Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 18, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:55:41

1644 Freedomain Radio Sunday Show 18 April 2010

A practicing psychologist calls in with his thoughts about Freedomain Radio, and how self-defense fits into UPB.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, thank you everybody so much for joining us on this 18th of April, 2010, just after 4 p.m.
	Eastern Standard Time. I have a tiny intro, but I will of course defer to questions.
	So in some places in Texas, they're thinking of bringing back paddling for children.
	And some people are sort of saying this is a bad thing, of which of course I would be one of them.
	And some people are saying this is a good thing.
	And it's very interesting that the people who say it's a good thing seem to have universally the same complaint about the children and what they hope that the hitting of children is going to solve.
	And that problem that they talk about repetitively is the problem of a lack of respect.
	There's a lack of respect for their society.
	There is a lack of respect for their culture.
	There is a lack of respect for their elders and for authority figures in general.
	And that... It's a very interesting question.
	And the first question I would ask if my child is treating me with a lack of respect is to say, well, how am I doing in terms of treating her with respect?
	And that, of course, would be an important and I think very illuminating question for the people In Texas or around the world to ask and to say, how are we treating our children?
	For instance, have we run up massive national debts and mortgage their futures off to domestic and foreign banksters?
	If yes, then you may not be considered to be treating them with great respect.
	That would be one thing that I would say.
	The other thing that I would say is have we done everything possible as a society to ensure that their education is engaging and positive and personal and self-actualizing and are we teaching them the skills to succeed in a 21st century economy or are we still bludgeoning them with boredom and fear while stuck in the teaching methods of the 19th century with the teachers squawking things up on a blackboard while children sit in dull rows Like a box of eggs.
	And if we are in fact teaching them with 19th century brain deadening methods rather than engaging them, then it may not be said that we are treating them with much respect.
	Oh, it's Texas, of course, so do we put mentally retarded people who've been convicted of a crime to death?
	Well, yes we do.
	Might that be said to be treating people who are helpless with respect?
	I would think not. Oh, wait, it's Texas as well, where a good majority of the nation's soldiers come from.
	So are we lying to kids about patriotism and the virtue of national service in order to get them to go and kill their souls and foreigners in unnecessary, brutal and illegal wars?
	Well, could that be considered treating them with respect?
	Oh, do we lie to them about religion and not present our religion to them as just one of many mythologies in the world?
	Or do we just instead indoctrinate them that it is the one true faith and that Jesus died for their sins and they are guilty of original sin and blah blah blah?
	Is that treating them with respect?
	I think that it's important for people to look in the mirror, of course, before looking out at others, particularly the vulnerable.
	And I think that to place the blame upon the children For feeling a lack of respect for those in authority is to miss a crucial possibility to reform authority.
	But, of course, that's not what authority is about.
	Authority is not about negotiation or reciprocity, but brute power and subjugation.
	And I think kids understand that very, very well.
	Well, that's it for my brief introduction.
	I am more than happy to entertain questions.
	If you have any comments or issues or problems or criticisms, I will be happy to share my thoughts.
	You can type them into the chat window or you can just unmute yourself and we can hear you there.
	So, please go ahead. I would like to talk to you, Jeff.
	I'm Heiko from Germany.
	Hi. Hi.
	I finally made it through.
	My heart is beating.
	I'm excited.
	I'm a little anxious. Well, I'm very happy to be chatting with you.
	I know you've been listening or you've been around the conversation for a long time.
	So I'm very, very pleased to have an opportunity to chat with you and what's on your mind.
	Yeah, I would like to give you some feedback about how my life changed through FDR. But first, for the record, I would like to come back to your...
	You once said the sentence that the day has yet to come Where a caller calls in, that's, who's older than you?
	Okay, good, good.
	So what have we got? The day has arrived.
	Oh, good to know. Good to know.
	I feel younger already.
	Thank you. Yeah, that relieved my anxiety to know that I'm older than you.
	Well, speak out, Sonny!
	Okay. Yeah, and of course I'm listening for about more than one and a half years, so maybe that's considered a long time listener and a first time caller.
	Yeah, I am a psychologist and I also studied philosophy, but I didn't get a degree.
	But I was in my twenties already interested in philosophy.
	And I thought it would be interesting to tell something about how FDR impacts on a pretty well prepared brain and in an old stubborn brain.
	I'm fascinated to hear.
	Please take your time. Yeah.
	First I discovered FDR through an interest in unschooling because I have two boys.
	One is 11 and the other one is 7.
	And when the older one approached school age, I got interested again in a question of schooling and then of course I discovered that schools are not so good for learning and so I was around some unschoolers in Germany and one of them referred me to FDR. First,
	it was more of a political interest because this was an anarchist and so it's around political topics.
	But soon I discovered that you also talk about family stuff, relationship stuff and psychology.
	I earned my money with it and so that was very interesting for me too.
	And I discovered that I was very anxious about listening to podcasts about defooing topics and foo stuff.
	Because I felt that there was something that I didn't want to confront.
	But after a while, I had enough courage to listen also to these podcasts.
	And I went into the relationship series.
	And that ended in that I confronted the feelings towards my father.
	My mother is already dead for several years.
	She had cancer, so that was not such an immediate concern.
	And my father is still alive, so I had ultimately to deal with the question, how good the relationship to my father is.
	It turned out that I discovered a lot of hate against him or directed at him.
	I am already not in contact anymore with him for more than a year.
	It has turned out to be a very good decision for me.
	I feel very much relieved to not have to deal with him anymore because I basically ran after him for 43 years and never really managed to get into contact with him at a deeper level.
	What do you mean? Just so I know what you mean, what do you mean by I ran after him?
	Yeah, well, he basically neglected me as a child.
	He was not very much of an active father and I couldn't get into contact with him.
	As long as I remember, I wanted to have contact with him or I mean contact in a psychological sense.
	I had a deep, meaningful relationship with him and I often argued with him and afterwards I tried to not argue but, well, be around him.
	I invited him for weekends and wrote him letters and I never got a reaction that would be connected with me.
	I think it's a very sad story and it's terrible that it was that way.
	So, when you said that you chased him, you know, whenever I talk to someone whose experience is very different from mine, I always want to make sure that I get or try to get what they're going through.
	And I didn't chase my dad.
	My dad was very remote to me.
	And I didn't feel that there was a possibility for connection.
	And so, I never chased him.
	Now, you did, and did you do that because there was sometimes more connection, or you felt that it was more possible, or what was it that motivated the chasing?
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	I think, I mean, he was around in the household.
	And of course, there were family excursions and he would, yeah, he was around, he would talk to me.
	And I mean, as a child, I would look up to my father and I wanted him to like me and to adore me.
	And so I would maybe bring up stuff to him and what he would do is that he would find some fault in it.
	And so I would try harder to avoid his criticism, but then he would criticize something else.
	And so he drew me into a game.
	It's not a game.
	I would try to please him and he would criticize me again.
	He would put me down. So that's what I mean with chasing.
	So I was trained to serve him or to run after him and he would always reject me.
	Do you know where that habit came from in him?
	Do you know what it was in his history that may have influenced the approach that he took?
	Yeah, I thought about this a lot.
	I think there are several answers to it.
	I think one is that his mother was not able to show physical affection.
	She herself was raised by a nanny and she said, I just can't kiss my children.
	So that was one obstacle of him showing affection or showing emotional closeness.
	And his father was a very Explosive person.
	So I guess this made him afraid of open disagreement or open discussion.
	It made him more weak or soft on the outside.
	But his aggressive side was coming out in different ways.
	And then he went to school after the war, World War II, and to go to a higher education.
	How old are you? Not so old.
	No, no. World War II. And he only could go to the lowest school because a higher school would have cost money and they didn't have it.
	And he was very intelligent and he could very well have completed a university degree.
	And I think he recognized very soon that I was very intelligent and I think he couldn't bear that I would raise above him.
	And so that showed especially clearly in puberty when I was developing my own ideas.
	I was really fierce when he opposed everything that I liked and loved.
	I think that came very much from a fear that I would grow over him and that he wouldn't be able to tease me.
	It felt like he was treating me like a brother or even like a father sometimes.
	And not that I would be his child.
	So that's part of the answer.
	Right, right. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
	I really appreciate you sharing this, and I know it's a difficult thing to talk about, and I really do appreciate it.
	I have a great deal of fascination about people's relationship, men's relationship with their fathers, because it's something that I have to mostly imagine.
	So I'm obviously very sorry.
	about what happened and so you would pursue him and you would try to win his affections or attentions and he was elusive, is that what you mean?
	Yes, but not quite, not only elusive because of what I said earlier he would recognize this and he would use it for his own sadistic impulses so it was even worse than just elusive He would talk about stuff that he liked and would use any initiative from my side to talk about interesting stuff that was interesting to me.
	Use this to go over to topics that would be interesting to him and would reinforce his worldview.
	And so that was very frustrating for me because I felt that I never had room to be myself and to share my passions and to be supported by him.
	Right, right. I'm so sorry.
	I mean I feel quite sad and quite emotional when I hear you talking about this.
	I mean I really get a very deep and strong sense of longing From you for connection with your father.
	Yeah, that's very true.
	Yeah, that's very true.
	I really would have liked to have a father, not so much that he would love me, that I could respect.
	I mean, that's such a big loss to not have a father that you can look up to and you can say, I want to be like him.
	I had to make up my father's rule, my image as a male person, That I could respect very much by myself and of course I couldn't do it so I turned to other male figures outside the family that I could respect and that often would be old dead men that have left books.
	Karl Popper was one of my first idols.
	Then it was Karl Rogers, founder of client-centered therapy.
	Of course, yeah. Well, you have good taste in heroes.
	That's a good...
	I think so, yeah.
	And now I wrote on the boards that you were sort of in this place also.
	And that might be some of the reasons that I was so anxious getting on the call.
	Because of course I respect you very much for your work and you're in a sense, although you are younger, you're in a sense a father to me because you share values and you share wisdom of how to live your life and I mean that's what fathers do, ideally.
	I really appreciate that.
	I mean, of course, we've not talked before, but I hope that you have found, at least through the conversations that I've had with myself and with others, that there's, I guess, more emotional availability.
	Some people might say too much emotional availability coming from me, but I hope that doesn't remind you too much of where you came from.
	No, no, of course.
	It's great that you're so available as you are.
	I mean, imagine other people, they're dead or so famous that they're not reachable anymore.
	I think I'm pretty lucky to be so early in FDR so that it's possible still to call in.
	I don't know what Well, we'll see.
	It will be very interesting to see.
	It will either be doing very well or very badly.
	I'm pretty optimistic.
	I consider myself glad, but I'll see.
	It's very understandable.
	You have a child and you have lots of stuff to do.
	That's no resemblance to my family, of course.
	Oh, no. I mean, I love these Sunday shows.
	I'd do them every day if I could.
	I just love these Sunday shows, and I really, really enjoy chatting with you and with other listeners who call in.
	I mean, it's an incredible honor to speak with people who are so honest and open, so I really, really appreciate it.
	You're certainly not taking me away from anything I'd rather be doing right now, so I appreciate that sentiment.
	Sorry, you have a lot to talk about, and I don't want to interrupt, although I do have some questions and comments.
	So I can go either way, whichever you would prefer.
	If you'd like to keep talking about the impact that philosophy has had on your life, I would be more than happy to listen, or I could share some thoughts and questions about what you've already said.
	It's entirely up to you.
	If it's possible, I would like to go on, because I had some points and I really wanted to touch on them, and then maybe afterwards we could go into what is most interesting.
	It's all interesting to me, but yes, by all means, go ahead.
	Yeah, okay. That was the defoeing from my father, which turned out to be really relieving and It freed up energy that I could use for myself and to give my life more focused direction and not this futile search for connection with my father.
	I mean he's 70 and he's not going to change and so that was really a good decision.
	A bit hard. Yeah, of course.
	But I mean, I consciously cope with this 20 years, 25 years, and so that was overdue.
	But then the next point was that I was starting to be more honest in my marriage.
	And that was not that I had weapons in the cellar or something, but there were some critical thoughts within me that I was afraid to share.
	And after I really was down with the principle that without honesty there's no relationship and that I have to be principled on this and not decide in case to case and if I'm too anxious then I'm not doing it, no. I have to go all the way.
	Then I was more honest.
	And on the other hand, my wife became more honest because she really picked up that I I was really wanting to know the truth and I was really wanting to know how she felt with me and that I was really sharing how I felt with her.
	And that was a bit bumpy but it turned out well and we are now more connected to each other, even more.
	I think we had a good marriage before but it was More alive and more trust.
	It's like standing on hard rock because it's reality.
	You know where you are and it's not fearing and vague.
	You know where you are.
	And you even know when you're losing yourself a bit and if you're losing contact and you know it as well.
	And so that was a very good boost for our marriage.
	And so, yeah, it's very much about RDR and I read this book twice and it helped me very much to really stay on focus there.
	Okay, that was the second point.
	Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I don't want to interrupt.
	I'm taking notes like, yay me, yay philosophy, and yay you.
	So, please go on.
	Yeah. Yeah.
	I mean, it's very, very good and powerful stuff.
	And I couldn't imagine that my marriage could...
	It would even be better, and it's so much better.
	In hindsight, I wouldn't change.
	Okay.
	But the next part, and that was somewhat around the same time, I realized that I was not so clear about my childhood.
	I had been in two long-time therapies before, one before my training and then during my training as a therapist.
	And that dealt not so much with the childhood, more with the current problems and with self-knowledge and emotions and understanding how I function.
	but not so much how the history of it was.
	I decided to investigate more the relationship between how I'm functioning in the present and how certain avoidances and dissociations that occurred between me and my wife and between me and myself, how they related to my childhood.
	And also I noticed that I was sometimes rough with my children and angry and harsh and unnecessarily harsh.
	And I recognized that it was also coming from my history.
	And so I decided to go again into therapy and I deliberately chose to go to a psychoanalyst, although my training was in client-centered therapy, because I figured that the psychoanalyst would be more interested in childhood stuff.
	And that was the case.
	I mean, it's very dependent on who you meet, but in my case it was very true.
	It helped me very much to be more present and to know more about myself, to explore some issues that went very far back, even in areas where I couldn't speak.
	So I don't know how to interpret this quite well, but I think it's toddler stuff that went on there.
	Okay, that was the therapy and that helped me very much to be more present here in my family and to love my children more and to love my wife more and to love myself and my life more and to be more focused and more positive in my life.
	Even more positive.
	And that leads to the last point that you talked earlier about in terms of being a fixed point and not being a variable and being not the oil but a cog.
	And I feel in the last year I feel very much that I You're there?
	I certainly am.
	Okay, the background noise changed so I was distracted.
	I feel very much that I'm more consciously about the principles in my life.
	And that I have certain values that I more intuitively lived and now it's more principled, it's more conscious, it's more decidedly.
	And that gives me much more focus and much more passion and much more energy to really go for my happiness and to really care for what is important and to rearrange my priorities.
	And, of course, my happiness and my wife's happiness and my kids' happiness is of the utmost importance.
	And all the other stuff has been ranked down.
	And so I think that's the right order.
	And so I'm very much happier now.
	I feel that I have a standard from which I can decide what to do.
	I can also judge my existing friendships and I sadly have some skeptical experiences there.
	But it doesn't throw me off track because I know where I'm going and I feel that I don't have to agree with everybody and I don't have to fight with everybody.
	I know where I'm heading and that's my happiness.
	That's a very strong feeling.
	I feel strong and positive.
	I don't know how to say this otherwise.
	Maybe that's a very important yardstick to measure it.
	A year ago I said, I would really like to be able to say the sentence, I love X about anything in my life.
	And before I went to therapy, I was not able to say this.
	I knew that I was agreeing with my wife and my life and I like my work.
	But to really wholeheartedly love any aspect of my life, I was not able to say this.
	And I think that's a very sad statement to make.
	But I confronted it and I accepted that it was the case.
	And now I can say, yes, I love my life, I love my wife, I love my family, I love my work.
	And it's not always pleasant, but I love it.
	I'm with it and so that's a really great achievement for me.
	Being able to talk to you in this manner and to call in here, I think that's also breaking out of a cell of isolation that I have been trained to maintain.
	I think that's a big achievement and I am very grateful to your work.
	I think it's a long time work and it's I mean, you build it up for 20 years or for 30 years and it's very valuable to me and I can use it very well and I want to thank you for that and that's my speech.
	Oh, it's my absolute pleasure.
	What a beautiful speech.
	And I really, really am.
	I'm very moved. And I really appreciate what you're saying.
	And of course, you know, I think it's important to remember, and this is why I do urge people to be in contact with, you know, people they meet through Free Domain Radio, whether it's on the board or just chat with them.
	I mean... There's really not that many of us, all things considered.
	I mean, the whole show is resting on the generosity of probably not more than a thousand people.
	I mean, that's a tiny, tiny number of people.
	And, I mean, of course, there are many, many more listeners.
	And, of course, many of the people who are listening don't have the capacity to donate.
	It is a very small number of people, and the odds of finding somebody as interested in the truth and self-knowledge and philosophy close by, they're small.
	It's possible. But I do strongly urge people to stay in conversation, because it can be an isolating thing to pursue self-knowledge.
	So I just, I mean, thank you so, so much for calling in.
	And if that's the end of what it is that you want to say, I'd like to ask some questions, if you don't mind.
	Just one point I have to add, if that's okay.
	Because I know there are some people in the chatroom and I have gotten into contact, very intense contact with several people on FER and it has been so gratifying.
	I have to just say this because it wouldn't be right to not say it.
	And they are on the call.
	I posted it on Facebook that I would like to call in and they all show up here and I'm so grateful for them to do this.
	It's so moving and supporting and so you're absolutely right.
	We're so rare on the planet and it's very gratifying to be in contact with rational and curious people.
	Oh yeah, they're the best people in the world, I believe.
	So I appreciate you mentioning that.
	Heiko, do you have any thoughts or theories as to why you made so many different choices from your father and from your mother?
	I mean, better choices, I think, but do you have any thoughts about why?
	Yeah, I think that's a very difficult question.
	I agree. It's a very difficult question.
	I'm just curious what your thoughts are.
	Yeah, I actually talked about this with another FDR caller two days ago.
	And I think my answer was, and that's about the state of the art within my head right now, I think my mother was, I mean, she left me with this guy who was my father.
	And that was not good.
	But aside from that, she took a pretty rational approach to child raising.
	She read the Family Conference by Thomas Gordon, which is a pupil of Carl Rogers.
	And so we had discussions.
	There would be a problem.
	Maybe somebody left the bicycle in front of the house without the lock.
	And of course that's a problem.
	And then we would talk about it.
	And then we would find a rule we agreed on.
	And then there was a rational and not arbitrary way to punish us.
	It was an accounting system with imaginary money.
	And that worked quite well.
	When we were 18, we were paid the balance.
	And that was not important anymore then, but at the time it worked.
	And I just wanted to illustrate that my mother was quite rational and would listen to our arguments and would be interested in what we thought and interested in solutions that we all agreed on.
	So I think that was a very good influence, I think.
	And I think my father, I think he, through him, I think I learned to be on my own. I think I learned to be on my own.
	Although he neglected me and it was not good for me, but I learned to cope with this going inside my head.
	When I went into therapy, I had to write up my life.
	It stunned me how lonely I was.
	I was always in my head and I was curious and intelligent.
	I would read books and even when I was studying, I studied two subjects, philosophy and psychology at once.
	And people were just not interesting to me.
	I just wanted to know everything science had to say to me.
	And so I developed a life inside of my own.
	And I think that helped me to free myself from the culture my father was emitting.
	And that helped me also to get through school.
	I was also always a loner.
	I did have friends, but mostly one at a time and then very intensely with him.
	And so I developed some relationship skills with these single friends.
	And maybe that was a basis for not getting sucked into this destructive stuff with my father too much.
	So that might be some help.
	Yeah, I mean, it certainly sounds like you had different mothering than he had, which I'm not a determinist this way.
	I think there are still choices, but it sounds like you had more of the odds in your favor based on how you were parented relative to your dad.
	Yeah, of course, yeah.
	Because my father was not so violent as his father.
	He would rap in rage sometimes and was very scary.
	And my father wasn't scary.
	She was a coward.
	My mother had sometimes rage attacks, but very rare.
	They were more directed against my sister.
	So I wasn't afraid of her.
	I was afraid of my father, but not of physical violence, but of asking something of him because I knew he would use it against me.
	But that's a social danger.
	It's not a life danger.
	So I felt kind of secure.
	I felt, well, it's okay.
	I can live. I have to be lonely.
	Okay, that's my fate, but I can live.
	And that's the basis you can stand on.
	And then you can look out for different options.
	Maybe that's how it went.
	Right. And, I mean, your kids will be healthier than you.
	And, I mean, not that you're not...
	I mean, it sounds like you're doing absolutely magnificent and fantastic work.
	I mean, this is...
	If I could gather all of the flowers and medals in the world and cast them at your feet, I would.
	Because this is how...
	This is how the world is saved.
	There's no big dramatic election.
	There's no space aliens coming to pry the weapons from our hands.
	God is not going to come and make the lions lie down with the lambs.
	It's a slow, difficult, painful, exhilarating, exciting process of self-knowledge and dedication to truth.
	That's how the world is saved, and it is a generational process.
	and your kids are unbelievably lucky in my opinion to to have the benefit as is your wife and I'm sure that she's doing her own work and she should be if she's I think she's there so I just wanted to say massive appreciations to you as well for you know for the work that you're doing in the family this is this is how we build a better world there There are no shortcuts.
	People have tried shortcuts for hundreds if not thousands of years and gotten not very far.
	So I just think it's magnificent what you guys are doing and you should be enormously proud.
	This is a life very well lived in my opinion.
	Thank you very much.
	That's recognition and I agree completely because I was interested in myself at least when I was 17 and so I consistently was into self-knowledge and into exploring myself and other people and my wife is also the type of searcher I would call it.
	She's also a psychotherapist and I'm so thrilled that she That our relationship survived the impact of FDR because not so many relationships survived that.
	I'm very happy to have her in my life and she's also very grateful about the influence of FDR. I'm very happy, and I think people should also remember that my relationship with my wife survived the impact of FDR, so that's two.
	That's pretty good. And just for those who don't know, psychotherapist is two words.
	Oh, just kidding. Anyway, so I have a couple of thoughts about, I mean, what you're saying is affecting me quite strongly, and I think it's because...
	Being a father myself, I think that what your father did and what you're doing has struck me.
	So I'd like to sort of share what I'm thinking about, if that's okay with you.
	I don't want to interrupt what you want to say, but I just wanted to share what I'm thinking about.
	Yeah, please go ahead.
	I watched a house.
	M.D. is a television show.
	I don't know if you've ever watched it.
	And this doctor, who's very cynical and dark and manipulative and funny and intelligent, was locked into a room with a patient who was dying.
	And this patient, I think he was in his 50s or something like this, and it was a man who had been a researcher at a university for, I think he said, 27 years.
	And after a lot of banter back and forth, it came out that this man, who only had a few hours left to live, was thinking only about his daughter who wasn't there.
	And the reason that his daughter wasn't there was that this father had left The family, when his daughter was six, he had an affair with a student, I think.
	He left his family and barely had any contact with his daughter since his daughter was six.
	And I found this very moving and very powerful.
	Because the last thing that he said before he died was something like, my daughter was the cutest six-year-old That you've ever seen.
	And his daughter did not call him back in time.
	His daughter was out and didn't know what had happened or that her father was dying.
	And I think there's a lot of sentimentality in that kind of writing because I know a lot of bad dads who just died without seeming to have these kinds of regrets.
	But let's say that it is true and it is possible that It's just something that, you know, the regrets that come too late, and I think about this in terms of your father, and my father too, I suppose, but the regrets that come too late are just so painful that this guy only recognizes his love for his daughter when he's within an hour or two of dying.
	I mean, how terrible is that?
	And what a life to have lived where you're not aware of that through all the years that you could have had a great relationship with your children.
	That you're not aware of that.
	And you're sort of sailing into death.
	And it's only at the very end that the light goes on.
	And the true values that your heart, or your defenses, I guess, have kept hidden from you, come blazing into light and you see the ruin of what you have made of your life.
	I think that is about the worst thing that could possibly happen.
	And I think that's what people mean when they...
	When they say that there is a hell after death, I think that the hell is the moment before death.
	I mean, we don't really know how long, like what happens to our sense of time when we're dying.
	You know, people say, well, your life flashes before your eyes, and you may feel like you've lived for a year before you die, or a day, or a week, or a month.
	It may feel that way as you're dying, that your sense of time gets so crazy.
	And I've often thought, what...
	What it would be like to see the ruin that you've made of your relationships through pride, through defensiveness, through vanity, through cruelty, through falseness, through defensiveness, through hostility, through aggression.
	All of the devils that keep our hearts from each other.
	What if just before you die you get to live with those regrets for what seems like an eternity in your minds?
	Oh, how terrible that would be.
	Yeah, sorry, somebody just mentioned in the chat window that the guy in the show, he purposefully timed his call so he wouldn't talk to his daughter.
	And he left a message which was, you know, he just said, Hi, it's Dad, I love you, and then hung up.
	And it was a very awkward message.
	And he said, you know, I wasn't there for her whole childhood.
	What right do I have to ask her to be here for my death?
	And... I can't urge people strongly enough to overcome whatever is keeping you from the people that you love, whatever is keeping you from the people that you want in your life, whatever is keeping you from reaching out with vulnerability, with humility, with love, with apologies, with whatever it takes to reconnect.
	I just think that it's so essential.
	If you want people in your life, do as much as you possibly can to get those people into your life because it is a cold and dead earth that we are all heading towards and the embrace of loved ones is about the most beautiful thing in the world.
	And I was just feeling a great deal of sadness.
	When you were talking, just thinking about, you know, the choices that your dad was making and is continuing to make, he's still alive, you know?
	I can't understand how relationships can die while people are still alive.
	I don't mean you. I mean, you are making, I'm sure, the right decisions for you, but I mean for your father.
	I mean, how terrible, how terrible.
	To live in that distance, to live in that self-justification, and to not do whatever it takes to tear down the walls that is keeping you from others.
	And what a great gift it would be to you to have that connection before your father died, and how unlikely that is.
	And I was just feeling very sad about that, and I wanted to share my sympathy with you about that.
	Yeah. Yeah, even when I think about, I mean, I'm 44 and when I think back 10 years ago, how shallow my life was compared to now and how non-committed I was to relationships I had in my life and how arbitrary they seemed.
	It's a loss of intensity and of joy.
	It's so normal in a sense, but it's not good.
	It cannot be health.
	And you were still, I think, I agree, it's not the same as health.
	What is it? You just, my 20s, what was I doing?
	I was killing time and having sex.
	It wasn't really a very deep and rich existence.
	And I think that's, it is very different.
	And I also think, I don't know if you found this to be true in your marriage, but I've certainly found it true in my marriage that the trials that we face really bring us closer together.
	I mean, one thing philosophy serves up is trials and challenges.
	Not because we're innately messed up by philosophy, it's just that the culture that we grew up in is so anti-philosophical.
	So whenever we really begin to gain some wisdom, and with wisdom comes courage and integrity, then we begin to go smack up against the limitations of other people's cultural and emotional defenses.
	And it's a trial.
	It's a challenge. But I've certainly found that the trials of philosophy in my life have brought me closer to my wife.
	It doesn't mean that I'm happy the trials happened, but I'm very happy at the degree to which it has made us deeper, more in love, more...
	And accepting and admiring of each other.
	And that is a beautiful thing.
	And the same thing can happen when you have children.
	I am so immensely impressed by my wife's parenting skills and the love and the patience and the affection that she brings to her.
	To our daughter. I mean, it's a beautiful thing.
	I mean, I thought I loved her when I married her.
	I thought I loved her two years ago, but it is a whole different thing.
	When you live philosophically, overcome the challenges that are erected against self-knowledge, and when you then parent in a better and positive, more gentle, more caring, more positive way, the marriage just turns into a very different thing, at least for me.
	Yeah, it's a whole another level and layer of cooperation and I mean having children is the most important project I ever had and if you have a really good partner there, that's wonderful and you need the other person so much and you depend so much on the other person that it's so gratifying and enjoys if it works out and if you Have a method or a procedure how you can resolve conflicts and how you can agree on certain things.
	So that's adding much more to only marriage.
	And I also wanted to sympathize with, you said that you had, and I didn't want to pick on you for this, because you said you'd been unnecessarily harsh with your children.
	And I would say that there's no such thing as necessarily harsh with your children, but that's not that important.
	But I wanted to mention that I can really sympathize.
	I mean, I'm very happy with what I'm doing as a father.
	I think that I could not do better than what I'm doing.
	But I will say this, that I really sympathize with the impulse for harshness with children.
	I mean, the one thing that is And particularly when you're raising your children differently than the way that you were raised.
	My daughter has taught me an immense number of amazing things, but I would say one of the most amazing things that she's ever taught me is how to be assertive without being aggressive.
	I mean, she is very assertive.
	I mean, if she's with me and she doesn't want to go to my wife, she'll sort of swing her arm, not aggressively, but just swing her arm like, no.
	And she just doesn't want to.
	If she doesn't want to be picked up, right, so we walk along the street and if a car comes, I have to pick her up.
	If she doesn't want to be picked up, she would just pull a Gandhi and she would just sit down on the ground and give me rubber legs so that it's harder to pick her up.
	And she's not aggressive.
	I don't know about any of this, but she's very assertive.
	Yesterday we were at the mall, and she loves going up and down the wheelchair ramp.
	I think she likes it because it's like a little roller coaster.
	So when she walks down it, she builds up some real speed, and her little legs go...
	And she really loves that feeling of speed.
	Of course, as a parent, it's a little anxiety-producing for me because she's been doing it for a while, and she started to do it when she was only first...
	Learning to walk and so she would take a lot of spills and there are lots of people on the ramp sometimes so it's a little challenging.
	So yesterday she was going up and down the ramp and I was trying to hold on to just the sort of back of her Sweater, just in case she fell.
	And she didn't even turn around.
	She just moved her hand back and swung her little hand at me, like, get your hand off my back, whitey.
	And because she knew she could do it.
	I mean, she reached for my hand when she's going up for a big step, because she knows she can't do that on her own.
	But she knew that she could do it, and she was very assertive that she did not want my help.
	It was not necessary.
	And she was not at all, I don't experience it as aggressive from her, but I experience it as aggressive sometimes within me.
	And the reason that I experience it as aggressive is that whenever I would be assertive, I would, you know, not whenever, but most times that I can remember, whatever authority figure I had would get upset with me.
	I would say, I don't need your help.
	And they're like, hey, I'm just trying to help.
	They just get upset.
	And so I associate that level of assertion with aggression from people in authority.
	And so I feel some of that aggression sometimes.
	And I just want to say that I really do sympathize with that.
	When you make a huge change from how you were parented, you still carry all of those bodies around with you while you're trying to learn this new dance.
	And it's a real challenge.
	So I just wanted to sympathize with that.
	Yeah, I think that's exactly the same as what you experienced with Isabella.
	I then suddenly feel like my son is seven years old and is behaving like my father.
	That's a turnaround because he's just looking for contact and I feel overpowered or overwhelmed.
	That was one reason that I went into therapy, to explore these layers of perception and to differentiate them.
	And it's also, I don't know if you've had this as a dad too, but I've had to uncouple this, not too often, maybe half a dozen times over the past couple of months, but...
	What will happen is I will say to Isabella, no, about something, right?
	Do another piece of popsicle and I'll say no.
	And sometimes she's fine with it, but sometimes she'll get really upset.
	And I feel this urge within me.
	I don't think it's organic, but I feel this urge within me to take a stand.
	You know, like no means no.
	I said no popsicle and no matter how upset you go, you get no means no, right?
	Mm-hmm. And I have to keep saying to myself, it doesn't matter.
	It's not a symbol for anything.
	It's a piece of popsicle.
	We have this sugar-free, all-juiced popsicles.
	It's not even bad for her, right?
	And so if she really wants another piece of popsicle, why not just give her?
	You know, like, why am I taking a stand on something that is so unimportant?
	Obviously, if she wants to run into the road, that's not something that, oh, well, you know, next time I'll stop her.
	But when it doesn't happen, I find that I feel like I need to take a stand to assert my authority to gain her respect.
	And it's all nonsense because that is not gaining her respect.
	That's just pointlessly denying her something.
	It's not completely pointless.
	I don't just sort of arbitrarily say no.
	But I sort of feel like if I give her another piece of popsicle, then she's going to want more and more, and it's going to be harder and harder.
	But I found that that actually isn't the case at all.
	I have found that when I give her the piece of popsicle, she's generally fine and doesn't want another piece of popsicle, or whatever it is that is going on that's relatively unimportant.
	But there's this desire within me to just take a stand and not budge because I associate that with authority because that's what I experienced as authority for so much of my childhood.
	But it's not important to be flexible in those situations where she really wants something and therefore why not, assuming it's safe, why not give it to her?
	That is something that is really tough.
	Occasionally, again, it doesn't happen to me very often, but it is something that I have to keep sort of unplugging in myself from time to time.
	Yeah, that's an experience I know also very well and I find it sometimes really difficult to to differentiate between anxieties that I have and that are unfounded and anxieties that are founded and so it would be rational to oppose a certain intention of my child and I think it's getting better if they are older so they can reason more but I think that's sometimes very difficult and then if you have two kids and are alone with them It's also sometimes overwhelming because you need some time to differentiate if it's only my question here or if it's a real issue.
	And in particular, of course, because our kids don't have any of our issues, right?
	I mean, I hope that they don't because otherwise we'd not be doing that great a job.
	But they're just doing their thing.
	They don't have the history that you and I have or other people have.
	And so they're just doing their thing and they don't notice, really, that they're treading on old landmines that we have and so on.
	And they shouldn't.
	I mean, they shouldn't know that, I guess, for the most part.
	But they don't know sometimes how much processing is going on.
	When change is occurring.
	I think kids don't know that, and they shouldn't know that, but it is a lot of processing to make these kinds of changes.
	It's a lot of very significant, almost hyper-consciousness to make different choices than what has been imprinted.
	I'm so happy that I can talk with my wife about this.
	We are almost every time on the same page.
	She's also very interested in thinking about education and how we raise our kids.
	So we're often sitting here evenings and talking about the day and when we got upset and what caused this and what's the future plan of action.
	And so it's very much work and it's a job.
	It's a real job. It's not just coming out of you intuitively.
	If you really want to change something in relation to your childhood, And it's really hard work.
	It is very hard work.
	It is very hard work. And I also sort of found it more important to remember to give Isabella as many victories as possible.
	And sometimes, you know, of course, I was brought up with the idea that if you give a child an inch, they'll take a mile, that you have to stand firm because otherwise they'll just take, take, take it.
	There's this fear of...
	Children's snowballing needs and desires just swallowing up the parent like some grim second womb or something.
	And it's not true. I mean, it's not true.
	It's just like a ghost story that people tell themselves so that they can be harsh with their children.
	Because the reality is that childhood is, at least to the age Isabella's almost 16 months, childhood so far has been like 99.999% failure.
	You know, she couldn't even roll.
	She couldn't turn over. She couldn't even find her own face when she was born.
	And then she learned how to crawl.
	And then she learned how to walk.
	And now she's learned how to run.
	And she can throw balls.
	And she's learning her ABCs and all that.
	But she gets most of it wrong.
	I mean, when she's learning words, she gets, you know, she has this thing now where we were just out for a walk the other day and there are these white water spouts that drain the water from the roofs onto the people's, I guess, beside their houses.
	And she was trying to peer up it, sort of on her squatting down, sometimes on her hands and knees.
	And she was trying to peer up it and she was saying, Babu, Babu, Babu.
	And I couldn't figure out what on earth she was doing.
	Until I remembered that she had seen a day or two before a little cartoon with, you know, itsy bitsy spider went up the water spout and in it there was a white water spout.
	And so she was saying spider and trying to find the spider that has gone up the water spout.
	And it took us literally 45 minutes to get to the park, which is just a block away, because every house she had to stop and, you know, baboo, spider, where's the spider?
	So she can't say the word.
	She doesn't know the correct association, though it's immensely impressive what she's doing.
	And she doesn't get to find a spider, right?
	So it's a lot of Failure, in a sense.
	And it's really, really important to give, I think, kids victories wherever you can because a lot of childhood is failure.
	I mean, if I had as much failure in a day as Isabella has in an hour, I'd have a tough time getting out of bed.
	But she just keeps on going and I think that's an amazing and impressive thing.
	Yeah, and if you have two kids, then it's an additional challenge because the younger one is always looking at the older one and seeing what he's already able to do.
	Oh yes, I remember that when I was a kid too.
	I remember that when I was a kid too.
	Like, why can't I do that? Yeah, and we have three years difference, so there's no way that the younger one can challenge the older one.
	And that's another additional problem.
	So you have to be aware that you're not heating up the competition between them.
	Right. And I think it's also a challenge for the older child to not feel vain for the accident of just having been born early, right?
	Hey, look, I can run fast.
	Hey, look, I'm stronger. Hey, look, I have better words.
	Hey, look, I can stay up later and I get more allowance.
	But that's all just accidental, right?
	And it's very important to remind, I guess, the siblings that, you know, birth order is no earned achievement, right?
	It's just accident, right?
	So I know, I just sort of pointed it out.
	And with the harshness, again, or with the taking a stand issue, I have two boys and I think in respect of their wiseness or impulsivity, they are quite different.
	And not only because they are different age, but it's a different temperament, different type of person.
	And so that's also an additional difficulty because if you are calibrated to one person and then you try to make the same decision with the other person, it's not right because he needs more rules and more friction.
	And the other one is more rational and thinks more.
	And so that's also difficult.
	You cannot raise two child with a different style.
	You have to adjust the style sometimes.
	Right. And of course, if they're both asking for something similar with different styles at the same time, it can be a real challenge, right?
	Yeah. Yeah. Right.
	Wow. Wow.
	Now, I just want to see if there are any other people who have questions or comments, but of course, you're absolutely welcome to call in any time, and I'm not sure what time is it in Germany at the moment?
	Oh, it's one hour before...
	No, no, no, no, it's ghost hour.
	One hour before midnight.
	Oh, okay, okay, good.
	Yeah, so I mean, any time you can call in, I would be thrilled.
	I also wanted to ask you, and you can answer this, of course, or not, as you see fit, but...
	Has it changed your application of psychology in other areas, the philosophical approach that we take here?
	Yes, I think so.
	I already was of the opinion that psychotherapy is applied philosophy, I think, and listening to FDR was It just reinforced this belief and I think I was more conscious of the patterns and of the principles that were going on in case studies and I was more aware of guilt issues and moral clarity.
	So I think I was more precise in my approach and more passionate sometimes in my approach.
	Which I think has made me a better therapist.
	But it was not that it completely revolutionized my approach to psychotherapy.
	Well, and it's interesting because you said, well, you were looking for patterns in your life that may be related to early childhood patterns.
	And that, of course, is Psych 101, right?
	That's the first couple of years in primary relationships.
	But it's very different when you start to dig into it yourself rather than just read about it.
	And I'm sure that's made you a better therapist yourself.
	Yeah, of course. That was part of the training, of course.
	But yeah, it was not that thoroughly that I wanted to have it, and so it was not completely that way.
	I started it only last year, but it was just a fine-tuning maybe.
	Right, right. Well, thank you so much for calling in.
	I hugely appreciate it. It's a wonderful thing that you're talking about.
	I mean, this is, you know, this makes the trials and tribulations and stresses of this show, it's all worthwhile every day when I hear about stuff like this.
	So I really, really do appreciate you sharing with that.
	And of course, the people who've been I really do appreciate the call in.
	Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you also so much.
	I felt very much appreciated and welcomed and it was really fun to talk and I'm not anxious anymore.
	Fantastic. Anytime, anytime.
	You're welcome, of course, which is true of all listeners, but anytime you want to call in, please feel free.
	Okay, I should say greetings from my wife and I will call another time.
	Fantastic. Okay, goodbye. Thank you so much.
	All the best. Well, that's just wonderful, wonderful news, and this is the kind of stuff.
	And, I mean, I don't get to share because I don't get permission or I don't get around to it, but I don't get to share the number of, you know, just enormously positive comments that I get.
	I mean, it is at least... 50 to 1, positive to negative in terms of the comments that I get.
	Not exactly the case on YouTube, always, but certainly in my inbox, I get enormously positive feedback, as do the listeners.
	I mean, as do the people who are calling in and the conversations that I have with people.
	Thank you. Thank you again so much to everybody who donates, who posts on the board, who's been part of a conversation, who talks about philosophy.
	Whether it has anything to do with this show or not is not particularly material, but people who talk about philosophy and who are taking the challenge of living.
	With the really challenging integrity.
	Do you know, I was just thinking the other day...
	Sorry, just before I go into that, I just want to make sure I'm not interrupting.
	If people have questions or comments that they would like to bring in, I'm all ears.
	If you'd like to talk, better you than me.
	All right. Well, feel free to interrupt me at any time, but I will just give a short...
	You know, Freedom in Radio is a pretty cool thing.
	And I hope that you understand that when I talk about the virtues of this conversation, it's not, you know, self-praise.
	It's really, it has to do with the technology and the listeners.
	Because without the technology and without you all, I am yelling in my car to empty air.
	Or was, I suppose. But, you know, Freedom in Radio is the first time That philosophy has not got its ass kicked up and down the street.
	And I think that's really, really interesting.
	I just think about this the other day.
	Free Domain Radio is the first time philosophy has not gotten its ass kicked or been co-opted into the university system or the media system or the intellectual system or whatever.
	But it is the first time.
	That it has not gotten its ass kicked.
	And I was thinking about the really independent philosophers.
	I mean, Socrates, of course, put to death.
	Aristotle was almost put to death and was chased out, vowing that he was not going to let Athens sin against philosophy.
	Twice, the Stoics lived in a barrel.
	A lot of the Roman philosophers ended up getting corrupted by political power, which was not good.
	The Christian philosophers were all insane throughout the Dark Ages and the early Middle Ages.
	And you can sort of go on and on through those philosophers.
	And this is the first time, I think, where truth has really been spoken to power, both personal, religious, and political, where philosophy is, you know, kicking some ass and taking some names.
	And I think that's actually, it's a really cool thing.
	I mean, think of how lonely and isolated somebody like Nietzsche was.
	You know, he was...
	A philologist, a professor of philology, I think in his early 20s, but he didn't last because of stress.
	He went insane for a variety of reasons, some of which is considered to be that he contracted syphilis during his one or two sexual encounters, but, you know, a pretty, pretty rough life that he had.
	And Ayn Rand, it's hard to say whether her life was happy or unhappy, but I certainly don't think that she...
	Died feeling the glow of achievement relative to what she sought out to achieve when she started.
	And I think that is...
	But this really is the first time where philosophy is, you know, after 2,500 or you could even say 3,000 years.
	I mean, first of all, philosophy is in a pretty pitiful state after 3,000 years.
	Or let's just say Socrates 2,500 years.
	Philosophy is in a pretty piss-poor state.
	Think of how much medicine can advance in a hundred years, and then think of how much philosophy has not advanced in 2,500 years.
	That many of the same questions that were being asked by Socrates remain, at least except in this conversation, I think, in many areas, remain unanswered.
	That is a significant...
	I mean, that lack of progress has only been matched by something like astrology and tarot card reading.
	And so I think it is really, really powerful and important to recognize that philosophy is really getting things done finally.
	And again, this is because of the amazing...
	Quality of the communications technology that is available.
	I mean, of course, we can understand that without the internet, without Skype, I mean, this would all be impossible.
	Imagine ordering a box of FDR tapes.
	I guess it would be a couple of crates that would have to be flown in by helicopter, and would cost thousands and thousands of dollars, whereas this is all mostly free.
	Philosophy is finally, because of the technology, you know, philosophy helped capitalism.
	Capitalism funded the state.
	The state created the internet.
	Philosophy takes over the internet and solves the problem of statism.
	It's a retroviral virus, I think.
	But it is really the first philosophy conversation that I can think of that is neither serving power nor...
	Falling apart. And I think that's fantastic.
	And I think that's something to be enormously proud of.
	To be enormously proud of participating in for you.
	All right. I think we...
	Oh, we have somebody...
	Somebody has written something about UPB. They have a question or comment about UPB. So this is from page 87.
	This is, I guess, my writing.
	If, on the other hand, we say that violence is bad, then we open up the possibility of self-defense.
	If it is a UPB-compliant statement to say that violence is evil, then we know that, since that which is evil can be prevented through the use of violence, the use of violence to oppose violence is morally valid.
	My question, why...
	Why can that which is evil be prevented with violence?
	I don't find that established anywhere in the book, anywhere above.
	Well, this is a challenge of UPB, and it is a continual challenge, and I certainly respect the fact that it is challenging, which is moral questions...
	Are almost always put to us in forms of instances.
	You know, like you're in a lifeboat and you're starving with two guys.
	One is currently glazed with honey butter chicken and the other is glazed with some sort of Dunkin' Donuts frosting, which you eat first, depending on whether you have...
	Diabetes or not. It's those instances, right?
	Or the classic one of the guy whose wife is dying and he's got to steal the medicine because he can't buy it because he doesn't have the money and the guy won't sell it to him and so on.
	And that's not what UPB is about.
	UPB is about testing the validity of moral propositions, right?
	So, the question around the initiation of force and the response to force needs to be framed in the form of a theory.
	UPB cannot judge individual actions.
	UPB can only judge theories, right?
	In the way that science can't judge...
	You say, this rock falls.
	Is it valid? Well, I don't know, because there's no theory.
	So, what we have to do is evaluate.
	We evaluate equations.
	Mathematics is for evaluating equations, not numbers.
	So, if you go to a mathematics conference and you put up a PowerPoint which says, the number 6, true or false, valid or invalid, correct or incorrect, people would say, well, mathematics cannot judge a number because a number is not a proposition.
	A number is a discrete entity.
	And so UPB needs to look at, in the same way UPB needs to look at, testable hypotheses and propositions.
	So I hope this isn't a completely long way of answering this question.
	But that which is evil can be prevented with violence.
	It's not exactly a testable proposition, because it doesn't have a universality around it, and it doesn't have a true or false testability to it.
	I'm just trying to think, and I said I haven't put my UPB hat on for a while, so bear with me as I sort of reorient myself back from our wonderful German listener.
	But if I remember rightly, the argument within UPB goes something like...
	The initiation of violence as a good cannot be universally performed.
	Two guys in a room can't both initiate force against each other.
	Because if one is initiating force against the other and the other is initiating force against this guy, they can't both be doing that at the same time.
	I mean, they can't do it exactly simultaneously.
	And so... And so we can say that the initiation of the use of force as a universal moral good can't be achieved.
	Because it also fails the coma test, right?
	Where a guy in a coma is not initiating force and therefore a guy in a coma can't be considered immoral, right?
	Inaction can almost never be considered immoral, right?
	All other things being equal.
	I don't mean inaction if someone's drowning and you can just reach over and help them.
	So we have to say that the initiation of force cannot be a universally preferable behavior.
	It just doesn't work logically or empirically.
	And so we have to say, well, the non-initiation of force is a universally preferable behavior.
	And you'll just have to excuse me, I will have to sort of look it up because again it's been a couple of years since I wrote the book and I haven't thought about this theory in a long time.
	But that which is imposed through violence can be responded to through violence.
	Because... All right, hang with me.
	This is Philosopher's Thinking Live with a slight cold.
	So let me just see if I can mull it over.
	And if anybody remembers the answer to this, please feel free to pop it into the chat room.
	But let me just see if I can figure it out.
	Oh, yeah. Okay, so if the initiation of force is not a valid moral theory, then to respond and stop that is to reestablish a moral theory, right?
	I mean, the purpose of the non-initiation of force is that you can return somebody...
	The purpose of morality, really, in many ways, is to return somebody to a moral state, just as the purpose of medicine is to...
	Return somebody to a state of health and the purpose of nutrition is to return somebody to a state of good nutrition or whatever.
	And so the purpose of morality is to re-establish morality wherever possible.
	And so if somebody is initiating force, the moral response is to prevent that action from occurring.
	And that is a way of preventing the evil from actually occurring.
	And so you can...
	And it's proportion. This is why the idea of proportionality is important, right?
	So if some guy comes at you with a butter knife, you don't get to bomb his house, right?
	I mean, it's... You know, if somebody comes at you, you hopefully can just disable them and it's only in an extremity where you would shoot to kill and so on.
	Because it is around the enactment of an invalid moral theory around the initiation of force.
	And so if it is invalid to initiate force, then it must be valid to prevent somebody from initiating force.
	Because if you can't prevent somebody initiating force, then you're agreeing that the initiation of force is correct.
	But the initiation of force is not correct, and therefore you have the right, I know that's a loosey-goosey word, but we'll just use it in colloquial context for the moment, then you have the right to prevent that because whoever is initiating force is acting on an invalid moral theory and therefore can be prevented from their action, justly prevented from their action.
	Yeah, yeah. Hi, Stefan.
	This is Nima. Oh, hi.
	I asked a question.
	So, yeah, that makes sense.
	Thank you. I'm sorry.
	I'm not going to say that's a perfect explanation.
	And you've raised a good question.
	I'm sorry. I should know the text a little better.
	I did write it for many months and read it.
	I had an idea of how to put it, maybe.
	Please. I was thinking about it.
	I think it's just a matter of A physiological fact that the initiation of force, in most cases, simply has to be opposed with violence in order to avoid it.
	It's not whether it's okay or whether it should be done or whether it's valid to do it, to oppose it with violence, but it seems to me like it's just a fact.
	To avoid it, you have to use violence.
	Well, I'm sorry to contradict you, and I certainly do appreciate your review, and I've finished the podcast, but I haven't released it yet.
	I think that statism could not work if that were true.
	I think what is the case is that the vast majority of people, the vast majority of people, will choose to deal with violence by obeying, right?
	So, I mean, to take a simple example.
	It's not what I meant. I'm sorry. Oh, I apologize.
	Go on. What I meant was, yeah, absolutely.
	There are other ways of avoiding things.
	You can also avoid it with considerable effort, right?
	You mean like if you go live in the woods rather than pay taxes kind of thing?
	Right. Yeah. So that's why I said in my review, I think it's either violence or considerable effort.
	There are situations where there's no other way of avoiding an attack than to use violence, for example, like rape, you know?
	Well, again, sorry to be annoying, but most people who are raped submit rather than attack back.
	Right, but I'm saying if you want to avoid it.
	Oh, yeah. Well, you can try to run away, and if you can't run away, then you can submit.
	But if you really want to not be raped, then you can try and fight for sure.
	Absolutely. Yeah, and I agree with you that in an extremity, that's really your only shot.
	If you really don't want to, of course, nobody wants to, but if you really want to avoid that, then, you know, but of course, if someone's got a knife to your throat or whatever, then most people will just say, okay, well, I can survive one, but probably not the other, so.
	Right, right. Yeah, it's only if you want to avoid it, right?
	In the extremity.
	Yes, I agree.
	And I have given you, I think, a fairly good, though I don't think a very rigorous answer.
	So let me crack the book this week and I will give you hopefully a better one.
	Hopefully one from the book, right?
	Because there's not much point saying, I don't like any of the songs on your album.
	Like, well, I've got this really great one I didn't put on the album, right?
	So hopefully it's in the book and I will do my best to dig it up.
	And I appreciate you bringing that up.
	And I think I gave you a fairly okay answer, but I don't think it's a perfect one.
	And I certainly don't think it's one...
	I don't think it's one that is in the book.
	So it's just off the top of my head.
	But it's a great question and I will try and give you a better answer.
	Thanks, Tim. Thank you.
	This is a fellow from Economics Junkie.
	Is it economicsjunkie.blogspot.com?
	Is that right? It's economicsjunkie.com.
	Okay, economicsjunkie.com.
	He did a good review on universally preferable behavior, and I read his review as a podcast with some thoughts, and I put that out this week, and I just wanted to thank him and recommend that you go to economicsjunkie.com to get your fix, because he's a...
	He is a well-read man, I'll tell you that.
	He's read the Austrians.
	He's read the Human Action, which most people use to kill spiders the size of a Buick.
	So, good for you. Thank you.
	Did you have anything else that you wanted to talk about with that, or should I move on?
	No, that's all. Thank you very much.
	Alright, thanks, man. Thanks for the free ad, too.
	Oh, no, listen, you're welcome. I'm happy to...
	I always try to pimp as many good sites as I can.
	It's not like the internet's going to run out of quality content any day soon, so it's a complete win-win.
	All right, so I think we have time for another question or comment or issue or problem.
	So I am all ears.
	I'm going once. Oh, maybe if nobody else has a question, I would have another question about UPB. Please.
	If it's not too boring. No, it's not boring for me at all.
	It's one of the most important things I've ever done, so I hope it's not too boring.
	Right. There were some...
	In your book, there's a section about more complicated tests of UPB. And...
	It seems like...
	Some of these you didn't conclude with, okay, the statement, it is universally preferable or it is an aesthetically positive action or it is neutral.
	I wrote down an example.
	I just need to look it up.
	I think I sent you an email about something.
	Like, okay, what is the statement?
	Where does self-defense fall in your categorization?
	Well, self-defense to me would be aesthetically preferable, but not...
	And to me, it's not neutral because it involves violence, but you can't initiate force So, you can't use force to get somebody to respond to the use of force, because that's sort of a self-contradiction.
	You can't force someone to act in self-defense, because they would only be acting in self-defense against the use of force.
	So, I think that it would have to be reactive that way.
	Right. Okay. That's what I thought, but I don't know if you noticed, but you didn't say that in the book.
	Yeah. I'm absolutely sure that I didn't say that in the book.
	And I'm absolutely convinced that there are about six million other things that I didn't say in the book.
	And this is a challenge, right?
	And some people agree with this and some people don't.
	And I think, I hope it's a kind of choice.
	Yeah. And what I mean by that is that if I were to write a book that would deal with every possible, I'm not saying you're suggesting this, but if I were to write a book that would deal with every possible moral question, it would run into, well, I would never finish, right? Right, absolutely.
	Chapter 4 million, net neutrality and so on.
	Sorry? I just thought, because you did deal with this question, it was just four words that were missing in the end.
	Like, okay, does self-defense is APA or something like that?
	Right. No, I think that's true.
	But the challenge I have with that is that I don't want people to look at UPB as a way of answering moral questions.
	I don't want people to look it up any more than a math teacher wants to just teach you a bunch of numbers to put at the end of an equation.
	So the purpose is to say, okay, well, if there's a theory which involves self-defense and initiation of force, how would that work in a rational framework and what's the evidence and so on?
	And so, yeah, I mean, I'm not saying that, ooh, I had that in and I took it out, but I tried not to go to the nth degree with every moral question.
	I thought, I mean, I thought, you know, I mean, the big four that are in there are, you know, rape and murder and theft and property rights.
	I thought those are the big four of ethics.
	Like, I mean, if you get a society that gets those right, then guys stealing cures from druggists who won't sell them, it's like, it's going to happen once every hundred years, as opposed to constant war and imprisonment and taxation now.
	And so I sort of felt like I'm going to, this is sort of a behind the scenes, and I hope this doesn't sound like I'm defending the book, but I just sort of explained what it is that I was thinking of.
	I mean, if I can do the big four without getting an ought from an is, the big four of rape and theft and murder and property rights, and if I could also do things like what's the difference between being late and stabbing someone with a quill...
	Then I thought, okay, that's enough to chew off in one book, you know, because no philosopher that I know of has ever done that before without making what I would consider to be significant mistakes around the nature of man and getting an ought from an is and all that kind of like the Randian approach of that which is proper for man's life and so on,
	which I couldn't quite... Yeah, if I can establish those four things and throw a couple of other goodies in without using the cheat in a sense of getting an ought from an is, I thought, well, that's pretty cool.
	Now, of course, there will be people, and you're absolutely right.
	I'm certainly not criticizing you for saying so.
	There will be people who say, quite rightly, but it doesn't deal with this, and it doesn't deal with that, and it doesn't deal with the other.
	And that is entirely true.
	And I completely agree with you on that.
	Yeah. But the purpose of the book is to show how UPB works to establish the four big ethical questions and why only those four and not a bunch of other ones, right?
	Because lots of people would say, well, the welfare state is a moral thing and UPB says, well, it's not, which I guess most libertarians would agree with.
	And so it's sort of not only is it the big four, but only the big four, right?
	Not other things that are not considered moral by many of the people whose thinking I respect.
	So... I thought, well, okay, if I can do the big four, and only the big four, and show how the other ones aren't valid, without breaking the what from an is thing, well, that's pretty cool.
	And I agree with you that there's lots of things, and people say, well, what about this question?
	What about this question? What about this question?
	And those are all true, and my invitation is to sort of say, well, take the methodology for a spin, and see what happens, right?
	Because the scientific...
	Nobody should write to Francis Bacon and say...
	Well, is my theory true?
	Because he would say, I'm teaching you the scientific method so you can go do it for yourself, right?
	And again, I appreciate what you're bringing up and the fantastic questions, but I would say that it's more valuable to try and take the methodology for a spin and see if it works.
	And if it doesn't, of course, please let me know.
	Because I went through a lot of this.
	That's why I have this section in the book on UPB, don't eat meat on Fridays, or don't eat fish on Fridays, which was a really, it was a tough one to figure out, right?
	It's like, wait a minute, that is consistent, it is universal, wait a minute.
	So UPB, again, it's really designed to be a methodology, not a sort of look-up answer book, and that would be my suggestion.
	So that's why not everything is in the book, if that makes sense.
	And plus, I mean, nobody would read it, it would just be, you know, people would die rather than read it.
	All right. It's like when I ask such questions, I guess it's more like some sort of training for me.
	No, and I agree with you, and I'm happy to discuss the questions, but if you're sort of asking why they aren't in the book, that's sort of my answer.
	Yeah, yeah, I got that.
	That's what I thought too.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm just looking at the non-aggression principle here in UPB.
	I'm just...
	Okay, so the non-aggression principle is basically the proposition that the initiation of the use of force is morally wrong.
	Or to put it more in terms of our conversation, the non-initiation of force is universally preferable.
	So when we put the NAP together with UPB, we get to whittle the seven possibilities of whether it's UPB or not down to three.
	One, it is universally preferable to initiate the use of force.
	Or two, it is universally preferable to not initiate the use of force.
	Or three, the initiation of the use of force is not subject to universal preferences.
	And three, we discard because you can't violently inflict someone and not say it's subject to universal preferences.
	And so it becomes sort of one or the other.
	And I'm just skimming through the book here to see if, you know, we get something useful out of it in this particular area.
	So we get to whether or not it is...
	Let me just get...
	I think I used a hyphen for self-defense here.
	Yeah, self-defense is the enforcement...
	Thank you.
	Of a preference to not be aggressed against, which is in accordance with the universal value or validity of the non-aggression principle.
	So in that, it is in conformity with UPB. And that's different.
	You can't shoot someone for being late because they're not actually inflicting it on you violently.
	You're free to leave, you don't have to be friends with them, and you're there voluntarily.
	They may have lied to you, which is not...
	I'm sorry?
	I could. You could what?
	Shoot him. Sorry, you could, but you can't say that it is a valid moral theory that we should initiate force against people who aren't initiating force against us.
	Because then you have to both initiate force and not initiate force at the same time, two people in the same room, and that can't work.
	Now, how about the attacker?
	Because if the person is defending himself, he's defending himself, Then the attacker can't defend himself at that moment.
	Now, one thing I was sort of struggling with was if it has to be applicable at all times, all places, to everybody, then if somebody's using violence to defend himself against an attacker, the attacker couldn't use defense at that moment.
	Well, sure, but that's because the attacker is initiating the use of force, right?
	So, universal doesn't mean at all times and under all circumstances, no matter what the preceding situation.
	That would be like saying that the diet for a diabetic should be exactly the same as for an athlete.
	So there is a prior thing which conditions it, right?
	So what happens the moment before is important in the moral evaluation.
	Otherwise, there would be no such thing as the initiation of force, right?
	So the person who's initiating force, the rule of self-defense doesn't apply to them because they're actually initiating and not defending, if that makes sense.
	Okay. I mean, that's how we know the difference between lovemaking and rape, right?
	It's what happens before, so to speak.
	Even if it's like, you know, rough sex with a safe word, right?
	right?
	It's still different from rape if it's consensual.
	Ah, okay.
	Let's see here.
	So there's a bit on self-defense here.
	This is from the book.
	The concept of self-defense should not be taken for granted if we assume that there is no such thing as self-defense, or that self-defense is never a valid action, then the framework of UPP understands that assumption very quickly.
	If there is no such thing as self-defense, then we are not talking about the initiation or the retaliation of the use of force, but rather just the use of force in any context.
	In other words, if we get rid of the concept of self-defense, The only question that we need to ask ourselves is, is it universally preferable to use force or not?
	Because then there's no such thing as initiation, because there's no such thing as a difference between initiation and retaliation.
	If it were universally preferable to use force, then no human being should ever advance a moral argument, but rather should use force to achieve his ends.
	However, just as in the rape, theft, and murder example cited above, the claim that it is universally preferable to use force immediately invalidates itself.
	To be able to use force upon another person requires that that person submit to force.
	In other words, in order for one person to be moral, the other person must be immoral, which cannot stand.
	Also, if the other person submits to force, it is not force.
	Thus, he must resist, which requires that he resist virtue in order to enable virtue, which is self-contradictory.
	So we talked over that.
	Let's see here. Okay, so let's see here.
	If we say that violence is bad, then we open up the possibility of self-defense.
	If it is a UPB-compliant statement to say that violence is evil, then we know that, since that which is evil can be prevented through the use of violence, the use of violence to oppose violence is morally valid.
	Thus, since we know that violence is evil, we know that we may use force to oppose it.
	If we define an action as evil, but also prevent anyone from acting against it, Then we are no longer moral philosophers, but merely judgmental archaeologists.
	This would be akin to a medical theory that said illness is bad, but that it is evil to attempt to prevent or cure it, which would make no sense whatsoever.
	Also, if human beings cannot validly act to prevent harm to themselves, then actions such as inoculations, wearing gloves in the cold, putting on sunscreen or insect repellent, building a wall to prevent a landslide, brushing one's teeth, wearing shoes, and so on, would all be immoral actions because you would be acting to protect yourself.
	Or, you know...
	Disabling a dog that was going to attack you or whatever, right?
	So, yeah, if something is evil, then that immediately opens up the right, so to speak, to prevent or cure it.
	I think that's sort of close to what I was saying before.
	I don't have the actual, but you have the PDF. You can just do a search for self-defense.
	It's about two-thirds down. You can just do a search for the concept of self-defense.
	There's a fairly long, medium-long chapter about it, and You can have a look at it, and of course, if it's still completely incomprehensible, then please let me know and we'll take another swing at it.
	Sure. Yeah, that's where I decided from, actually.
	All right, let's see here.
	Steph, I've heard you point out that some people can hold off gratification while others have difficulty in doing so.
	How can someone... Develop or redevelop his or her mind to strengthen one's ability to hold off gratification.
	I don't know, is my short answer.
	I can tell you what I focus on, or what works for me, and maybe that will work for you.
	I certainly can't claim any scientific or professional knowledge of this, but I'll tell you what I try to work with that might help you with this.
	To me, the deferral of gratification...
	It's fundamentally about a memory of the future.
	Aha! What the hell is he talking about?
	Cue the Star Trek music. Well, what I mean by that is that to defer gratification is to say that a future pleasure is better than a current pleasure, right?
	So, and there's two ways to do that, and these two are complementary.
	The first is to picture negative consequences of your actions.
	To have a memory of the future, or in a sense, to put yourself in the future, thinking back on your action now, right?
	So, I mean, I've often wondered, you know, somebody who's been a chain smoker, Peter Zowski, who was a big radio personality up here in Canada, was a chain smoker, right, his whole life.
	And I guess Ayn Rand was too, and Ayn Rand had to have a lung removed because it was cancerous, and Peter Zowski ended up dying a pretty horrible death of emphysema.
	And, of course, when they think, when they get the diagnosis, like, you're going to die or you're really sick or whatever, when they get the diagnosis, I mean, of course, they think back on their smoking and they must obviously kick themselves to some degree, right?
	And so, in a sense, it's putting yourself in the future and thinking back on the decision that you're making at the moment, right?
	So, I mean, I want an iPad.
	I think they look really cool.
	Am I going to buy an iPad?
	I'm not going to buy an iPad, even though they look really cool.
	I'm not going to buy an iPad because I've put myself into the future and saying, okay, so I go out and I drop 600 or 700 bucks on an iPad, which I don't need for FDR. How am I going to feel about that in the future?
	Well, I'm going to feel anxious about it.
	I'm not going to enjoy it too much because I'm going to Feel that it was a wasteful extravagance that I didn't really need.
	I couldn't really justify it in terms of what I do for a living.
	And so I'm going to feel bad about it.
	I'm going to feel anxious about it. And every time I look at it, I'm going to feel like, oh man, I should have saved that money.
	My two big donation sources are in the middle of a recession and it's challenging.
	And so I'm not going to feel good about it.
	And so it's putting yourself in the future and thinking back on your decision.
	That's sort of the one thing. That I have found to be useful.
	And that's sort of the negative consequence argument.
	So, you know, put yourself in the future when you're 70 or 60 and you get the diagnosis of lung cancer where you look back and say, damn, I should have put those cigarettes down, right?
	And that's, you know, we've all had that feeling, you know, you've overeaten or you just, you had...
	You know, the big dessert and you didn't think you were going to finish it and then you look down, your plate's empty and you feel like bleh.
	Well, you prevent yourself from doing that, right?
	By thinking about the future, about the feeling you're going to have when the deed is done, right?
	So, we all do this in terms of, I mean, who likes to floss?
	Nobody, right? But I think about how much I'd kick myself.
	I still have my wisdom teeth, right?
	I'm one of the few people who still has his wisdom teeth in his 40s.
	So, I have to be very careful with my oral hygiene because, you know, They're tough to clean.
	My tusks! And so, like, I don't want to floss.
	But then you think, oh, man, well, how much fun would it be to get my wisdom teeth taken out, right?
	Especially, you know, when you're a stay-at-home dad, it's not exactly easy or convenient to have that situation.
	And I say, well, I don't have time to floss.
	Well, if I don't have time to floss, how am I going to have time to get my wisdom teeth taken out should they get infected or something like that, right?
	So that's another way of doing it.
	And the other thing, of course, is to think of the positive consequences, right?
	So if I don't spend my money on an iPad and a bunch of other things that I would buy otherwise, then maybe I can buy something for FDR. Or maybe I can go on a vacation with my wife and daughter, which I will remember the rest of my life.
	Days kind of blur, particularly when you work at home.
	But if you have... A vacation, it really stands out, and that's kind of cool.
	I think that's what they're for, these bookmarks in your life, so that you don't flick through the pages too quickly.
	And I would rather think of that, right?
	And so, in six months or a year, or I sometimes even think five years, so in five years, would I rather have an obsolete iPod gathering dust in the basement, or iPad, or would I... Rather have the memory of a great vacation, which, you know, and pictures and all of that, right?
	Well, I would rather have the vacation memory than some obsolete piece of technology that, you know, is dead and gone like all the other obsolete pieces of technology that have passed through my life.
	So that would be my way of trying to figure these things out.
	And to some degree it's a cost-benefit, right?
	So like the air conditioning in my car, my 12-year-old car, has been out for a couple of years.
	And I was going to go get it repaired, but we couldn't get a hold of a second-hand part.
	And so it's like $1,600 to get the air conditioning in my Volvo repaired.
	Well, I'm not going to do it.
	I'm just not going to do it.
	I'll sweat a little, you know, because I would rather keep that money.
	I'd rather put it in Isabella's college fund or, you know, just put it in the bank or do something, buy food with it or whatever.
	Just because I was sort of sitting there and saying, well, it's nice to have some air conditioning, but man, there's a $1,600 hole in my bank account because of that.
	So I think the deferral of gratification is just putting yourself in the future in a month or a year and thinking, well, How am I going to feel about the decision that I'm making in the future?
	And I think of that too.
	I think of, I'd really like to do a podcast or I'd really like to do a video, but my daughter's up and I think, well, what am I going to think in the future?
	Am I going to think, well...
	It really made a big difference going from 1650 to 1651 podcasts, right?
	As opposed to spending an hour or two with my daughter, which I will, you know, usually remember for forever.
	So, I think that's the kind of stuff.
	Like, in the future, what are we going to think?
	You know, in the future, I'm going to think back when she was only young once.
	And, you know, I didn't want to miss it by working too much.
	And so I will defer the pleasure of doing a podcast for the sake of spending time with my daughter, which of course is also a pleasure.
	Because in the future, I won't care that I went from 1650 to 1651 podcasts, but I will care that I spent quality time with my daughter.
	So that's...
	That's my suggestion about how to defer gratification and it's something that we all wrestle with and there's no clear and easy answer and it's going to change throughout your life.
	So those are my suggestions and I hope that they're helpful.
	Alright, well I think unless anybody has a yearning burning I'm just getting over a bit of a sore throat.
	I didn't actually get a cold which is kind of nice.
	Steph, how can I stop wanting to change others and wanting them to see reality and be more philosophical?
	It's not an 80s Volvo.
	It's not that old.
	It's a 98. Let's see here.
	Oh, it's a good question.
	How can I stop wanting to change others and wanting them to see reality and be more philosophical?
	I can't believe you're asking me of all people that.
	I quit my career, yell at people in my room.
	No, it's a great question and there's no easy answer to that one either.
	I will say this though, that if you are trying to change people who won't change, you're not being philosophical.
	Being philosophical is about accepting reality and accepting truth.
	And if the truth is that people aren't going to change, particular people in your life, Then to reject that and to continue to try to change them is to fall into their trap of ignoring the truth.
	If you're trying to change someone it's because they believe something that is false and you want them to believe something that is true.
	But if you believe that they can change or you act as if they can change when they can't change then it's you who are believing something false and rejecting something that is true which is that they can't change.
	So it's always to start with yourself and to look at your own relationship to reality To objectivity, to the evidence, to rational empiricism.
	And you certainly can't say to someone, believe the truth.
	I'm going to keep trying to get you to believe the truth when they obviously don't want to because you're rejecting a truth in order to try and get someone to hold the truth as their highest value when you're not doing that yourself.
	So I think that's really, really important to focus on.
	Yeah, I mean, if you have a good relationship with yourself...
	You know, it's as Polonius says in Hamlet, right?
	Above all to thine own self be true, for then it shall follow as night follows day, thou canst not be false to anyone.
	And it really all starts with the self and flows outward from there.
	So if you are trying to change others' rejection of reality while rejecting the reality that you can't change them in particular circumstances, then you're falling prey to the same disease you're trying to cure.
	And so that would be my suggestion to keep focusing on that reality.
	Philosophy is not yet for everyone.
	It will be in the future, but not yet.
	Right now, it remains a very elite occupation.
	Great question.
	You people.
	Thank you.
	Have I ever thought about doing a course for donations at the local college?
	No, but I am going to be speaking at California University.
	Excuse me, teaching a course for donations at the local college.
	I don't know about that.
	I mean, I could, but I'm not sure.
	I mean, I could maybe get 20 or 30 or 50 people in a class, but compared to 40 or 50 or 60,000 people through podcasts and videos, it seems like, you know, why play a tiny local club when you could put out an album?
	Right. I guess I could record that and put that out.
	But, yeah, it's a thought.
	It's a thought. Yes, I thought somebody would bring that up.
	She says, I'm confused when you're saying that a right doesn't exist, but UPP could validate the implication of a property right.
	So something is valid can also not exist.
	Well, the short answer is that, yes, something can be valid which does not exist.
	Absolutely. A... The scientific method is valid, or a scientific theory can be valid even if it's only spoken, but it doesn't exist in reality in the same way that that which it describes, like a rock or a tree, exists in reality.
	I apologize for confusion about the word rights.
	It is one of these challenges that I have.
	It's like the word soul, but even worse, in that it's very difficult to have a conversation about ethics and politics without using the word right at all.
	It's almost impossible. And of course, since I prefer to use properties rather than rights, human beings have properties, not rights.
	I can't really say property, properties, because that's just going to be really confusing to people and they're going to think that I've fallen into some epileptic oompa-loompa-speak.
	So I do use the shortcut rights when it comes to property rights.
	I try not to use it too much elsewhere.
	Just because people know what you're talking about when you talk about property rights.
	But they wouldn't know about UPB theories of property validity.
	Right? They just wouldn't know.
	So I use that shorthand.
	It's just a nod to convention.
	And I'm sorry that it's confusing at times.
	But yeah, I don't believe that rights are a valid way of approaching things.
	In preparation for my series on Ayn Rand, I've been reading and thinking about a bunch of Ayn Rand stuff.
	Once you stop falling for the rights thing, It becomes very difficult to listen to somebody talk about politics once you drop the nonsense about rights.
	I mean, because, you know, all Ayn Rand is doing is saying, well, a man has a right to do this and he doesn't have a right to do that and he doesn't have, you know, and it's like, but that doesn't really mean anything.
	You're just using rights like a magic spell rather than an argument.
	Human beings do not possess rights any more than they possess a soul, a ghost, or forehead unicorns.
	I think we can say that self-ownership conforms to UPB because you can't oppose self-ownership without asserting self-ownership, i.e.
	controlling your mouth to speak or your hand to write or something.
	So you can't reject self-ownership.
	And you also can't have morality unless human beings are responsible for the effects of their actions.
	So if you see someone strangle someone else and then you say, hey, you strangled that guy.
	And he said, no, I didn't do it.
	It was my hands. Well, we put the hands in jail, right?
	I mean, the human being has to be considered responsible for his or her actions.
	Otherwise, there's no such thing as morality.
	And you can't criticize anyone for anything.
	And that's, you know, certainly that could be fine in theory, but I'll never hear from those people because the moment they try to correct me, they're saying that I'm responsible for my theories and I'm responsible for my actions.
	So if human beings are responsible for their actions, then we own that which we make as much as we own a dead body if we kill someone.
	We are responsible, we have created, we own it, and so if we own ourselves, then we own the effects of our actions, and we're responsible for them, and that's how you get property rights out of that.
	Yes, I really do want to put out a series on Ayn Rand in more detail.
	It is time to bring that beast to light.
	But I can't promise the date.
	I will be doing the entire thing in a bad Ayn Rand accent, so I think you will enjoy it from that standpoint.
	All right, my friends. Well, we have come to the end of our time together for this week, at least until I'm in the chat room again.
	So, thank you everybody so much for listening.
	It was nice to see so many people.
	Sorry, just one last question.
	I've had a possibility of getting an internship with a local congressman.
	Would it be moral for me to take part in such an internship, even though the congressman is part of the immoral government?
	Well, I don't know.
	I wouldn't put that down to good or evil.
	You're not directly initiating force.
	So I would not put that down.
	I would say, you know, also, to be perfectly frank, if there were six million jobs awaiting you and you chose to get a job With a local congressman, I think that would be a different matter.
	But the economy is really tight these days.
	And if it's going to help you with your resume, and it is going to help you advance yourself in your life, I would definitely consider it for sure.
	But no, I don't think it's immoral.
	I don't think it's immoral.
	Because if that's immoral, then I fail to see how...
	I mean, I walk on public roads.
	The internet was developed by the government.
	Wireless technology was, I think, sometimes developed by the military.
	So I can't use the internet.
	I can't use public roads.
	The water is delivered to me by the government.
	I can't use that. I mean, I just don't want to get involved in those kinds of things because, you know, we have to live.
	And I don't want my moral choices to be dictated or determined.
	By the system that I oppose.
	I didn't invent it. I didn't create it.
	I'm not morally responsible for the existence of the state or of religion.
	So given that there is no clear line, I would certainly not recommend going into the army and becoming a cop because that's using the initiation of force directly.
	And that to me is a very different situation.
	But this amorphous stuff, you know, picking some of the crumbs off the king's table, I don't think that we really have to worry about that.
	Oh yeah, Mark Stevens. I enjoyed doing my shows with him, but we have a very different audience.
	We have a very different approach.
	He's very much into, I got a ticket and that's bad.
	And I think that's a great thing to help people with.
	It's not something that I can really contribute much to.
	And I think that it didn't really work out.
	too well in terms of what I was able to contribute to his listeners who had you know all very interesting and useful things to talk about just not interesting or useful things that I could have much contribution to so I like Mark I saw him last year at New Hampshire and it was nice to meet him face to face and I think I'm pretty sure in fact I'm very sure that we will be meeting in Hollywood at Libertopia and I hope that you're aware of this if you've made it to the end I'm sure you are But the Libertopia,
	where I am a keynote speaker alongside some really smart and great people who will be fun to chat with and listen to, it is now in Hollywood, California, October 15th to 17th.
	That's libertopia.org.
	So I hope that you will...
	Yeah, and if you're confused about...
	Oh, sorry. So yeah, I hope that you will come to join.
	And just to remind you, Labor Day weekend is the free listener barbecue.
	So I hope that you will be able to come up here and meet some other listeners and have some great conversations.
	And maybe we'll do a little karaoke.
	Have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful week, everyone.
	Thank you so much for your enthusiasm.
	You might want to check out, I'm quite pleased with the new video, the story of your enslavement, and it's getting some pretty good views.
	If you could go out and post it around, I would hugely appreciate it.

▲