a particular kind of way to survive in a situation of want and aggression and hostility.
	And we don't want that for the rest of our lives, and so we have this capacity to evolve.
	We don't, you know, unlike every other species, we don't need intergenerational transfers of DNA to evolve.
	We can do that with our own brains because of brain plasticity and you're a young woman and your brain is still not firmly cemented into its configuration.
	So you can reach, you can change all of that, though I totally understand that it's work.
	The first thing that you need to apply is the opposite of everything that went before, right?
	So if you were bullied as a child or you were withdrawn from as a child, the last thing that you ever want to do when you're growing is to bully and say to yourself, well, that's it.
	I'm not, you know, I'm mad at myself.
	So I'm gonna withdraw my affection for myself because that is only gonna make it worse.
	It's just like dropping another brick on your ankle when it's trying to heal.
	You have to be gentle, have to be curious, have to be empathetic and have to not take personal responsibility for how our brains ended up as a result of our histories.
	Yeah, you know, it is pretty hard not to self-attack.
	So I kind of was unclear about whether it's my fault.
	Like, I'm the clingy one, I'm the one who just needs people too much.
	Not people, just like, I don't know, too deep or something.
	Something like that.
	Yeah, I mean, you're going to want to apply labels to yourself, like I'm needy, I'm clingy, I'm addicted to this, I'm...
	I can't handle relationships.
	I'm bad at negotiating.
	And if you had raised yourself, then I would say absolutely it's your fault.
	If you were your own parent, then I would say completely.
	If you split yourself in two and you were born with a twin who was 40 or 30 and raised you, then you were that person too.
	But I think that's not possible on many levels.
	And so I think that we need to be just, right?
	Justice is one of the most challenging aspects of philosophy.
	Justice, justice, justice, which means the correct assassination of moral responsibility, right?
	We want to be just.
	We want to be fair, right?
	And to blame ourselves for stuff that was done unto us is fundamentally unjust.
	It's unjust, right?
	And we want that virtue called justice, and justice relies on honesty.
	And honesty is, was it my responsibility for how I was raised?
	Well, of course, bad parents will always want you to feel that it's your responsibility, right?
	Why was I yelling at you?
	Because you're a bad kid. You made me yell at you.
	You were disobedient. You didn't listen.
	You were willful. You were blah, blah, blah.
	The list goes on and on, right?
	Uh-huh. Right? So, of course, and as kids, we're like, well, I better swallow this jagged little pill called this label, because if I don't, the attacks are only going to escalate, right?
	Right. So, of course, that's what we have to pretend.
	We have to pretend it's our fault when we're kids, because otherwise, you know, if we say, no, no, no, come on, you're the adult here, I'm the kid, it's your responsibility to manage and control your own behavior.
	And you can't blame me for you getting angry.
	You can't blame me for you yelling.
	You can't blame me for you hitting.
	That's ridiculous. Right? I mean, you would never allow me to have that excuse, and I'm eight.
	If I say, well, so-and-so made me do this, you'd say, well, if so-and-so jumped off the bridge, would you jump too?
	So parents don't allow children to create the excuse called, other people made me do it.
	But then parents, not all, but a lot of parents will then say, but I get angry because my kids are bad.
	My kids bug me. They frustrate me.
	They don't listen. They don't show me respect.
	They're not good. And this is where I put the parental responsibility there.
	You can't hold an 8-year-old child to a standard that you're not holding yourself to as a 30-year-old or 40-year-old.
	I mean, you can, but it's ridiculous, right?
	Right. Now, if your parents say, well, I get mad at you because you weren't listening, and I yelled at you because you were being mouthy, well, that's fine.
	But then you can say, well, I shoplifted because...
	Other kids were doing it.
	It's their fault. I shoplifted because you didn't give me enough allowance.
	And if the parent says, well, that makes complete sense to me, go for it.
	But of course they don't, right?
	They say, well, no, it's your responsibility.
	We can't assign kids more responsibility than we as adults take.
	That's something I'm pretty conscious of, right?
	So we have to be just and we have to be fair and we have to be honest that it is not our fault.
	The family environment that we grow up in It's not our fault.
	It's not our responsibility.
	It does not stick to us in any way, shape, or form.
	It is a breeze that blows past us and often blows us over.
	But it doesn't stick to us any more than the wind does.
	It's just dodgeballs.
	We're not responsible for it.
	The construction of the family environment...
	The system of negotiation or punishment and reward is entirely and completely and totally the responsibility of the parents.
	It is not at all the responsibility of the child.
	Isabella is not responsible for any of the decisions that I make as a parent, at all, in any way, shape or form.
	I don't cede that power to anyone.
	Nobody is responsible for the decisions that I make, except me.
	That is the pride that I take in what I do as an adult.
	And if mistakes are made, I will own them.
	They are my mistakes.
	I don't even want to give my mistakes away to other people.
	That's why I'm so selfish about hanging on to those choices.
	But it's not Isabella's responsibility.
	It will never be her responsibility, the emotional tenor of the household.
	That is the responsibility of my wife and I. That's our job.
	We will never, ever...
	We get to say to her, and we never will say to her, I did this because of you.
	Now, we're told that, but it's not true.
	It's not true. Parents are responsible.
	Adults are responsible for their behaviors.
	Children are not responsible for the behaviors of adults, right?
	Like, we would completely understand that some new second-day-on-the-job fry cook is not responsible For the international marketing decisions of McDonald's, right?
	Right. I mean, if they start some ad campaign that completely flops, does it make any sense to say to the second day on the job, fry cook, it's your fault that it didn't work out.
	This didn't work out because you're not doing your job.
	Because you're a bad fry cook, right?
	Right. It would be ridiculous.
	It's the responsibility of the executives, the board of directors, and to some degree...
	The more populous shareholders, right?
	Right. And so, blaming people at the bottom of the power structure for the environment of the power structure is completely crazy.
	It's like blaming second graders for public school, right?
	Which I think people do.
	Oh, well, some people will say, well, yeah, public school is bad because children are mouthy or disobedient or whatever, for sure.
	But it's ridiculous, right? Yeah.
	It is. So, you know, justice and honesty are very, very important virtues to pursue.
	And the honesty is that, of course, you're not responsible for how you were raised.
	Of course you're not responsible.
	The power differentiation is huge.
	I didn't even really understand it until I became a parent just how enormous the power differential is.
	The power differential between parent and child is mind-blowing.
	It is bigger than anything I've ever thought of or imagined or experienced, particularly in the age before we can remember, right, when babies...
	Can't even pick themselves up or turn themselves over or anything, right?
	And so the idea that...
	And of course, before the age of two or three is when a lot of this personality is cemented, right?
	I mean, before the age of five in particular.
	And there's no conceivable way that a child of two or three or four is responsible for the emotional tone of the household.
	I mean, it's a completely ridiculous premise.
	And it's an embarrassing premise to even have to point out.
	But unfortunately... When people act badly, the first person they want to blame is anyone other than themselves.
	Of course! Right?
	So when a parent acts badly towards a child, oh, I mean, I can't imagine it, but it must just be unbelievably awful to have yelled at and frightened your child, to have hit your child.
	I mean, I can't conceive of it.
	I mean, I went through it, but I can't conceive of it as a parent.
	I mean, the idea of treating my daughter with anything other than gentleness and humor, good humor and respect and joy, it's unthinkable.
	I can't even comprehend it.
	But, you know, you must feel so bad as a parent if you do that.
	You must just feel deep down so wretched, like this is not how I wanted my life to be.
	And if you're not a mature person and you won't take responsibility, the kind of responsibility that you always inflict upon others, particularly your children, then you've got to find someone to blame for why you acted badly.
	It can't be your fault.
	It's got to be someone else's fault.
	And the only other person in the interaction was, boom, your kid.
	It's got to be her fault. Yeah.
	Well, Atlas Shrugged, to me, is about shrugging that off.
	Nothing to do with the state, because the state is all just an effect of that.
	Hey, I was not responsible for how I was raised.
	Not even 1%, not even half a percent, no percent at all.
	The fry cook is more responsible for the share price of McDonald's on his second day than I was for the emotional tenor of my household.
	Right.
	I'm more convinced of that now than I was before I became a father.
	And I'm not saying that kids have zero moral responsibility.
	I'm not saying that at all.
	But what I'm saying is that in the general tenor of how they are raised, children have no say.
	And most of what goes on between parents and children that cements the relationship occurs before the child can even form a sentence.
	So, clearly, we don't think that a three- or four-year-old has fundamental moral responsibility.
	And by the time a kid is five, for the most part, the relationship is cemented with the parent, the tenor or the nature of the relationship.
	And... No, it's this fundamental thing, right, where...
	When people don't take responsibility for their own bad behavior, someone else has to suffer.
	Someone else has to be to blame.
	It can't be them. It must be someone else.
	And then they attack that person. That's how the cycle of abuse continues, and that's what we have to break.
	But taking responsibility means taking responsibility for what you own, but not one inch more.
	Not one inch more.
	Right? When we want to take responsibility, we want to take it like we're going to drink the fucking ocean, you know?
	But that's also unjust.
	We take responsibility for what we own.
	For what we own. And not one fucking inch more.
	Not one inch more.
	Right. And we don't own our parenting.
	That's kids Draw that line That's honesty. That's maturity.
	Draw that line.
	I don't take ownership for that which is beyond my control.
	I'm going to have to think about this.
	It's.
	Because otherwise you'll try to control other people, right?
	Give other people the respect of being responsible for their actions, right?
	If you yell at me, if you slander me, if you...
	Hit me. You are responsible for that.
	I'm not responsible for it.
	You are responsible for that.
	I did not do anything to provoke you.
	I'm not going to take responsibility for doing anything that causes you to do that.
	So if you take responsibility for yourself and you draw that clear line which says, here I will take my self-ownership and not one inch further, what happens is you will automatically Just through the conscience and logic of UPB, you will automatically give that same shimmering circle to other people.
	You know, it's like the Neverwinter Nights circle around the base of a character, right?
	And that's the self-ownership, as far as your arms and your voice carry.
	So, take not one inch more than what you actually own, and you did not own your childhood, and then give that gift to others.
	And sometimes it's a gift like a bomb, right?
	Because we give that gift to our parents.
	Right? Right. We give that gift to our lovers.
	We give that gift to our friends, to our employees, to our employers.
	To everyone in our life.
	Give that gift of you own what you do.
	I own what I do.
	You own what you do.
	I'm not going to blame you for what I do.
	I'm not going to accept blame for what you do.
	Because without that, there's no possibility of negotiation.
	Right, right.
	Thanks.
	Thank you, Steph.
	You're welcome. I hope that's helpful.
	Providing the gift of self-ownership in your relationship is absolutely essential.
	People are willing. They may try and blame you.
	They may say, well, because you did this, I did that.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	No, no, no, no. I mean, that's turtles all the way down.
	That's an infinite regression problem, right?
	That's determinism, right?
	Yeah. Yet, of course, people say, well, I did this because you did that, because they have a judgment about what you did.
	But if everything is provoked by something else, then no one can have any judgment about what was done.
	Because it's all just dominoes falling, right?
	Well, so just nonsense, right?
	They can't say, you have self-ownership and you're responsible for provoking me, and I don't have self-ownership, so I'm not responsible for how I react it.
	I mean, that's just ridiculous, right?
	Just don't accept that. Don't accept that in your relationships.
	People will try it all the time.
	But just don't accept it.
	Give the people the gift of saying, no, no, no.
	Look, I understand why you'd want to do that, but you are responsible for it.
	I'm responsible for what I did and you're responsible for what you did.
	Let's not play this game where I'm a domino that falls on you and then you...
	I mean, that's just silly. We have to have that glowing circle of self-ownership.
	We have to have a self. We have to have an I for an I love you.
	We have to have a self. Otherwise, there's nothing to negotiate with or for or about.
	Yeah, I can also imagine, you know, just maybe taking all this blame, you know, as a kid and just, you know, being neglected and everything.
	That's probably the source of feeling like I don't exist, like I'm not alive.
	Well, let me just say, I'm sorry to interrupt you again, let me just say one last thing about that.
	I don't want to take the whole show because I'm sure that other people have questions, but I just wanted to provide you one other possibility about this.
	I would submit that it was not being abandoned by your parents that made you feel like you didn't exist, but it was actually being with your parents.
	It's a possibility, just a theory, but just try it on and see if it makes any sense, right?
	Because when you're actually separate from people, then you actually...
	Have some identity.
	It's not great, it's not as good as being connected to people, but you have some identity.
	You can read a book, you can watch some TV, you can go for a run, you can play a game, whatever.
	You can go over to a friend's place if you're, quote, abandoned, right?
	But in my experience, I felt that I did not exist the most when I was with people that I was not connected with.
	Because that's when I really could not exist.
	Right? Yeah, that makes sense.
	So it's not being abandoned by others that makes you feel like you don't exist.
	It's being in the presence with them or being afraid that they're going to come back or afraid of what's going to happen.
	You know, when you're around someone who's like chronically angry or kind of predatory in their relationships, particularly if that person is a parent, then you constantly have to watch them.
	It's like having a lion in the neighborhood, right?
	You're constantly keeping your eye, going through a walk through the woods and you hear a stick break, right?
	It's like a bear, right?
	I mean, you're You can't concentrate on who you are and your experience when there's a predator in the house.
	That is what made me feel that I did not exist.
	It was not when the predator left the house and I could be like, oh, I've got an hour.
	Oh, thank God, right? I can read a book.
	I can do whatever, right? But it was when that person was around and pacing around or slamming the drawers or whatever, that's when I felt like I didn't exist because I couldn't think of anything but that person and Was there any way to appease them?
	Was there any way to avoid an attack?
	Was there any way to prevent the growing explosion that was imminent?
	That, to me, is an existence.
	Yeah. Okay.
	So it's not when they're gone, it's when they're around that I would bet that you would feel the least amount of self-ownership.
	Yeah. Okay.
	Well, thank you, Seth.
	You're welcome. You're welcome.
	You're welcome. And I hope that that's helpful, and thank you to everyone for their kind comments, and I appreciate you bringing that up.
	All right. Remember, if you could mute if you're not talking, that would be most appreciated.
	All right. We have time for Pi More Questions.
	If you would like to bring up...
	Who do we have up next? Caller.
	There you go. Go ahead. Am I on?
	Yes, you are. How are you doing?
	Pretty good. I'm Sam.
	Hi. In Nova Scotia.
	I sort of have like two topics.
	I was gone for supper, so I didn't really hear the whole thing that you're talking about, so I sort of have a different topic.
	Sure, no problem. There are two topics I guess you could pick.
	One would just be economics, because when I watch your videos, you sometimes Your economics is very classical, like your reasoning is textbook, when I sort of take a more empirical approach to economics, and in that sense, I agree with your analysis.
	And the other one would be, I guess more fundamental, would be arguments against statism based on coercion.
	Right, and which one would you like to start with?
	I think the second one. Alright.
	I just sort of disagree with the premise that by getting rid of the state, you get rid of any...
	that you diminish or decrease coercion.
	It's my belief that structures or systems, any kind of political system, has coercion inherently in it.
	And the anarchist's dream of getting rid of coercion is impossible.
	It ends up just being substituted with a different kind of coercion.
	I'm sorry, let me just say, I want to make sure I understand what your perspective is.
	Is your perspective that I say, if we get rid of the state, we get rid of all violence?
	Is that what you think I'm arguing?
	Well, no. In fact, I'm sort of getting this from a three-way video you did once.
	I forget the person's name, but he had written a book called The Coercionless Society or Coercion-Free Society.
	And that sort of got my thinking.
	The idea that, just as an example, taxes, if you don't want to pay them, most people just pay them mindlessly.
	But taxes, if you don't want to pay them, is in effect the government putting a gun to their head.
	But in a sense, paying for anything...
	Sorry, I'm going to just, because I want to make sure that we're precise at the beginning, because otherwise we end up talking about two different things.
	Is your argument that even if the government wasn't forcing people to pay, say, 40% taxes, that they would continue to pay it mindlessly?
	Is that right? No, not at all.
	I'm just saying that the market forces are themselves a type of force.
	Okay, wait, wait. Hang on.
	Sorry. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what you're saying at the beginning, and I'm not trying to sort of...
	Well, there's really a gun to the head in both situations.
	It's just that one individual is more aware of the gun.
	I don't know why other people pay taxes.
	Maybe they just are accepting of the fact or maybe they don't think about it.
	Well, no, they pay taxes because there's a gun in the room, right?
	You ask anyone what happens if you don't pay taxes, they say, well, you're getting deep shit from the cats in blue, right?
	But you'd agree that there's definitely people out there who say I pay taxes because I'm patriotic and I want to support public social programs and stuff like that.
	I mean, there are those people. Absolutely, for sure.
	This is what I want to talk about.
	I want to talk about... Fundamentally, what you're advocating is a replacement of, and you say this all the time, because you're not advocating chaos, you're advocating some sort of system.
	And the system you're advocating is basically a voluntary free market system.
	Well, sorry, that's the result.
	If I cure a guy from lung cancer, and he then ends up being a marathon runner, my goal is not for him to be a marathon runner, my goal is to cure him of lung cancer.
	The results of curing him from lung cancer may be X, Y, and Z, but that is not my goal.
	My goal is to cure him of lung cancer.
	My goal is to advocate for a society that rejects the use of force in solving problems.
	I am anti-violence, anti the initiation of force.
	I do have some thoughts about what might result from that, for sure, but my goal is not a stateless society.
	My goal is a society that has rational and true principles.
	As it's way of approaching problems.
	Yeah, but it's the call of the area.
	But my premise, or where I disagree with you, is the idea that a free market society, a completely free market society, is in any way less coercive or exists with less force inherent in it.
	Okay, so let me understand this subject to make sure I really get your argument.
	So you're saying that the gun to your head in terms of taxation is synonymous with voluntary non-violent transactions, that there's violence in both transactions, is that right?
	Well, in their second description, your words were loaded.
	I wouldn't use...
	I mean, you qualified it in such a way that I'd have to disagree.
	But fundamentally, I argue...
	The dynamics are different, but ultimately the violence inherent inside a stateless society or a free market society is as much greater or lesser than.
	Sorry, you're just using phrases that I don't understand.
	I want to make sure I'm really following what you're saying.
	What do you mean by inherent violence?
	Because clearly the gun in the room with regards to taxation you and I would accept as...
	Explicit and in-your-face, so to speak, violence.
	What do you mean by inherent violence?
	I mean, inescapable within the definition of the system.
	No, but what I mean is, how does it show up?
	So let's say I go to the street corner and I drop a quarter into a newspaper vending machine and I pick up a paper.
	That is an example of a free market transaction.
	No one's forcing me to do it.
	I'm taking my quarter and I'm putting it in the vending machine and I'm getting my newspaper.
	And you're saying there's violence inherent in that interaction.
	Can you help me understand that? Well, obviously, I don't think every single transaction in free market society is as violent as any other transaction in free market society.
	So you're saying it's not as violent, but please tell me where the violence is in that interaction.
	I can give you an example.
	Yeah, please. Competitive forces are themselves, in every sense, involuntary.
	It's the business's desire and what they want to do to make as much profit as possible.
	They want to maximize their profits.
	But competitive forces mean that they have to cut costs and lower their prices.
	And if they refuse to lower their prices, then they're driven out of the market.
	And, you know, worst case scenario, them end up on the streets with a source of income and starve to death or go and join gangs or basically their life is ruined.
	I'm sorry to interrupt you again.
	I just want to make this.
	You're packing a lot into what you're saying and I'm really just trying to understand it.
	Are you saying that every business wants to simply maximize its profit and in order to do that it has to reduce costs and if it can't find a market for its products then the business fails and people have to find something else to do or whatever.
	Is that right? Basically what I'm saying is that a business is forced to lower the prices involuntarily.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Forced. What does that mean?
	Who's forcing them? Who's got the gun?
	Well, in the case of a market, like I said, I still think it's violent, but I don't think it's perfectly analogous with the state.
	However, the person...
	I would disagree with the analogy of a gun.
	In this case, I would think of it more of like an extortion.
	No, no, who's going to who?
	Because if you're going to compare it, like with statist violence, if I don't pay my taxes, guys come to my house with guns.
	So I know who the guys with the guns are in that situation, right?
	So if somebody doesn't want to buy, like if I paint a painting and I put it out of my front lawn and I say, give me a hundred bucks for this painting...
	And nobody, you know, it's a bad painting of an Elvis clown in black velvet or whatever, some painting that nobody wants.
	It's a really bad painting.
	And nobody wants to buy my painting for $100.
	Who's got the gun? I know who's got the gun with the government.
	It's the cats in blue who will come if I don't pay my taxes.
	Who's got the gun? If I put a painting out on my front lawn with a price tag of $100 and nobody wants to buy it, who's got the gun?
	I didn't say that the metaphors match perfectly.
	In this case, my metaphor would be extortion, where if you don't comply with the forces that be within the market, be it to lower your prices or to hire more people or whatever, that your business basically is ruined and you're left in squalor.
	Sorry, what does it mean? I can't understand.
	Could you tell me what your experience in business has been?
	Because I really don't understand what it means.
	Well, I work at Walmart.
	That's basically my experience in business.
	I'm only in high school, so I haven't run a business.
	I did a lemonade stand once.
	Right. Well, I mean, I have, which doesn't mean I have all the answers.
	It just means, you know, I have a bit of an insider's perspective in the evil capitalist system or whatever, right?
	I can tell you a number of things that I don't think is correct, though I can certainly understand why you believe what you do.
	And I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong.
	I'm just saying that I would make this argument, right?
	That A, business is not about the maximization of profit at all.
	Business is about a number of things, right?
	It is about being enthusiastic about your product.
	For instance, I was making more money.
	As a software executive than I was as an internet dude with a mic, right?
	So for me...
	I just want to simplify because...
	Well, you've got to be careful with how much you simplify because if you simplify stuff too much, you just end up wrong, right?
	So it's really important not to...
	Sorry, let me finish.
	If you look at a company like Ferrari, they're not at all interested in lowering their prices.
	In fact... Some companies are very interested in increasing their prices because they have prestige, like Rolex watches.
	They want to increase their prices because it is around prestige.
	Now, that doesn't mean that they're going to increase them senselessly.
	They have to maintain quality.
	Hermes purses or Lamborghinis are ridiculously expensive.
	They're not interested in lowering their prices because there's a particular niche.
	Companies do a lot of stuff that is charitable and I mean, it's partly for image, but it's also partly because people have a lot more in their life than the mere maximization of profit.
	If everybody was just into maximizing profit, we'd all be dead, you know, in a hundred years, because nobody would have any children, because children are expensive and time-consuming.
	It's like taking on a second job, you know, with no pay.
	Sorry, go ahead. Let me amend what I said then.
	Because I just said that just to simplify things.
	I mean, we could nitpick or do nuance, but whatever.
	To amend it, I'll just say, Businesses do what they do to avoid bankruptcy or to avoid failure.
	That would be harder to nitpick.
	Right, and so an analogy would be that a lot of people who are married...
	Do you have a girlfriend at the moment?
	Pardon? Do you have a girlfriend at the moment?
	Yeah. Okay, so you obviously, I assume, don't want your girlfriend to break up with you, right?
	No. Okay, good.
	So you're going to act in ways that, to some degree, are going to be pleasing to her.
	Obviously, you're not completely to the detriment of your own satisfaction.
	But the ideal, what you hope for, is that you are going to be better off by being in a relationship with her, and she's going to be better off by being in a relationship with With you, right?
	So in a way, you're acting to avoid a breakup.
	I mean, that's, I think, to put it in the context of what you're talking about.
	And I think, you know, my general suggestion is start with stuff that's personal to your own life, rather than, you know, big abstract topics like global capitalism.
	Not because you're not smart enough to understand them.
	I'm sure that you are. But it's really easy to get lost in abstractions and forget that it's really about people interacting with each other.
	Now, I'm also going to assume that you're...
	Sorry, go ahead. Within the dynamic of me and my girlfriend, I would agree there is coercion.
	I would say that it's less coercion because the consequences are less.
	Sorry, you would agree that there's coercion in your relationship with your girlfriend?
	Yes, in the sense that I desire to be a couple with her, but I can't just do anything and still remain a couple because if I disrespect her or if I cross the lines with other women, then she'll break up with me.
	Now, the consequences in that case You mean she has the choice whether she wants to see you or not?
	Yeah, exactly. And you feel that that is...
	Sorry, hang on a sec. She doesn't have a perfect choice, though.
	She doesn't have a perfect choice because, likewise, she can't do anything she wants to and expects me to still want to see her.
	So she can't choose to kiss another guy So her choice is not perfect.
	She has not perfect freedom of choice.
	And do you feel that that is coercive?
	So the fact that you have standards for each other, that you can't show up and set fire to your Walmart store and still have a job, and she can't go around kissing other guys and still have you as a boyfriend.
	Do you feel that that is coercive?
	Is that right? Yes, but I think there are different degrees of coercion.
	I think you measure... The degree of coercion by the consequences.
	So in this case, it is coercion of a kind, but it is not a coercion of a kind that would lead to my death or to violence.
	So if you start swearing at me on this call, and then I cut you off, would you consider that to be coercion?
	Like, are you and I operating under a coercive environment at the moment?
	Yeah, in this case, the coercive qualities would be things like social norms and things like Just societal standards of how you behave around other people.
	Because in past times, in different contexts, in history, different things are acceptable in conversation.
	So if you live in a society where everyone expects you to be extremely polite and not to offend, then that society is in some sense more coercive.
	And this is actually what John Stuart Mill wrote about in his essay, Liberty, On liberty, people cite it as a creed against government, but really it's a creed against societal pressures to behave in certain respects.
	Right, right. Okay. Sorry, sorry to interrupt.
	Let's go back to your girlfriend and so on, right?
	So you say that there's coercion in your relationship with your girlfriend because you can't go kissing girls, she can't go kissing guys because you will break up or whatever, right?
	What is your solution to that, right?
	So how is that problem solved?
	I don't think... Well, this is where I disagree with you even more.
	I don't think all coercion is a problem.
	I think coercion can actually be beneficial.
	In the case of business, I think the coercion to...
	No, no, no. Sorry. Let's just stay with your girlfriend.
	Stay with your girlfriend, because you and I both have had girlfriends, but you haven't run a business.
	So let's at least stay with stuff that's empirical, so we don't wander off into real theoretical land.
	I don't think... Sorry, is this solution to the problem of coercion with your girlfriend that she is forced to stay with you even if you kiss other girls?
	Is that right? I disagree with the premise that coercion is always a problem.
	I think in this case coercion is actually productive and a good thing.
	So this is good coercion? Correct, I think...
	Okay, so sorry, let me understand.
	So an extension of good coercion...
	Is better than an extension of bad, overt, gun-to-the-head coercion, right?
	Say that again? Well, if a guy, you know, has locked up some woman in his basement and won't let her leave because he wants a girlfriend and he's a creepy guy who's good with chloroform, then clearly that's bad coercion and it would be better to replace it with the, quote, good coercion that you talk about where people are just free to see whoever they want and have standards and leave people that they don't want to hang out with, right?
	I think it's just something very hard to measure, but I would say that those two are, you know, really conspicuously opposing, yeah.
	Right, and so we'd want the woman locked in the basement of the creepy guy to have the option to leave if she wanted to leave, and I assume she wants to leave because she's locked, right?
	Yeah, of course. Okay, so it's an improvement when we replace overt coercion with what you call good coercion, right?
	Which is voluntarism, which is the choice to be with people.
	No, I don't accept the distinction between overt and implicit.
	No, you just did. Sorry, you just did, because we were just talking about the woman locked in the basement, and you said it would be better if she had the choice to leave, right?
	No, you can't draw that conclusion just based off a single example.
	No, sorry, you just said that.
	I didn't draw that conclusion, you did.
	Right, for a single example, but that example...
	The conclusion drawn to that example was on the basis of that example alone, not on any particular variable within that example.
	No, no, hang on. Look, I mean, we have to extrapolate.
	You said you're empirical, right?
	You said, Steph, you're too theoretical.
	You're too out of the books, right?
	So this is why I put the argument into something tangible and empirical.
	And from that empirical example, you drew the principle that voluntarism within relationships was better, was an improvement over overt and direct coercion in relationships.
	Now, I'm not saying that holds true for absolutely everything we could think of.
	Of course not. But we still do have a principle that is extracted from This one example, right?
	I don't think you can make generalizations based off a single example.
	This is another source where I disagree with you.
	If I can go back, I know you don't want me to talk about things I don't have personal experience with, but I don't think the dynamics within a relationship and business world are actually very different.
	I think, fundamentally, the reason prices are kept Why profit margins are kept fairly low in a free market has to do with a collective action problem.
	And that collective action problem is essentially everyone trying to compete with each other.
	And if someone abstains from that competition, they suffer enormous consequences.
	And in that sense, and in that sense alone, our market force is coercive.
	Sorry, what do you mean when you say everyone tries to compete with each other?
	That's not my understanding of how the free market works.
	In fact, in the free market, very few people compete with each other, and most people cooperate with each other.
	Like if you go to the Apple store and you buy an iPod, you're not competing with Apple, you're cooperating with Apple, right?
	You're giving up the 200 bones to get the iPod, which they want more than the iPod, and you're getting the iPod in exchange for 200 bones, which is what you want more than the money.
	So that's an example of cooperation.
	And you're not competing with Apple, you're cooperating with Apple.
	And Apple is cooperating with the street or the mall that they live on.
	They're cooperating with the truck companies that deliver the iPods.
	They're cooperating with the people who make the iPods.
	It's not true that everyone competes with everyone.
	In capitalism, any more than it's true that everyone eats everything else in nature.
	In nature, like capitalism, is 99.999% cooperation.
	And there are very small and precise areas where people compete.
	Within that analogy you just gave, the competition would be between Apple, iPods, and Creative Zen.
	Yeah, or the Zune or whatever. Absolutely.
	But just about everybody else is cooperating in that environment.
	There's just a certain end-user-consumer product point usually, or sometimes it's B2B, but that is where people compete.
	But the vast majority of it is cooperation, not competition.
	I would...
	That is sort of a conceptual thing.
	I think that the heart of capitalism and free markets is the supply and demand relationship and market clearing and equilibrium.
	Sorry, are you competing with Walmart when you work there?
	Well, my wages were competitive and I had the choice to leave and to go to other places if they didn't treat me well.
	So there is a competition.
	Walmart has to... No, sorry, you're not competing with Walmart.
	You didn't have a store out front or out back of your car where you were competing with Walmart in terms of what they were selling, right?
	I mean, you were working there, but...
	Oh, no, because I'm a wage earner for Walmart, which means we're in a mutual relationship because I give them my labor, they give me my money.
	Right, but by your definition, you're also in a coercive relationship with Walmart because you can choose to move to another company if you get better wages, or they can choose to fire you if you set fire to the store, right?
	Yeah, right. Exactly.
	Right. And I mean, we could go on and on, and I don't think we're making any progress, but I'll just sort of end with a particular statement here, which is that I think there is a fundamental difference between voluntarism and violence, between a gun to the head and people having the option to interact with you or to not interact with you as they see fit.
	I think the latter thing, which you call implicit violence, is not violence at all.
	I don't think that it's extortion or To say, I don't want to have as my girlfriend somebody who beats me up and, I don't know, kisses other boys.
	Other girls, we could talk about it, but other boys, not so much, right?
	So the idea that we have voluntarism within our relationships, to me, is fundamentally different in the same way that lovemaking is fundamentally different from rape, right?
	Lovemaking is a voluntary action between two individuals who find each other attractive and...
	Rape is obviously not that.
	I think to put the two into the same soup bowl, I think, is not accurate.
	Now, I certainly agree with you that there are social pressures, that there are sometimes irrational standards, that there can be punitive rejections of people from social groups, ostracisms or exclusions or whatever.
	I think we've all gone through that as teenagers.
	And that can be destructive, that can be bad.
	That is not healthy, in my opinion, but that still is fundamentally different from a gun to the head.
	And I think that is where I would, if I were you, that's sort of where I would apply my energies.
	If you have a situation of voluntarism, like between you and your girlfriend, or you and Walmart to some degree, then that is the least possible coercion that you can have, by your standards, in a relationship.
	So even if you don't agree with me that it's not coercion, but it's at least, as you said, it's the least possible coercion that you can have.
	And I think an extension of that I would disagree with that.
	I think the least possible coercion is a man alone in a room.
	Well, then why are you voluntarily submitting yourself to coercion by calling me?
	Like I said, I don't think all coercion is negative.
	You just gave a closing remark.
	I'll give my closing remark. Please do.
	I think that...
	You have to measure coercion by its consequences.
	I think within the free market there can be, even though I'm very capitalistic, I think there can be very negative consequences in the perfectly free market.
	I think coercion can be rampant in any system where there's people interacting.
	And I think the role of a government, in my mind, your role of a government is not one, but in my mind, the role of a government is to limit coercion where coercion exists.
	Through things like social programs and safety nets and stuff of that nature, consumer protection and so on.
	And I know that's probably going to open up a barrel of fish for us, but I had a second topic if there's time.
	I'm going to just see...
	I'd rather not, because I don't think that you and I are making any particular progress in our conversations.
	And look, you're perfectly free in a free society, right?
	In a society that violence, the initiation of overt violence is banned...
	You're perfectly free to set up a social organization that you can then submit yourself to and sign a contract with for your lifetime to give them all the money and to give them power over you and so on.
	I just would ask for the respect from you that if I want to pursue a different way of dealing with problems rather than creating a monopoly of people and giving them all the guns in the planet and hope that that's going to reduce the amount of violence in the world, that I be given the latitude to explore options within the society that we may both live in.
	If you want to create a localized government for yourself and convince other people that that's the best way to go...
	I'm perfectly happy that you do that, and maybe you're right.
	Maybe it is the best way to go.
	But I certainly would request the respect of being allowed to explore my own options for conflict resolution other than the ones that you believe are best.
	You might have heard of Patrick Friedman, then.
	Patrick Friedman. Milton Friedman's son.
	I don't think I have heard of him.
	He's an anarcho-capitalist as well, and he has a project he's working on You know, it's a big long shot, of course, but his idea is to set up essentially islands, boat islands.
	Oh, the seasteading thing.
	Yeah. And that's basically his idea to have a competing country where people go to the country that they prefer.
	Which is really just a boat that they prefer.
	Yeah. I've heard about that.
	I don't know much about it. Maybe I'll try and get him on the show to explain what on earth he's doing, because it seems interesting to me, but I don't really know much about it.
	But anyway, thanks for calling in.
	It was an enjoyable workout.
	I certainly do appreciate the different perspectives, and I wish you the very best of luck.
	And perhaps you can talk to your girlfriend about the coercion in your relationship and see if you can get her taken care of it and see how she feels about being part of this conversation.
	A cycle of coercion.
	Maybe she has different thoughts or ideas that might be worth exploring.
	All right, so let's move on to the next caller.
	I have one thing. I'm sorry?
	No, let me move on, if that's all right.
	We've had a couple of faults. Well, it's just a question, and I'll hang up.
	In one of your videos, you talked about how when free markets, when government steps in and creates state capitalism, that there's these huge bursts of growth.
	Do you remember saying that?
	One of your videos? I can't recall under which context.
	Sorry. Maybe you can get a better quote and perhaps you can call in next week or post a question on the board and we'll talk about it more further.
	But, you know, because I've done so many shows, people are like, do you remember saying this?
	And you got a lot of what I said wrong earlier.
	And not wrong, but, you know, not complete or detailed.
	So, you know, get it a bit more specific and we can talk about it perhaps another time.
	Okay, I'll call you next week. Thanks, man.
	All right. Thank you.
	I appreciate that. And we do have time for another call, another call, another question, another planet of you and I to interact with.
	Hello. You're up, TPA. I'm sorry?
	Hey, can you hear me?
	I sure can. Boy, that's some good mic quality.
	I appreciate that.
	Is it that bad?
	I'm sorry. No, it's good sound quality.
	I appreciate that. Okay.
	Hey, Steph. It's been a while since, you know, a couple years since I last talked to you.
	And, well, I just want to tell you a little bit about my situation right now, and you can tell me, because I'd like to know your opinion on my situation.
	So, I'm studying economics and philosophy right now.
	I'm living in Colombia, and, well, I'm about to finish probably within six months or so, I'm going to finish my economics degree.
	Oh, I remember you now.
	Gosh, yeah, it's been a long time since we talked.
	How are you? Yeah, I know.
	How are you doing? Yeah, I remember.
	You were talking about some woman in your class.
	Oh, yeah, I remember. It's all coming back.
	Oh, my God. Yeah, you can't remember.
	How did that sound out? Oh, never mind.
	We'll get caught up another time. Go on with your point.
	Yeah, thanks.
	Well, the strikes have been better since the last time I called.
	I'm about to finish my economics degree.
	Before I started studying economics, I did it because of philosophy.
	I wanted to go and study economics so I could understand economists' arguments every time they talk about state intervention and all the things that they usually say.
	So I went for it and I'm very interested in ethics.
	In, you know, in any economic system, especially the free market system, I think will be the most ethical one, and the only one, probably.
	And, well, within that frame, my whole life, before I, well, not my whole life, since I started university, I thought about getting into, you know, the academy afterwards.
	I mean, I just wanted to, you know, finish my undergraduate, then Probably a master's or something like that and then my PhD and go for the academy and try to...
	Sorry, what is the academy?
	Well, they'll be working in a university, right?
	As a professor or something like that.
	Oh, okay. Got it.
	And, you know, doing research, publishing papers, whatever.
	And, you know, trying to get some...
	Kind of different education out there, you know, different from what you would heard from 99% of professors, right?
	I mean, I guess the only exception would be, you know, some people like the Austrian school or something like that.
	I mean, they usually are professors and they show another point of view, but it's not mainstream, right?
	So I would like to I was thinking about, you know, contributing in that area of society, let's say, right?
	So, being a teacher, you know, giving students another point of view, maybe that could work, maybe that could help society as a whole.
	That was my whole idea.
	But now, I mean, I'm having some thoughts on the matter because I'm not sure if that might be the best thing that I could do right now.
	And, well, it has to do with some of the things that you have said about, you know, professors getting a lot of subsidies and, you know, things from the government.
	Also, you know, pretty much every university has some kind of intervention by the government.
	It's regulated, etc.
	And the other thing is that when you go, I mean, I've been living this for, I don't know, like three years and a half now.
	Every time that I try to argue against the professor, right?
	With some, well, what I would consider good arguments, I mean, they follow logic and reason.
	And when you give another point of view that is not theirs, right?
	I mean, when you say that the market is not coercion, like, you know, the last color tried to argue...
	Then they get really anxious because most of them are pro-statism and pro-intervention and pro all of those stuff.
	And I would be attacked, sort of, right?
	So, for example, I had this teacher in the philosophy department.
	She's the most renowned ethicist in Colombia, supposedly, right?
	She has a PhD or whatever.
	And I took a class with her.
	After my final essay, I wrote about the concept of liberty and how the free market has liberty in it, and she said that no, that was not the case.
	Anyway, we argued, and at the end, she told me that I had a lot of mistakes on my essay.
	So we went over there and...
	I'm sorry to interrupt. She said, what was not the case, I just missed that.
	Okay, so that the free market is inherently not free.
	I mean, it was coercive, that it had a lot of...
	Yeah, like, it was not free in the sense that you cannot choose not to work for a company, let's say, if you were starving, right?
	So... It was either you work or you die of hunger.
	I wonder, has she never seen a beggar?
	Right. No, seriously, I mean, that's somebody who's choosing not to starve or to work, really.
	I mean, are there no beggars in Colombia?
	I mean, is it really that much of a paradise where there's no beggars, there's no people who choose not to work or to starve?
	Right. No, this is full of them.
	Trust me. So, yeah, that was my point.
	And every time I argued, you know, anyways, the thing is that I wasn't even trying to convince her, right?
	I knew I was not going to be able to do so.
	But at least to show her that I was not being irrational, that my line of argument was rational and logic, etc.
	So I thought I deserved, you know, a good grade.
	But she didn't give me a good grade.
	And at the end, I asked her, why didn't you grade me, you know, good?
	And she said, no, because essentially after, you know, like three hours discussion, I don't agree with you.
	So after I debunked pretty much all the arguments that she already gave me, then she said, I'm not going to give you a good grade because I just don't agree with you.
	And sorry, let me just point out something for you and for others listening.
	I'm not sure you've thought of this, but I just sort of mentioned it.
	That she's very concerned about the unjust authority that may occur in the free market with companies who are vying for productive employees.
	She's very concerned about the exercise of power in the free market.
	Yet, if you disagree with her, she punishes you.
	Do you see how ironic that is?
	Right, right. That's immediately what I thought.
	And she's the most renowned ethicist in Colombia.
	I mean, she goes to conferences all over the country, all over Latin America, and she's quoted frequently.
	And she's supposed to be the person who knows more about ethics, right?
	Yeah, but she's going to be, sorry to interrupt, sorry to interrupt.
	Unethical, you know, formal.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Yeah, Steph? Hello?
	Steph? Oh, sorry about that.
	It's something that's important to remember when we're dealing with this kind of stuff up close.
	The professors that we see in our academic environment, they look big and they're cited and they're quoted and they're famous and they go to conferences and so on.
	But I think it's important to jump into our mental time machine and go forward A couple of hundred years.
	Like, so for instance, 19th century German philosophers or 18th century British philosophers, you know, an educated person can probably name a couple of each, right?
	And yet there were hundreds, if not thousands, of professors and teachers of those disciplines, of those subjects, right?
	So, I mean, the most famous 19th century German philosopher is probably Nietzsche.
	And Nietzsche failed as a philological professor and he left the university and he was living in rooms in Wagner's basement and so on.
	And he was scorned and rejected by everyone around him.
	And there were lots of famous professors who went to conferences and gave big speeches and published books.
	But their books are all forgotten and nobody gives a shit about them anymore, right?
	But people still read Nietzsche, right?
	The people who were famous at the time, the people who were famous intellectually particularly...
	People who were famous at the time will almost always be forgotten by the future.
	It's the people who were not famous at the time, the people who were scorned and rejected at the time, who have the best chance of being remembered by the future, which I think is where we want to be remembered, because philosophy takes such a damn long time, that if you don't last more than 30 or 50 years, you might as well have not bothered at all, right?
	Because it takes forever for ideas to change as a whole.
	And the reason for that is that the people are famous as thinkers in the present because they reflect back the prejudices of the majority.
	And so the majority says, I like you because you confirm and make respectable the stupid idiotic cultural biases that I already have, right?
	And so in every culture and society you can see very prominent thinkers who are prominent precisely because of They reflect back and justify the irrational prejudices of the majority.
	And if you don't do that, if you don't reflect back the prejudices of the majority, they will get mad at you, or they will ignore you.
	You don't make me feel comfortable.
	You don't make me feel justified.
	You don't make me feel smart.
	So I don't like you.
	And there were many more famous teachers in ancient Athens than Socrates, but Socrates is the one we still read.
	2,500 years later, right?
	Because there were all of the people who taught, you know, Cicero later on, right?
	The people who taught eloquence and public speaking and debating and law, and they were all very famous, but nobody reads them anymore, because all they were doing was climbing up the fame of stupid, majority-heard, prejudicial acclaim.
	So if you're famous in the present, you are almost certain to be forgotten in the future.
	If... You are not famous in the present.
	Obviously, it doesn't guarantee that you'll be famous in the future.
	But I think it gives you a better chance.
	So although this woman may look like, oh my God, the pinnacle of success in this and that, she's only successful because she is reflecting back to people and giving intellectual respect to prejudices that they hold about There's coercion in the free market, right? Like this last caller, right?
	I mean, I couldn't get him to differentiate between violence and its opposite, or that violence is bad and nonviolence is good, right?
	So a thing and its opposite, we're all in one big messy soup, and therefore we couldn't make any progress, because you can't figure out which direction you can go in if north, east, south, and west are all the same direction, right?
	And so that's why I sort of ended that.
	But But that is a very common phenomenon, right?
	So I wouldn't be too impressed with this woman.
	Of course, she's famous now or whatever, but the people who are famous down the road, who have the greatest influence, are almost never famous in the moment or at their time.
	Yeah, of course, you're completely right.
	Well, I'm not at all impressed with her.
	I mean, not on the very minimum.
	What I was going to do was that, you know, that was really frustrating for me.
	You know, I really prepared myself and I did some what I think considered to be a good research and I invested a lot of time on the paper and all in the end worked for nothing because I just, you know, she didn't like what I had to say.
	So the thing is that in the academia, right, I'm sorry, let me just interrupt you for a sec.
	What do you mean when you say it was all for nothing?
	Well, yeah, I was talking about my grade, which is kind of important for me because I have a scholarship and it's kind of hard for me to pay.
	So yeah, my grade, that's what I would...
	Right, you just want to make sure you don't put whether things are valuable or not based on other people's opinions of them, right?
	No, no, no, not at all.
	And you gained a lot of knowledge about integrity in the realm of somebody who claims to be an expert in ethics, right?
	Exactly. I can't tell you why you're wrong, but I feel that you're wrong, so I'm going to mark you down.
	I mean, that's not even remotely respectable, right?
	Right, right. That's what I thought.
	Then I realized that was kind of frustrating for me in the sense that I think that I didn't get a You know, what I deserve that was better grade or whatever.
	So, essentially, what I've been thinking of lately is that if I get involved in the academia, what is going to happen eventually is that I'm going to live as a frustrated person.
	I mean, I'm going to, you know...
	Sorry, and I hate to interrupt you, but I want to go back for a sec because I think that will help answer the next question.
	What would it have meant to your theory of voluntarism and the free market if she had acted with great integrity and virtue, despite being employed by the state?
	It seems to me that you were in a no-win situation.
	Like, if she acts badly, then you are frustrated because you're being treated unjustly.
	But if she acts well, then...
	It also does not help you with your theory, right, which is that quality comes out of the free market and the free market is better than statism, that free markets are better, that voluntarism is better than coercion, right?
	So it's kind of a no-win situation because either you get marked down, which is frustrating, or, and it's never happened to me, but somebody acts with great integrity, honor, and courage, in which case the theory about coercion versus voluntarism takes quite a blow, right?
	Right. But, sorry, go on.
	No, that's a good point.
	I haven't thought about it. Yeah, well, then I've been thinking that if I get involved in academia, then my choice, of course, would be to work in a private university.
	And, well, as far as I know, private universities are not heavily subsidized, or at least not here...
	As I think in the States, I don't know, by the government.
	So I could get a little bit disattached from the state working in a private university.
	What I don't think is that I'm going to be, you know, doing a lot of progress in the sense that people is, I mean, essentially the Reviewers and the whole academia is going to lean forward the other side of what I'm trying to argue.
	I think I'm not going to make a lot of progress, essentially.
	I don't know how strong my happiness will depend on being successful as a teacher or not.
	And in that sense, I don't think it's going to work out well for me.
	But on the other hand, you know, I do want to do some research, and I do want to publish some papers that could help other people.
	So in that sense, I'm kind of confused.
	I don't know what... Well, no, look, I think I understand where you're coming from, and I really do sympathize with the challenge of this.
	And I'll tell you how I would approach that question.
	Problem or question and maybe it'll help you and maybe it'll be just me flapping my gums.
	Steph, hold on. Before you give me your advice, let me put the other part of the issue here.
	Is that if I don't get involved in academia, I probably have good grades and everything.
	So I could be hired by a private company and work as an economics consultant or whatever.
	And, you know, that might give me another kind of area to work with.
	And that would be good. I mean, my payment would be far better than one of a professor.
	But the thing is that I wouldn't be able to work on some research and that.
	So that's what I've been thinking of now.
	Right. No, and that's good that you did economics because that's much more marketable than philosophy or whatever, right?
	So this would be my...
	This would be my approach to this issue.
	I don't think that you should do something for the cause, if that makes any sense.
	I don't think you should make your decision about where to start your career based on how can I communicate to the most people about freedom and peaceful solutions to social problems or the free market or the things that I consider virtuous, which I would agree with you are virtuous.
	I wouldn't make the decision Based on what kind of platform it gave me to communicate with people.
	Because to me, that is an argument from effect.
	That is not an argument from principle.
	That is not an argument from principle.
	And arguments from effect can really mess you up, right?
	And what I mean by that is, you could end up with a situation like this, where...
	You try to get an academic position with your beliefs and you run across, I mean, obviously Columbia is pretty socialist, so you run across lots of objections, lots of hostility.
	You get into debt, you kind of ground down, you become miserable, you become unhappy, you end up really desperate, maybe you take some position as a TA or something like that, and you're miserable and you're unhappy and you're smelly because you kind of want soap or something like that, right?
	And then what happens is, People will then see you, students will see you, and they'll say, well, this smelly, unshaven guy who's now worn the same clothes for three weeks straight is telling me all about the joys of freedom.
	Wait a minute, right?
	That doesn't make any sense.
	He doesn't look very happy.
	There's nothing that bad people like to do more than to frustrate a good person and then put him front and center so that they could then say, see, that's where his supposed virtue gets him, right?
	I mean, you could then be put forward as an example.
	So people who are free marketers are sometimes put forward after being frustrated and tortured mentally and subconscious, right?
	But that can happen.
	Where you end up thinking, well, I'm going to do academia because that gives me the greatest opportunity to talk to people about freedom.
	But it ends up with you actually being not such a great advocate.
	The other problem, of course, with going to academia to talk about freedom is you have to say, well, the state is good for some things.
	Right? Right? You have to say that, because that's what you're doing.
	You can't say, nothing good can come from statism, but I'm going to take state money to tell you that nothing good can come from statism.
	So that's a paradox to me.
	I don't think that you're limited to two choices.
	I don't think you're limited to academia or the private sector.
	Sector. I don't think you're limited to those two choices.
	I mean, there's lots of other things that you could do that might have interesting options or opportunities.
	You could start a podcast.
	You could start a blog. You could start a business of your own.
	You could become a private tutor.
	You could become a teacher, as I say, at a fully private university, although that may have its challenges as well.
	But I wouldn't limit yourself to these two options, but I would really look into other things.
	I would look... If I were you, I would try to find somebody...
	In Colombia or South America or Spain, I don't know.
	Somewhere where there's a similar cultural background.
	Somebody who has achieved something that you admire in the realm of talking about freedom.
	And you say, well, how did you do it?
	And how has it been for you?
	Has it worked? Is it successful?
	So try and take advice from people who've done things that you admire.
	And I think that would be helpful.
	That would help become more creative about things.
	Probably that's what I'm calling you, right?
	Yeah, maybe. Maybe I could help you with that, too.
	We could talk about that another time if you like.
	But I think it's important to find people you admire and figure out how they got where they got to.
	And, you know, people love to help you.
	I mean, I'd be happy to help you if I could, right?
	So people like to help.
	So I would look at those things.
	I think... I think academia is a tough road for a free marketer.
	It certainly hasn't worked over the past, say, 200 years, right, for people to join academia and convincingly talk about the free market.
	Because deep down, people get that it's kind of silly for people to join a state-protected union where they can't be fired and then talk about the virtues of competition and open markets, right?
	It really doesn't work at all.
	In fact, I think it does more to discredit It's like somebody arriving at a podium and being held aloft by his slaves and telling you that slavery is immoral and can never lead to any good.
	It doesn't fundamentally make any sense.
	I think that's a challenging thing.
	Now, that having been said, you don't have to do anything for the cause.
	I think that's really important as well.
	You don't have to do anything for the cause.
	An academic is a pretty sweet life.
	I gotta tell you, work a hell of a lot less than I do.
	I mean, it's a pretty sweet life.
	And you get, you know, a couple of months off in the summer.
	You teach maybe 10 or 15 hours a week.
	It's work when you get started, but, you know, you coast pretty easily.
	You can't get fired. You get to go to lovely conferences, fully paid for.
	It's a pretty sweet gig, right?
	And I don't have any particular problem with anybody taking that gig on.
	Just don't talk about the unfettered virtues of the free market, because you've chosen not to exercise that, right?
	And again, I wish the choice were better.
	I mean, that constraint is still there.
	But if you're going to take the choice to go into academia, which, you know, is...
	It's a pretty sweet gig, then I would just make a request that you not talk about how great the free market is, because that makes everybody else's job that much tougher.
	Because you've obviously said, well, I don't really like the free market that much relative to academia, and therefore, you could go into academia and you could say, I'm going to gather experience, maybe start my own university in time.
	I mean, there's lots of different options, lots of different approaches, but I wouldn't look at it as either or.
	Like, I either go Into the private sector and then never do any research.
	Well, you can do research in the private sector.
	It would just be market-driven research, which, according to your philosophy, is actually better, right?
	You can do research in the free market.
	In the free market, you have more objective standards of value than you do in academia.
	Because in academia, it's everybody else's opinion that you have to court.
	And that's a pretty humiliating thing to do, in my opinion and experience.
	So I think that would be tough emotionally.
	But you could go in and say, well, I'm going to get experience for how to start my own private tutoring company, or I could go and work for a free market company, and I could do research on the side and publish it on a block, right?
	You don't need to get published by a peer-reviewed journal in order to get ideas out there.
	I can tell you that for sure.
	And in fact, I would say you can get more and better ideas out there if you avoid the challenges of peer-reviewed journals in a pretty statist environment.
	So... These are just some things off the top of my head, but I think there are lots of options that are available to you to live your values.
	Forget the course. Forget about how you can have the biggest effect on people and so on.
	The biggest effect, my friend, that you can have on people is to live your values yourself.
	There's nothing that says, well, if I compromise my values in order to get X, Y, and Z, or if I put this free market thing aside and I'll get this job in academia because then I'll be able to talk to lots of people, Well, you won't be convincing, in my opinion.
	The only way to really convince people is to live your values as truly, as deeply, as wisely, and as consistently as you possibly can.
	Then you will have a great effect on people.
	90% of communication is non-verbal.
	It's in the posture. It's in the tone of voice.
	It's in the eye contact.
	It's in your sense of joy with your own existence.
	It's not in, well, I have a bunch of freshmen sitting in front of me, right?
	Or if you do go into academia and you talk about the free market, at least don't hide the contradiction.
	At least bring it out in front of people.
	So say to your students, your freshman students, yes, I'm a professor.
	Yes, I can't be fired.
	Yes, I take state money.
	But here is my argument as to how things should be.
	And I recognize there's a contradiction and I've tried to work with that and I accept that as a necessary part of getting in front of you fine people.
	I wish it were different. At least be conscious and explicit about the contradiction.
	Don't avoid it. I mean, that would be my suggestion.
	But, I mean, I would just keep my options open.
	But, I mean, I'm obviously somebody who didn't take the root of academia.
	And I'm somebody who took the root of the free market in terms of educating and cajoling people into Wisdom and self-knowledge.
	And I wouldn't have it any other way.
	I mean, you couldn't pry this path from my cold, dead hands with four crowbars and a bulrog.
	So I wouldn't have it any other way.
	And so that's my path.
	And I'm so glad that I didn't go into academia.
	And obviously, I wasn't particularly welcome in academia.
	So I'm not going to say that they were paving the The way for me with gold and dancing elves and I chose not to go that way.
	I mean, I was not welcome and I ended up not wanting to go.
	I went into the free market.
	As a software entrepreneur, I stayed in the free market as a podcaster.
	And I can tell you that the free market does breed quality and it does breed relevance and it does breed intimacy and it does breed happiness in a way that I can never imagine.
	I think I'd be really depressed if I were an academic right now.
	I think I would just be like, oh man.
	I'm trapped. I can't leave.
	I got a kid. I got an income.
	I'm not fit for anything else. I'm used to this pretty relaxed lifestyle.
	I think I would just be depressed.
	Whereas now, I'm panicked.
	Whereas now, I'm sort of excited and thrilled to be doing what I'm doing.
	And it is a roller coaster. And donations are up and down.
	And it's very exciting all over the place.
	But I wouldn't have it any other way.
	Okay. Well, yeah.
	That was just...
	That was very good.
	Yeah. Your insights are always good.
	What can I say? You gave me a lot to think about.
	Of course, what you said makes a lot of sense.
	I have to think about it.
	What you said just now, living up your values, you don't have to sacrifice them in order to spread the message.
	I think that is a good point.
	Yeah, you could be a grocery clerk, right?
	And living your values, then you would have an effect on people.
	I really believe that. I don't believe in psychic stuff at all, but I do believe that we listen very deeply, whether we like it or not.
	And integrity, and please understand, I'm not putting myself forward as a shining example of any kind of perfect integrity, but I think I certainly do strive for that.
	Yeah. I think it has a kind of power and an authority and a confidence with it that changes a lot more than compromise does.
	Now, compromise is not a bad thing, in my opinion, intrinsically, as long as it's conscious and as long as it's not evaded.
	You can do whatever you want in life as long as you don't make up excuses or pretend that something hasn't happened that has.
	As long as it's conscious and clearly expressed, then I don't have any particular problem with it.
	Not that you should really care what I think about it, but I think as long as it's conscious and clearly expressed...
	Then, to me, that's fine.
	But if it's repressed or ignored or avoided or whatever, then I think you start to run into problems.
	Okay. Thank you very much, Steph.
	That was just great. You're welcome.
	And listen, if there's anything else I can do, like listen back to this, and if you say, that chucklehead didn't have anything useful to say to me, then if you'd like to give me a shout, we can talk more about it if it would be of interest to you, because you have a fine mind and you are a really dedicated and passionate advocate for truth and reason and evidence and all those kinds of good things.
	So if there's anything that I can do, To provide some useful feedback, you know, your future is hugely important, and it's not like every step you take you can't undo or anything like that, but if there's anything that I can do to help, please do let me know.
	I've always had a huge degree of respect for you when we've talked, and I think that in particular you have a challenging time in your location for what it is that you're trying to do, so if there's anything that I can do to help, please do let me know.
	Hey, Steph, that was just great.
	Thank you very much. You're very well.
	I haven't talked to you in the last couple of years, but I've been following you up real close.
	Oh, great. That's good to know. Good to know.
	And I hope that it won't be another couple of years until we talk again.
	Okay, Steph. Thank you very much.
	All right. Thanks, man. All the best to your kid.
	I mean, I've seen the pictures.
	She is awesome. She is in fact.
	And speaking of which, I should probably go do a smidgen of parenting from time to time.
	All right. Thanks very much for calling in.
	I appreciate that. And thank you, everybody.
	For calling in and for continuing to be interested in and supportive of the Freedom Aid Radio philosophy buffet slash smorgasburg.
	And I did do a true news about the global warming, which I hope that you will find interesting.
	It's been a couple of years since I've done anything on that.
	I wanted to update it with some of the later research.
	So I hope that you will find that of use and of interest.
	And have yourselves an absolutely wonderful, wonderful week.

▲