Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Sept. 19, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:57:26

1751 Freedomain Radio Sunday Call In Show Sep 19 2010

The confusions of anarcho-socialism, the philosophy of sex, the joys of world travel, the pluses of drugs, and the addictions of politics...

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, it's Steph.
	It is the 19th of September 2010, and I guess it's the last week of my 43rd year.
	This Friday coming, I turn 44, at which point I believe that I get a small handgun.
	At least that's what I think it's named for, so I'm looking forward to getting that.
	So, just interesting updates for me at least.
	I hope they're interesting to you as well.
	We have entered into the phase of minor discipline with Izzy, which is really, really an interesting phase.
	I find it absolutely fascinating.
	I have all these theories, you know, that you don't need a strong hand with a child, you don't need any of that kind of aggression.
	We have a conflict, I suppose you could say, which is that I'm interested in brushing her teeth and Isabella is not so much interested in having me brush her teeth.
	And so that's been a challenge.
	And we've tried a number of different solutions to that.
	Like we tried where I'd sort of tickle her on the bed and when her mouth's open, Christina would dart in and Give a quick toothbrush, but she adapted to that within a couple of days and then asked for, in a very vulnerable way, right?
	Knowing the size and strength of her parents, just asked to not be tickled at bedtime.
	And of course, we stopped doing that and we tried having her brush her teeth.
	We tried, you know, brushing our teeth while she was watching us.
	So we tried showing her videos of people brushing their teeth and all that, but no particular luck.
	So anyway, just the other day, we were upstairs doing her night ritual.
	And it was sort of her bedtime, and she wanted to come downstairs.
	And she likes to cuddle and watch a bit of Finding Nemo before bed.
	And so I said, well, you can come downstairs, but we need to brush your teeth.
	And we've tried this a few, like last week, she just didn't want to wear a diaper.
	So that's no problem. She doesn't have to wear a diaper, but she has to stay in the bathroom where the tiles are.
	Otherwise, it's going to be a rather messy carpet, potentially.
	So, we have had that.
	So, she didn't want to wear a diaper.
	So, like 45 minutes, we're all hanging out in the bathroom together, playing and chatting and all that.
	And then eventually, she really did want to come out.
	So, she let us put on her diaper.
	So, she's getting that kind of cause and effect.
	The tooth brushing was interesting because she didn't want to brush her teeth.
	And we don't give her much sugar at all.
	But there's some sugar, you know, in her milk.
	But there's sugars, of course, natural sugars and in fruit and all that.
	So she has some sugar, although we don't really give her sweets.
	So we really wanted to brush her teeth, but she really didn't want to.
	So then we took her to bed to start her, you know, going to sleep ritual.
	And she was really upset, and she really didn't want to go to bed.
	But after a couple of times, can I brush your teeth?
	No, we'll go back to bed. So after a few minutes of being in bed, she finally said, brush teeth.
	And so we did go and brush her teeth and then we came downstairs and she had I think 10 or 15 minutes of cuddling and watching a video and then she went to bed no problem.
	But the fascinating thing is that happened a couple of days ago, and every single night since, she has been perfectly fine with brushing her teeth.
	Perfectly fine with brushing her teeth.
	And I just, that blows my mind.
	That blows my mind. I thought, you know, you'd have this sort of slow fight, and it may change.
	I'm just talking about what's happened this week.
	So, you know, clear choices, no punishment, but a reward for preferred behavior, which she doesn't understand yet, of course.
	She doesn't know why she needs to brush her teeth.
	I tried to explain it to her, but she's still pretty young, of course.
	She's just turned 21 months today.
	But it really was fascinating to me that a reward she understood a few minutes after the choice had been offered a few times, she accepted it and said, you know, brush my teeth.
	And since then, she has been perfectly fine with me brushing her teeth, opened her mouth and been not fought or anything like that.
	And that just blows my mind to me.
	It just blows my mind.
	And again, I say this knowing that it may change in the next couple of days.
	It may change tonight. But I think it won't.
	I think it won't. I think that clear and positive choice is really going to work out.
	So I just wanted to pass that along, that we're just working with sort of clear and positive choices for her, that she can make choices, but choices have consequences.
	And it's really worked like an absolute charm.
	For the last six or eight months, this toothbrushing thing has been a challenge, and I think it's solved.
	I really do. Again, it may change, but I think it's solved.
	So that's just a tip out there for parents, particularly of young kids.
	Just try that positive reinforcement and choices, and it worked out just fine.
	Alright, well that's really all I had for the big introduction.
	The video of my speech to the Libertarian Party is underway and we are getting the high-definition and high-quality audio version of my speech at the Porcupine Freedom Festival so we don't have to live with what looks like Matisse-ish watercolors on the original one.
	So anyway, that's enough intro for me.
	Everything's going fine. FDR is a real pleasure and thank you everybody for your kind words recently and...
	If we have questions, you can type them into the chat room.
	You can also ask James P to call you on Skype or to call you on a phone if you now have the Skypey.
	And thanks again to all the listeners who are coming through and dropping by.
	It's always great to meet you and it's always a real pleasure.
	So if you are coming through Toronto or any place relatively close, feel free to give me a shout and drop by.
	It's always a pleasure.
	Can I explain anarchist socialism?
	Well sure, I think I can.
	And if you are an anarcho-socialist and you want to come on and explain things better on the show, I would be more than happy if you did.
	I myself find it that I don't have a strong understanding of all the, what I think is obtuse theoretical justifications, but anarcho-socialism is anarchism without property.
	There is a theory that property is a form of theft, and that of course comes from Prudhomme, but is misinterpreted.
	He was talking about state property, or the property of the historical ruling class, which of course was based on theft and murder, though not at a time when those things were particularly considered theft and murder, so it's always tough.
	You know, you go back to the apes, and where do you blend property rights in in the progress of the species?
	Well, it's always a tough question.
	Anarcho-socialism is the idea That property is a form of hierarchy, right?
	So in a free society with property rights, there will be those who will become richer and there will be those who will not become quite as rich.
	Everybody's going to get generally more rich unless they're completely insane because there will be the natural growth that comes out of the free market and free exchange of values and all of the improvements that come from that.
	But there are people who believe that property is a form of hierarchy and any inequality Improperty results in a statist or quasi-statist society.
	So if you've got some guy who's a billionaire in a free society and some guy who's a middle-class guy, because there's a disparity in purchasing power, there is perceived to be a disparity in power as a whole.
	And so it is an anarchism not of opportunity, but an anarchism of effects.
	In other words, everybody needs to end up in the same socioeconomic area in order for there to be In order for there not to be a hierarchy, nobody can outbid you on eBay because that's the same as having a government.
	That, I think, is something like that.
	That is the basic idea behind anarcho-socialism.
	I think it is wrong beyond words.
	It is wrong beyond words to the point where it's a really, really...
	To me, it's almost a crime to believe in it.
	It's almost a crime to believe in it because there's one basic fundamental reality to that, which is that if you don't have property, then who the hell is going to allocate goods and resources?
	The collective can't do it because there's no such thing as the collective.
	And I don't want to spend my day voting on who gets a lawnmower in British Columbia.
	I mean, who is going to allocate property if it's not going to be through the voluntary exchange and maintenance of property through rights?
	So, to me, I don't really care if there are people who are richer than I am.
	I certainly care if there are people who are poor and to the point where their lives are hopeless and they're depressed and there are all these problems and they don't have enough money to raise their kids well.
	I'm very happy and keen to help out people like that.
	But I've never had an anarcho-socialist explained to me and I've never seen a good explanation of if you don't have the free exchange of goods Allocating property, who gets to allocate property?
	Do you build a supercomputer?
	Well, that's nonsense. Do you have a committee that then decides to allocate who gets what?
	Well, that's giving the committee the power of life and death.
	Power of life and death.
	If they choose to withhold food, if they choose to withhold land, if they choose to withhold houses, then you've got nothing to eat, no place to go, and nowhere to live.
	So, I think that you can't have A hierarchy-free society without property.
	Property is the ultimate egalitarian allocation of resources.
	And even allocation of resources is not really the right way of putting it, because we own what we create.
	And it's like saying, how should children be allocated in the world?
	Well, children aren't allocated.
	Children are created through, you know, mashing together naughty bits from mommy and daddy.
	So, children aren't allocated.
	Children are created. And the responsibility for them, the ownership of them, for want of a better word, accrues to the people who create them.
	Children aren't allocated and wealth is not allocated.
	What you create, you own.
	What you create, you trade for what other people have created.
	And in the case of somebody working in a factory, you have created or entered into a contract.
	You have created a contractual relationship with the person where, in a sense, you rent the capital equipment to produce more with your labor in exchange for giving up a portion of your labor, right?
	So if you can produce 10 units on your own, but you can produce 20 units with the aid of a capitalist, and then you give him five for the rental of his capital equipment, you still have 15 as opposed to the 10 on your own.
	So this is the sort of everybody gets better and better in a free market.
	And so anarcho-socialism is the idea that property is hierarchy and hierarchy is the opposite of freedom or pacifism or voluntarism or anarchism.
	And to me it's complete nonsense.
	There is no alternative to property except tyranny.
	There is no alternative to property except tyranny.
	Property is not the lesser.
	Of two evils. Property is the only way of avoiding the greatest of evils, which is giving human beings the power of life and death and coercion over others.
	So I hope that makes some sense and I've also found that anarcho-socialists, this is a complete generalization and a minor ad hominem, but I'll throw it out there anyway, it's just something I have experienced, that I do find that anarcho-socialists are not people who've had much experience or much success in the free market.
	I do rest to some degree with some...
	I don't know how to put this in a nice way.
	Let me see if I can find a nice way to put this.
	I am one of the few anarchists that I know of who's had great success in the free market and doing a variety of things, right?
	From the creation of software to the managing of employees to marketing to sales to writing to lots of presenting at conferences.
	I've really run the gamut of the free market and in the freest area of the market, which is the software industry, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of the free market, not just in theory, but in sometimes white-knuckled practice.
	I have not met a lot of anarcho-socialists who have had – in fact, I've not met any – who've had any real success or engagement in the free market.
	I think if you want to talk about the free market, I think it's not the end of the world to actually be in the free market.
	You know, like if you want to talk about the black experience, it doesn't hurt to have some black friends.
	You don't have to be black, but it doesn't hurt to have some black friends.
	If you're writing about the black experience and you don't have any black friends and you're not black...
	It just looks kind of ridiculous.
	And so if you want to talk about the free market and property rights and so on, I think it's a good idea to spend some time in some reasonable aspect of the free market.
	I just think that's kind of intellectually responsible.
	If I'm going to write a book about Thailand, it doesn't hurt to visit Thailand.
	Hello? Hello. Go ahead.
	Hey. So yeah, we emailed back and forth and I was going to chat with you about some dating issues that were coming up.
	But I actually would like to take a slightly different approach to that, if that's okay, like a bit of a meta-conversation.
	Sure. Which is that I... Because basically, without going into...
	I don't want to go into details just yet of the dating stuff, because first of all, it's not too...
	This issue, the bigger issue that's coming up right now, is more pressing.
	And it's related, but it's more pressing.
	Because I'm not going to date for a little bit, and it would be useful to figure out what happened this past time, but there's a bigger issue.
	And it's...
	Here, let me clarify my thoughts.
	No, no, I wouldn't... Don't clarify them before you start.
	Clarify halfway through your thinking.
	I think that's the way to go. Just kidding.
	No, I mean, I guess, well, I just...
	I wouldn't be able to talk well about the dating issue if I didn't talk about this bigger issue that's coming up first, which is that I guess generally I didn't choose the right woman with dating and it didn't go well and I ignored warning signs and that's about all you need to know just yet for this bit of the conversation.
	And that's a pretty general story.
	But I think bigger, like I'm feeling incredibly anxious, if you can hear my voice, because I feel a ton of anxiety around sort of publicly making stumbles in Judgment Call or in terms of like dating especially.
	It's not just like talking to you, right?
	It's more like in front of the community.
	And I can't figure out what that is, and I'd like to discuss that because I don't think that if I just jumped in and tried to start talking about this issue, I'd get...
	So you feel a kind of self-censorship, like people are going to judge you badly if they know that you've made dating mistakes?
	Exactly. Exactly, exactly.
	And I know like for example from the barbecue a few weeks ago I know that even like strangers would like come up to me and know who I am and have a lot of respect for me and I don't think that I'm absolutely certain that I didn't act any way dishonorably or anything like that in this recent dating thing.
	I just ignored some warning signs and just it wasn't a good situation.
	I just have this fear that Emotionally, I don't believe that.
	Emotionally, I believe that if people knew that I wasn't making these perfect judgment calls about people or just having perfect instinct or trusting my instinct perfectly, I'm just not worth sort of the credibility that people have given me.
	And that's what I'd like to discuss with you, if you don't mind.
	Yeah, that's interesting. Well, the moment that I hear In the absolutist language, I automatically look for foo.
	Rightly or wrongly? What was the absolutist language you were just hearing?
	Perfectly. Follow my instincts.
	Make perfect judgments. I mean, that clearly is a standard that is automatically going to provoke anxiety because it's impossible.
	Right. And I haven't heard you use that kind of language in years.
	And you weren't aware that you were using it, right?
	What's that? You weren't aware that you were using that kind of language because you very innocently said, well, what do you mean?
	Yeah. What kind of language, right?
	Okay. Right, right.
	Yeah. All right.
	So what is the perfect standard in dating that you feel you're not meeting?
	That I either – I think it's either that I don't date or I – The minute I see things are not good, I disengage and...
	Okay, so what's the story around that, right?
	Because there's lots of propaganda that we get about sticking things through in relationships, right?
	So the propaganda we get is you need to, you know, just because there's a problem or every time there's a problem, you run away or men have a fear of commitment or...
	You know, the moment that things get rough, you take off, you run to the hills.
	And I don't know if you've had that.
	I certainly got lots of that kind of propaganda, both outside and within relationships.
	When I had damn good reason to run in hindsight, but I was told that running was an act of cowardice or ending the relationship was an act of cowardice.
	Or you even hear that not is an act of cowardice.
	Like, roll the dice, man.
	You know, take a chance. Take a chance on love.
	All that kind of stuff. So it's sort of some sort of random crapshoot.
	As opposed to something that has some kind of predictability to it.
	Is what I'm saying, does that sort of ring true with any of your experience or history?
	It does, but I'm trying to piece it on something more concrete.
	Because I think with sort of this, there's...
	I think the main judgment for me comes in the fact that I was conscious of warning signs.
	I was totally conscious of warning signs, but I actually pushed them down.
	For whatever reasons and I feel really sort of anxious about the fact and there were warning signs that I was unconscious of to be sure.
	And so is your question why you didn't follow your instincts?
	I guess I would be kind of if I were talking about the dating just sort of in that context but I don't I don't know what sort of approach that I want to take because I feel like a really tremendous anxiety still like my palms are sweating around like the idea that I Wasn't trusting my instincts and as you were just saying the standard of perfection that like I as you said You haven't heard me say that in years and it's like really coming up hard for me with the dating realm Right,
	right, right Well I'll tell you what I think, and then you can tell me if I'm full of the bowel products of anacondas.
	What I think is that if we've had bad people in our life, those bad people do not want us to trust their instincts.
	In fact, to trust their instincts is to invite attack.
	And those bad people can be parents, they can be priests, they can be teachers, they can be uncles, aunts, friends, parents, anything where you have bad people floating around.
	They really, really don't want you to trust your instincts.
	They don't want you to trust yourself.
	Because that exposes them.
	And, you know, again, I've used this metaphor before.
	I'll use it again, I'm sure.
	If I'm handing you counterfeit currency, I really, really, really don't want you to check it for counterfeit, right?
	To wave it in front of that machine that beeps if it's counterfeit money, right?
	Right, right. And so, if you've had those kinds of people in your life...
	They rely upon your not trusting your instincts for their very survival, in a way.
	You know, philosophy runs into a lot of opposition for people, as I've talked about before, because it is a counterfeit detection machine, and there's a huge amount of counterfeit money in the world today, in terms of the, quote, value that people supposedly bring to their relationships.
	And so when philosophy comes along, it's a big counterfeit detection machine that's being sent out for free, right?
	See, with philosophy, with self-knowledge, you can get the kind of attunement to your instincts that is required for navigating the shoals of dysfunctional people.
	That kind of stuff used to take years and tens of thousands of dollars of philosophical knowledge, of self-knowledge, of therapy, of this, of that, right?
	And you can get some of that just through the rigors of philosophy.
	So there used to be this huge barrier to entry, right?
	So counterfeit detection machines used to cost $100,000.
	And so it made being counterfeit, having counterfeit money and passing counterfeit money, much more feasible, much more possible.
	Because very few people had these very expensive machines.
	A couple of banks might have them, but not many other people.
	Now, they're kind of being mailed out for free, right?
	So people who use counterfeit money are kind of freaking out, right?
	Right, those little markers that you can just swipe in it.
	Yeah, it's free. It's completely free.
	I mean, okay, not free.
	There's a certain amount of time investment and all that.
	But the bullshit detector that is philosophy is much, much stronger.
	And so what happens is when people sense that about you or about me or about other people who've got a good attunement to malevolence, to manipulation, to dysfunction, craziness, evil, whatever, right?
	Those people are very desperate to not have those instincts connect with them.
	Like the counterfeiter is desperate for you not to want to, right?
	So he's going to, oh look, a bird that is made of fire!
	Hey, what do you think of this hangnail?
	Do you think that's going to get better? Check out this tattoo, right?
	Look at me do a dance! He's going to do anything that he can to get you to stop with the counterfeit detection machine, right?
	So when you go out into the dating world or the business world or the social world, there's a lot of people out there who are going to do a hell of a lot to keep you from seeing them for who they really are.
	Because then they see themselves.
	It doesn't even fundamentally have anything to do with you.
	But then they see themselves for who they are.
	And very often they will never forgive you for that.
	Right? Right.
	So there's a lot of pressure.
	There's a lot of pressure to not see people squarely.
	There's a lot of interference, right?
	There's a lot of static that is thrown into the natural hymns of our truest instincts.
	People want to really twist the dials, turn the knobs, blare, disrupt, dismember if they have to, right?
	Right, right. Well, and I'm also kind of – oh, go on.
	No, go ahead. No, you go ahead. I've talked enough.
	Sorry. Well, I was kind of curious why you think it's – because I think socially I've gotten pretty adept with trusting my instincts.
	I think business-wise the number of clients who screw me have gone down like – To almost just a minuscule write-off percent.
	I think I've gotten pretty good at self-defending in terms of that, but I'm curious why you think in dating, other than maybe it is just the newness of dating for me, why you think that my mind goes on complete 180 from how I act in other spheres of my life?
	Well, it could be quite simple.
	A guy comes into your store and waves around money that you think might be counterfeit, you don't want to have sex with him.
	I mean, there are some maybe simple things, maybe it's more complicated, but there are some simple things, which is that there's a great payoff.
	Like, if some guy gives you counterfeit money and you don't check it, then it's just a net loss for you.
	You've just given away some stuff and you're going to self-attack.
	Like, why didn't I check the stupid money with the counterfeit detection machine that's free?
	Right? So you're going to really kick yourself, right?
	But in dating, if you ignore the warning signs, you get the endorphins, you get the love hormones, you get the romance and sex high, right?
	So there's a real benefit to ignoring the warnings in a way that there isn't if someone's just trying to hand you over counterfeit bills, right?
	You get an emotional high and a hit and an excitement and a turn-on and all that kind of stuff, right?
	Right, right. So there's a higher incentive in the romantic world to ignore people's craziness, right?
	Right, and I actually think that that wraps around back to my original sort of meta question, because that actually triggers for me, like, coming to the, I guess, in front of the community and sort of being clear that I was like...
	I can't think when I have a boner.
	No, it's embarrassing, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, for sure that I had sort of a bit like a drug high in a sense of sort of romantic attraction and all that kind of stuff.
	And it feels kind of humiliating and embarrassing that that's sort of the distinction.
	Well, I mean, you know, there is the old joke, right?
	I mean, it's a cliche, right?
	Are you thinking with your big head or your little head?
	And that is a very true and real phenomenon, right?
	That sexual lust, and by sexual lust, I don't just mean, you know, screwing and all that.
	I don't mean anything like that in particular, although that's part of it.
	But there's a real high in romance as a whole.
	I mean, this is a biochemical phenomenon that kicks in very powerfully when you first become romantically attracted to someone.
	And it lasts about six months.
	I mean, it's a big high and a powerful high.
	And it's nature's way, particularly if we've come from dysfunctional backgrounds, it's nature's way of telling us to bang everything that moves because that's our best reproductive strategy in a dysfunctional environment.
	In a dysfunctional environment, characterized by war and incest and violence and whatever, right?
	Then your best reproductive strategy is just spread your seed as wide as possible and hope for the best, right?
	Right, right. Whereas if you grow up in a sort of calm and peaceful environment, then your best reproductive strategy is to pick carefully and invest wisely and deeply in your partner and in your young, right?
	Right, right. Now, my history was, you know, primed me to be a species of intergalactic scud missile man-whore, a role which I think fairly amply fulfilled in my teens and my twenties.
	So, I think I have some knowledge, a hard one by, that has something to do with the challenges of how our sexuality is programmed By dysfunction.
	And this is, you know, again, the bomb in the brain stuff explains this fairly well and gives the statistics behind this.
	The promiscuity is directly related to adverse childhood experiences, right?
	So, you have a conflict and the conflict is, you know, this is my theory, it could be true, it could be not true.
	It could be partly true. But you have a conflict because part of you is really under the influence, as we all are, but I think it comes more from people from dysfunctional backgrounds, is under the influence of the self-medication of the romantic high, of the sexuality high.
	But on the other hand, you've got this philosophy Gandalf sitting on your shoulder saying, you know, put that thing away, let's scan the soul, right?
	Right, and I do remember when we were talking and there was definite interest, but I was just for sure...
	Who's the we? Wait, who's the we?
	Not we as in you and me.
	When we were talking, me and the girl.
	Right, okay. The girl and I were talking, and there was definite interest, and I remember a voice coming up just being like, Okay, fucking philosophy.
	I've got all these areas of my life where I'm not a normal 21-year-old.
	Can I just have this one?
	Can I just have this fucking one?
	Right. And here's my philosophy for what it's worth.
	Of course you can. Right.
	Look, I mean, of course you can.
	Just do it consciously.
	Right, right. No, I mean, I'm serious.
	I don't think that you have to be monastic until you meet the one.
	I mean, this is not Catholicism light or heavy, right?
	I don't think – as long as you make the choice and it's conscious, I don't really care what people do as long as they know what they're doing.
	Right. Right?
	So if philosophy – if you have this feeling like philosophy says, well, this may not be a permanent long-term relationship that will take me to the old age home with 12 grandchildren – Well, fine.
	That's fine. You can still go.
	I mean, in my opinion, you can still go for it and still have a great time.
	Just don't lie to yourself and don't lie to the girl.
	Right, right. I mean, that's my, you know, because the honesty thing I think is pretty important just because it messes you up otherwise, right?
	But that's my, you know, hey, one night stand, you know, gang bangs, whatever you feel like.
	Just, you know, be safe and be honest with yourself and with those around you.
	Right, right. And yeah, I think I'm feeling a lot more resolved.
	I think that's where a lot of embarrassment was coming from, from what you're talking about, about the romantic high and all that.
	I was like, I shouldn't be susceptible to that.
	Right, right. And this has a long and noble tradition, and you could say ignoble tradition.
	Philosophy has been so infected by religion And the anti-sexuality and anti-physicality of religion, that even Socrates viewed his sexual lusts as an irrational demon that possessed him, and he was enormously relieved and overjoyed in his 70s to finally be free of the crazy evils of sexual lust.
	That's how uncomfortable philosophers are with something as powerful and as basic and as ecstatic as sexuality.
	Look, sexuality makes up for taxes.
	You know, as a kid, you're like, hey, you know what?
	You have to pay taxes when you become an adult.
	And that really is terrible.
	But you get to have sex.
	And I pay a lot of taxes to have sex.
	So I'll take the ups with the downs, so to speak.
	So it is a fantastic and beautiful and powerful and positive and alarming, at times, part of life.
	It is the reason we're all here, right?
	So you can't have life.
	Everything that we do that is around enjoying our life or having any kind of pleasure in our existence has to do with the fact that two people found each other sexually attractive enough to consummate, right?
	Right. So, I just – there is a long history of the mind desperately trying to elevate itself from the body.
	It's like an action hero trying to get out of a sinking sub, the way that the abstract mind tries to detach itself from the physical body.
	And I think that's really tragic.
	I think that's really tragic.
	It is a repudiation of the base, deep and powerful matter that is life.
	Right, right. You know, people have, I mean, there's so much that people have issue with me with.
	One of the big ones is when I say the mind is an effective matter.
	The mind is an effective matter.
	People then feel like I'm chaining them to a big log that they have to drag through with their lives behind them.
	Scraping scars of wood on the sidewalk called the body, called materialism.
	And we have invented the soul and even Socrates was susceptible to that.
	We have invented eternity.
	We have invented angels.
	We have invented ghosts and gods and dryads and nymphs and every species of consciousness that is freed from the material and that is tragic.
	And horrible and incredibly disrespectful to the body, to the body which is our life.
	And we all yearn to be free of the body, to fly and explore the cosmos free of the body.
	But then when we get sick, we say, damn!
	Yeah. You know, if we get some illness, like, I guess, Hitchens with his probably fatal esophageal cancer.
	I mean, he's a materialist, I assume, as an ex-Marxist or ex-Marxist and as a secularist.
	But people are like, I want to be free of the body.
	And then the body gets sick and says, hey, I'm going to set you free.
	And people are like, oh, shit.
	They're like Martha and George, I guess named after Martha and George Washington in Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf.
	This is an incredibly conflict-ridden couple.
	Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight.
	Bicker, bicker, bicker, pull each other down.
	But then the moment one of them says he's going to leave, the other one's like, you can't leave.
	Oh, that would be terrible. But that's just people's relationship with their bodies.
	I want the body tied down to the material.
	Free consciousness spirit.
	I'm bigger than this. I'm better than this.
	Then the body says, okay, I'm going to set you free now.
	They're like, oh shit, I want the body to get well.
	I love the body. I don't want the body to be sick.
	It's really, really tragic.
	Right, right. Why not just love the body anyway?
	Because that is all we are.
	That is all we are.
	We are just the body.
	So, yeah, I mean, sex is something to confront and to grapple with.
	And sex is analogous to food.
	There are meals that we have that are great.
	We will sometimes have junk food.
	sex that is beautiful and spiritual and elevated, and then there's masturbating because you saw a cute woman and you want to get to sleep.
	So I know that you may have some sort of history of sexuality that is anti-physical, anti-material.
	And there is a certain amount of disgust that people have with the body because the body is not God.
	The body is much more sensible than something as silly as God, right?
	Yeah, we stub our toes.
	Yeah, we have bad shits that we can't pinch out in the morning.
	I mean, it's ridiculous and embarrassing to have these, you know, graphs.
	Sometimes I'll be sitting on the toilet having a great podcast idea and a bad shit.
	And it just feels like half my brain is up there lodged among the sky gods of Mount Olympus and the other part of me is trying to pinch off of the logs that won't let go.
	But this is the reality of life.
	It's that the only reason that I'm up there thinking about these great podcast topics is because I've digested some food that I've got to dump out.
	Right, right. But that's the reality.
	And, you know, if you've ever been present, I hope you will be present for the birth of your child.
	But, you know, we don't come into the world in a very dignified manner.
	You know, we basically make giant shit into a pan.
	I mean, it's astounding.
	I remember your description, like the Gollum licking head coming out.
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	Absolutely. It's like Gollum climbing out of a bread pudding.
	It's astounding. Right, right.
	Yeah. And it's messy.
	Yeah, I remember that.
	Yeah. I do feel, for what it's worth, I don't know if you can hear my voice so much more relaxed and less shaky than when I began this call, so I'm feeling just a lot more kind of at ease.
	Right, and look, there is disgust with the physical.
	I clearly remember when I was in boarding school, I was six and in boarding school, and I overestimated my ability to hang on to my poop when I was out playing soccer, or I guess football or whatever you'd call it, and I crapped my pants.
	Now, six is pretty old to crap your pants, but, you know, I was 300 miles away from home or whatever and all that, right?
	But I clearly remember we had this sort of Nurse ratchet style matron, if you've ever seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
	And I remember her cleaning. I was put in the bath and she was cleaning my underwear and my shorts with this bottomless disgust on her face.
	And I didn't feel the disgust.
	I felt like, well, that was a bad idea, right?
	I mean, you know, hey, you know, sometimes you roll the dice and they come up, snake eyes, and you get introduced to your first exposure to the trickle-down theory.
	But I so clearly remember that disgust.
	And I remember that disgust...
	From a lot of adults when I was a kid.
	And I just think it just comes from there is a horror of the physical.
	There is a horror of the body.
	There is a horror of physicality that the mind has.
	You know, this whole idea that we are spirits of God cast down to be entombed within flesh for a sad, depressing and ugly period of time.
	That the entire point of the higher consciousness is to fight all of the urges of the base body.
	Right, right. And that's, I mean, that is so embedded in our consciousness, it's almost like human nature.
	I mean, it almost feels like human nature, right?
	Right, and that even in a sense has developed in modern, like the Freudian superego versus id theory where the id has all these base desires and the superego has to quilt it down and all that stuff.
	Right. You know, frankly, I can't disrespect the dick.
	I cannot disrespect the dick.
	Because without the dick, there's nobody here to disrespect anything.
	I mean, I can't disrespect lust.
	I can't disrespect sex.
	I cannot look at it as lower than consciousness because it's the only reason there is consciousness.
	Right, right. It's like I'm saying, I'm really happy to be here, but I really hate the bus that brought me here, although the bus is the only way to get here.
	Well, if you love being here, you have to love the bus that brought you here.
	And the bus that brought us here, you know, happens to be a narrow channel that widens impossibly wide and then snaps shut in horror, right?
	It's the road we all travel.
	Right, right. Yeah.
	So, respect for sex is, I mean, to me, it's just ridiculous to not have respect for sex and to not accept sex as the essence of everything, because without that, there's nothing.
	Everybody decides, oh, sex is too messy or sex is too dysfunctional, let's stop having sex tomorrow.
	Well, everyone's gone, there's no philosophy, there's no art, there's no beauty, there's no truth, there's nothing.
	Just a howling wilderness of subterranean animal mindlessness.
	Right. So all of the glories, all of the glories of art.
	And look at Michelangelo. The Sistine Chapel is the result of two people fucking.
	It's true. Hamlet, the play, is the result of Mr.
	and Mrs. Shakespeare making the beast with two backs.
	Charles, you know, Huckleberry Finn is the result of Mr.
	and Mrs. Twain playing hide the salami.
	Everything that we look at that is elevated and beautiful in this world is the result of somebody coming inside somebody else.
	That is the reality.
	And so everything that is beautiful in this world is underneath the high archway called sex, right?
	The Sistine Chapel, the beauty of the roof of the Sistine Chapel is underneath the beauty and baseness of sexuality.
	Everything that is elevated and beautiful.
	The priest who denies the value and joy of sexuality is himself underneath the archway of sexuality.
	The very God, the very concept of God, which only exists in the human mind, which only exists because of two people fucking, the very concept of God is underneath the archway of sexuality.
	So for religion to reject sexuality is insane, because we only have religion because people have sexuality.
	Right, right.
	Yeah.
	So I completely understand why there's inhibition around the concept of sexuality, for sure.
	I mean, because we're trained.
	We're trained to do that. And I think that there is legitimate privacy to sexuality.
	I think it's not good to do it on a train, no matter what Tom Cruise and Electrical Sparks tell you.
	I think there is a value to privacy in sexuality.
	I think there is great value to love in sexuality, but you can also have great sex without love.
	I mean, that's – I don't know.
	That's just a physical reality.
	If you couldn't have great sex without love, there would be no such thing as a one-night stand.
	Or the walk of shame. That's what people even say, the walk of shame, right?
	The walk of shame is the next morning when you're walking home in the clothes that you went out with because you spent the night with some guy.
	Well, why? Anyway, I know that's a big speech.
	I've had sex to talk about for literally two and a half years.
	So I'm pent up, baby!
	That's what I'm saying! I'm hanging heavy.
	I'm like two castanets going back and forward on a trampoline.
	So this is my thing, right?
	So is there anything you wanted to add to that?
	Because I've got a few words of minor advice if there are of any use.
	No, by all means. I mean, this is a topic that you haven't done sort of a lot of podcasts on as far as just a focused podcast on this.
	And it's really like I'm feeling so much more relaxed and less ashamed for sure around like not trusting my instincts and all that.
	Well, what are you, Greg, what are you looking for in dating at the moment?
	What do you want? Right?
	Because there are some jobs that we take, we know we're not going to keep them.
	Right? Right. And there are some jobs that's like, okay, I want this to be my career.
	So, in a sense, you're looking for work when you're looking for a relationship.
	And the important thing is to know what it is that you're looking for.
	Now, there are very few of us who, if we're looking for work and we say, well, I just want something to get me through the summer.
	Right? So, I'll be a waiter or I'll do data entry or, you know, just something to get me some money and get through the summer or whatever if we're students.
	Right? But of course, if somebody comes along with our perfect career, we're not going to say no to that.
	We'll do that instead. But what is it that you're looking for in terms of dating?
	I mean, I really...
	I don't...
	I'm not conscious of that.
	And not that I'm unconscious of that.
	It's just that I don't have a clear answer to that.
	Okay. Do you have an unclear answer?
	No, because it's binary.
	Look, you're either looking for something permanent or you're not.
	Now, the former is a subset of the latter, right?
	So if you're really looking for something permanent, right?
	So you've probably seen these comedies or these shows where there's this woman – it was on Weeds recently.
	Alanis Morissette was dating – oh, I can't remember the uncle's name, but she was dating this guy who's completely scattered and has no job and no prospects and no careers or whatever.
	And she's like, he tells her about his life and she's like, you know what?
	I'm 35. I want to settle down.
	I want to have kids. I can't afford to date you.
	I'm sure you'd be fun. I'm sure you'd be very entertaining.
	But I have to date somebody who's more serious because I'm 35 and I can't settle down, right?
	Right. And so that's sort of one, right?
	That's one aspect, right?
	Right. And the other is, you know, I just want to date around.
	I'm a young man or woman.
	I'd like to date around.
	People do not have to be philosophically perfect, but I like going out for dates.
	I like the frisson.
	I like the romance. I like the potential for sexuality.
	I like the sex if it happens.
	And, you know, I'm going to be careful for pregnancy and STDs, and I'm going to go out and have fun, but I know this isn't going to be something that I'm going to – it's not going to be somebody I'm going to settle down with.
	Now, I don't want to date somebody who's going to turn out to be some crazy ass stalker, right, who I'm going to have to duck every time I go past a window for fear of crossbow bolts, right?
	So, you want to not be crazy about that kind of stuff.
	Although, crazy people can be great in bed, let's face it.
	Anyway, that's a whole other story.
	Or video, perhaps. But if you're looking for something like, I just want a date or whatever, then you can take the philosophical pressure off the relationship, in my opinion.
	Because it's, you know, if somebody's interviewing me, like when I was interviewing to be a waiter, nobody ever said, where do you want to be in five years?
	Because they knew. Not here.
	If I'm here in five years, put a bullet in me and serve me up for lunch, right?
	Yeah. So they knew.
	And the same thing is true of dating.
	If you're just looking for a part-time job for the summer or something, if you're just looking for a fling, you know, just be honest.
	Have a fling and all that.
	Right, right. Well, I think I'm going to be really annoying and answer that question in a non-binary way, but I'm conscious of that, in that I'm not looking for sort of just one-night stands.
	Like, that's not what I'm into.
	But I'm very clear that I'm not looking for The one woman that I will settle down with.
	The woman of my dream. No, no, no, no.
	I'm sorry. You are. Because everybody is.
	Everybody is looking for that.
	I'm just saying that's not your primary focus.
	Like, that's not your thing. Right. Yeah, that's what I mean.
	Right. No, that's what I mean.
	Yeah. Like, I'm not necessarily, look, sort of honed in on I have to find this woman, you know?
	Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah.
	That's not... You're not like, listen, you don't meet my philosophical standards for a lifelong partner, so I'm not even going to take your number, right?
	Right. Like, yeah, that's sort of the...
	That's the approach, I guess, right now.
	And it's...
	It feels weird saying that because it makes me feel kind of...
	And this is... The shame is coming up again that if I'm only right now...
	I don't even...
	It feels weird. I'm feeling squeamish again because it's, like, not serious dating.
	But, like, I don't know.
	I don't even know if it's fair to describe it. What does it mean?
	You can't go to, like, for every movie, you can only watch Ingmar Bergman films, like you can't ever watch a Jim Carrey film?
	No, what's wrong with not serious dating?
	Because, remember, sexuality has everything.
	Because sexuality is the entire source of life.
	So sexuality has comedy, right?
	I mean, you can have a great time in bed if you laugh.
	Just don't laugh and point at the same time.
	But you can have a great time in bed if you're giggling or if something's funny.
	You can have a great time in bed serious and tender.
	You can have a great time in bed just lusty and grabby.
	You can, right? It doesn't, right?
	To say that romance or sex has to be, you know, for the serious purpose of mating and procreation or philosophical perfection, to me, is to come perilously close to that idea that is religious in nature, that you can only have sex for procreation.
	Which is a way of attempting to rope down sex and place it under the bounds of religion, which is ridiculous because religion only exists, as I said, because there is sex.
	So to attempt to bind sex under religion is completely insane.
	And of course, it's inevitable that religious people try to do that.
	Religion's relationship with sexuality is like a younger brother's relationship with a really successful older brother, which is just to bitch at it and put it down all the time.
	Because it knows that it's inferior at that time.
	It knows that it's dependent upon that, right?
	Like if you've got some, I don't know, some parasitical hanger-on living in your guest house or whatever, after a while he's going to resent you because he knows that he's completely dependent upon you but he also can't get free of you.
	And that's how religion is with sex.
	You know, if sex is so inferior, then just pray to God for babies.
	But of course, religions can't pray to God for babies because then they die out.
	So they have to surrender themselves to sex even though they hate sex for being so much bigger and repudiating everything that they do.
	Anyway, it's a bit too abstract.
	But I don't like this idea that we replace...
	Procreation for God with procreation for philosophy as our standard?
	That's, I think, what I was doing, because I think I had a judgment done.
	I mean, because I think, to be honest, I'm not looking for...
	I'm using that language again.
	Yeah, like, I'm...
	You asked, am I looking...
	How did you phrase the original question when you asked me what I was looking for?
	Yeah, I mean, what are you looking for in dating at the moment?
	Oh, right. And I feel, yeah, some weirdness around, like, that I am less sort of okay if I'm not looking for, right now, like, as my primary focus, a serious... No, serious again.
	The philosophical...
	Let me just say this as well.
	When I was an employer and I was hiring people, I never wanted to be somebody's first job.
	Right, right, right. Never.
	Never, never, never, right?
	So if somebody would come to me with a resume, it's like, oh, I never worked.
	I went backpack through Europe when I was in college and all that, and I've never even had a part-time job, and so this is my first job.
	I'd be like, oh, man.
	No way. I want somebody who's had a number of jobs before.
	And even though I know that those jobs haven't been career jobs, but at least they've got the basics down.
	Like, if it's a waiter, he shows up on time, he's got customer service, he knows how to keep his head under pressure and all that.
	It's not an untested thing, right?
	So, you take a bunch of junk jobs, and that actually is very important for when you get your real job, right?
	Yeah, I remember you making that point last Christmas.
	And that's, well...
	That's not a crazy analogy for dating.
	Right, right. Right, right.
	And also, I mean, let's face it, sexuality is, you know, it's not just love, tenderness and staring into each other's eyes.
	There's some shit you gotta know, frankly, right?
	That's pretty technical, right?
	You know, what kind of batteries, where to put the crane, how to tie the artwork up at just the right angle, where to install the crane, the water pistols, the bungee jumping.
	I mean, there's a huge amount of stuff, right?
	The skateboards and the watermelon.
	I mean, everything that goes into just your average handjob.
	I mean, these are all very complicated things.
	Wait, did I go too far? A little too much?
	Anyway, we can bring that down a notch.
	But it's okay to have some meat.
	I think it may actually be beneficial.
	Right, right. Yeah, and I need to figure this out, not in this call, I can't figure it out in this call, but why I'm sort of, and I think it has to do with religion, putting sort of this, there's this binary view for me that the sort of philosophical one-tracked approach that this is the primary focus is looking for that holy grail of a woman,
	that's The good kind of dating, and then the sort of, the other approaches, the sleazy kind, or the bad kind of dating.
	Right, right, right, right, for sure.
	And I just, I can't do that.
	I just, I can't go that way.
	I mean, look, maybe this whole perfectionism thing is completely right.
	Maybe I'm just justifying what I did in my 20s.
	I mean, maybe. But I will say that I'm glad that I had that dating experience in my 20s.
	I mean, you don't know a really great meal unless you've had some not so great meals, right?
	Right. So, I have a couple of other thoughts, if you don't mind, that I'd just like to share.
	Okay, so, look, when you're looking for the one, am I right in assuming that you may want to be a dad at some point?
	Oh yeah. I mean, as I said at the barbecue, I'd like to at some point, but I don't have it anywhere particularly in my life plan.
	I think it'd be really wonderful, but I'm not.
	My life is completely incomplete and will suck if I don't.
	But yeah, for the purpose of this argument, yeah, I'd like to be that.
	Okay. So, look, there's some things that are important about real long-term committed relationships.
	And this is not that that's good and shorter-term funsy flings are bad.
	I'm just talking about this.
	If you want to prepare the dish that takes six hours, this is what you got to do as opposed to grab a Big Mac, right?
	Big Macs are fine. I don't eat Big Macs, but I'll eat veggie burgers from time to time or whatever, right?
	But... Look, there's this shit that goes down in a long-term marriage with children that it's really, really important to think about ahead of time, right?
	So, when you're sitting across the table from someone and they're, you know, yammering on about themselves and, you know, the color of their hair and where they like to shop for shoes and, oh wait, no, that's me on a date.
	But if you're sitting across from someone and they're, you know, chatting and this and that and they're flirty and they're being all made up and so on, well...
	Think about how that person is going to be the fourth time the baby wakes up at night.
	Right. Are they going to deal with it with some grace and good humor, but without being rigidly positive and kind of frightened?
	You know, like, I'm happy that this is...
	How is that person going to be the fourth time that the baby wakes up?
	Right? Right, right.
	How is that person going to be...
	If you put your back out and have to lie down for a week with a toddler around.
	I mean, this is the kind of stuff that happens in longer-term relationships.
	Right. How's this person going to be when your best friend gets sick?
	How's this person going to be when her mom gets sick?
	Right. How's this person going to be when she has a hemorrhoid?
	I mean, the body is the body, right?
	And it's an exciting place to be.
	Shit's going down all the time and up and around, right?
	It's just an exciting... It's a cavalcade of ailments and ecstasies, right?
	Right. How is she going to be?
	When you get the note or the call or the face-to-face with the doctor that tells you how you're going to die and what you're going to die of.
	How's she going to be? Is she going to freak out and make it all about herself?
	Is she going to run away? Is she going to be there as you spiral down into that most intimate of embraces called death?
	Right. How's she going to be when the tough stuff in life comes along?
	How's she going to be around her parents if you don't want to get the kid baptized?
	How's she going to be? Those, I think, are really important questions because they look into the more long-term and deeper aspects of things.
	And I know this sounds like, well, how's she going to be with all these negative things and this and that?
	But this is the heavy lifting of a long-term relationship.
	This is the stuff that you have to deal with.
	And this is one of the problems with, you know, like people have affairs, right?
	And affairs are like, yeah, you don't have to sit down for a boring Thanksgiving dinner with your mistress's parents.
	Like she's just this exotic sex thing that lives in an apartment and is available for romance and flowers and sex.
	And there's nothing real about it.
	And again, not to say, I mean, I think affairs are disastrous, but there's nothing wrong with those kinds of flings as long as you're just aware of that.
	But if you're thinking about somebody in the long term, you know, think how they're going to do.
	How is this person going to be when she's seven months pregnant and hasn't had a good night's sleep in a month?
	Right. Those are important.
	I think we kind of get instinctual answers to those kinds of questions just as we're looking for people, right?
	as we're with people we're doing now how's she going to be when she starts to lose her youthful looks Thank you.
	Is she going to panic?
	Is she going to freak out? Is she going to run for plastic surgery and Botox?
	Is she going to accept it as just, you know, wrinkles of the medals of not dying?
	Right? I mean, it's a good thing, right?
	How's she going to be if you gain 30 pounds?
	For whatever reason. Could be because you're sick.
	Could be because you have... How's she gonna be if you go to bed and you're fighting like a Kansas windstorm?
	Is it gonna be funny or is she just gonna be haughty and grossed out?
	How's she gonna be when you're at your most vulnerable?
	When you're at your most frightened?
	When you're at your most confused?
	When you're at your most lost? How's she gonna be When you're cruel to her or mean to her, which is going to happen.
	Is she going to pretend like nothing happened, thus encouraging that false self stuff?
	Is she going to yell at you, humiliate you?
	Is she going to stand up for herself in a positive and loving way, not allow it to happen, but not attack you back?
	How's she going to be when she's wrong?
	And she knows that she's wrong.
	Is she going to cover it up?
	Is she going to counterattack? Or is she going to say, you were right.
	I'm sorry. Somebody just wrote, I googled cavalcades of ailments and ecstasies to see if it was a quote from somewhere and the two top hits were Stop the Drug War and a Catholic theme park.
	I just thought that was kind of funny.
	But, I mean, those aren't questions that you need to ask if you're just having a fling.
	Any more than if you're just taking a job for the summer, you need to say, well, where's this company going to be in five years?
	What's the company's philosophy on how to resolve conflicts?
	What's the company's philosophy on how do you promote from within or do you hire from without?
	I don't care. Because I'm just looking to make some chump change for the summer, right?
	Right, right. So those are my thoughts.
	I just, you know, don't divide, in my opinion, don't divide sex into good equals virtuous equals procreation equals long-term equals intimate equals philosophically perfect.
	Right. Because all of those concepts are only there because, look, we all know.
	I mean, I think we're all happy to be alive.
	I know I am. And I sure as shit know that my parents did not have sex because of those standards.
	Not even close. They probably had angry, hating, spit-in-your-face sex.
	Right. But I'm still here, right?
	So I'm not going to hold those standards up that sex has to be perfect because I'm happy to be alive and my parents' sex was far from perfect.
	Right. So yeah, I would say have the freedom to explore.
	Have the freedom to see where your desires lead you.
	And be conscious and think about it and be aware of what you're doing.
	But I wouldn't put the artificial barriers up.
	That is not self-RTR. Self-RTR is to be curious about your sexuality and your desires and your lusts and your, you know, love pursuit and all of that, but to be curious and not to say, this is good, this is bad, this is appropriate, this is inappropriate, this is acceptable, this is wrong. This kind of sex is good.
	This kind of sex is bad, right?
	Right, right. But just be curious.
	Wow, I'm really attracted to this person.
	I know that they're not a great person but I'm really attracted.
	I wonder why? Well, just to give you an update, I'm feeling like a complete 180 from the kind of trembling you heard my voice at the beginning of this call.
	I'm feeling so much more relaxed and more conscious.
	I want to re-listen to this because it's definitely useful stuff.
	Thank you so much for indulging the meta question and dipping a little bit more into the meat of the topic.
	Oh, my pleasure. I'm glad that you brought it up and I'm glad that people had a chance to hear our conversation about it and our thoughts about it because I think it's a very, very important question.
	It is a very, very important question.
	And I'm so much smaller than sex.
	I think we all are because we're all a product of sex.
	And so for me to try and wrap my mind around sex and give it all these rules and do's and don'ts and other than, you know, condoms and all that sort of stuff and protection… Like, for me to try and conceptually wrap my mind around sex when my mind only exists because of sex is, I think, to just put the car before the horse.
	Right, right. And, um...
	Yeah, I just, I can't approach sex from that angle.
	Let me finish up with that highly vivid visual.
	Again, I have the aforementioned watermelon and monkey catapult crane.
	But yeah, I just think, be curious and be open.
	Sex is too big a topic to be encompassed, I think, by philosophy, because philosophy is the challenge of sexuality.
	Right, right. Cool.
	Well, I mean, thank you so much.
	You're very welcome. Somebody has asked, what do you think about paying for sex, especially if you're a virgin, desperate, lonely, unsure and severely lacking intimacy to the point of it derailing your life?
	Well, I don't think that it's a good idea to pay for sexuality.
	Somebody I know did, and I can tell you this, it will absolutely not solve desperation, loneliness, insecurity, and a lack of intimacy.
	A sexuality that is paid for will not do that.
	In fact, I believe that it will only make Those things work.
	So if you're insecure around women and then your first sexual encounter is with a woman that you've had to pay, then you are really cementing that insecurity.
	You are giving yourself the tattoo on your forehead for yourself to see in the mirror.
	Maybe nobody else can see it consciously.
	But I think that it will only make things worse.
	If I were you, I would pay for a relationship with a woman based on intimacy called the therapist.
	That would be where I would put my money so that I could then end up in a situation where...
	I could have sex with a woman who wanted to have sex with me, right?
	Because you understand, if you pay $100 for a woman to have sex with you, she doesn't want to have sex with you for about $100 worth, right?
	That's how she sets her price.
	How much do I not want to have sex with this guy?
	Well, about $100. So that would be my suggestion would be to avoid that.
	What do I think of unrequited love or attraction?
	I have... I've been there.
	I think anybody who's put their heart in the ring has been there at one time or another.
	I can think of three or four women throughout my life that I was very attracted to that I... I knelt before and poured my heart out too and was, you know, nicely or sometimes not so nicely rejected.
	And it's painful. It's painful.
	But nobody gets to win all the time in sports.
	Nobody gets to make movies that are popular all the time.
	And nobody gets – I mean, not all my podcasts are great.
	There's one, I think, from 2003 that I never published.
	Yeah, if you're in the ring, you're gonna get knocked out from time to time.
	I believe that if you feel passionately towards someone, and it is not wildly inappropriate and destructive for you to say so, like they're not married or, you know, whatever, right?
	But I think it's important to be honest about your desire for that person.
	I think that is a form of honesty that I think is important.
	I think it's kind of respectful to your own feelings and your own passions to speak them.
	And what I've always thought, you understand this is just aesthetics, none of this is UPP, but what I've always thought is that I would rather go through life with the sting of regret rather than the endless ache, sorry, with the sting of rejection rather than with the endless ache of regret.
	Right, so if you feel passionately for someone, And you don't say anything, then you avoid the sting of rejection or potential rejection.
	But what you keep is the endless arthritis of regret, which never really goes away.
	And I've always preferred to live my life I'd rather take one on the chin than get one in the bone marrow, so to speak.
	I would rather get a short, sharp pain than a long, lingering discomfort.
	And so I've always been one for pouring my heart out and speaking my mind and my loins to a woman that I was attracted to and see what happens.
	Sometimes it worked, so to speak.
	Sometimes it didn't. But I would strongly recommend it.
	I think it's a vivid and powerful experience and I don't regret.
	The times that I did that, I would definitely have regretted the times that I didn't.
	Yeah, I hope that helps.
	There's a question about property rights.
	I just wanted to know if we had any other questions or comments about dating or sex before we move on to something slightly less stimulating.
	Yeah, of course, remember, though, when you pour your heart out to someone, it's certainly no requirement for any action or acceptance on their part, right?
	I mean, that I think we're all clear on, right?
	So I just think that's really, really important, right?
	So you say, this is what I feel.
	You don't have to do anything about it.
	I just want you to know how I feel.
	All right, Mr. Stephen, you have questions, comments, issues.
	I'm all ears. Hello.
	Hi. Good to hear me.
	Yes. Can I be heard?
	Yes. Hello?
	Okay. Hello. Hi.
	So I just wanted to share something pretty exciting.
	So I don't have any questions.
	So if anybody has any, like, really yearning burning questions, I do want to wait.
	Well, burning questions about the current topic are probably more referred to somebody who can give you antibiotics.
	So let's just go with this. Sure, sure.
	Well, I am extraordinarily excited right now.
	I'm, like, walking around my room pacing and jittering and, like, doing little dances and such because I've always wanted to travel, but I didn't think it was possible to do so unless you had a lot of money.
	And I started finding out about this conversation that helped you travel and different methods that...
	People are using that, even though they're young and relatively broke.
	And I found out that it's completely possible that I can leave tomorrow if I want to.
	I don't even have to have that much money.
	And so I decided to, about a week ago, I decided that I'm going to see America and then see the world.
	And I'm just too excited about it.
	I'm going to take a break from my parents.
	Which I couldn't see it not becoming a permanent break.
	I've gotten a therapist out of my life that wasn't a very good therapist that I was really ambivalent about.
	And I felt like I couldn't say no to him in a way.
	And I just feel fantastic.
	And I don't know if that's anything you'd be interested in talking about, but I just wanted to share it.
	Well, I mean, talking about, I mean, I think travel is a great thing.
	You know, if I don't have any particular regrets about not traveling, I don't want to make this about me, but if I had sort of a wish, so to speak, of it would be to be able to travel more.
	I love to travel, love to see new places, meet new people, love to try new food.
	So, my God, I mean, what an incredible opportunity for a young man to be able to go and do this kind of thing, to travel around the world, to drink deep.
	From the cup of experience, to make friends that may last a lifetime, to see sunsets in the four corners of the world, to see new architecture, to see new art, to taste new food, to smell new kinds of wind.
	I mean, okay, maybe after certain kinds of food, but I think it's a fantastic thing.
	I mean, what wouldn't you be excited about?
	I mean, congratulations. How unbelievably cool.
	Oh, thank you. And I didn't know exactly why I was calling, so I was kind of like, well, aren't you just going to say this and then...
	Hang up the phone, but I don't know exactly why I'm calling, but I was really excited to give in a call and just let you know that the conversations that you've had with the people and the stuff that you've had, the podcasts that you've put out, and the conversations that you've had with myself have been extremely helpful, and right now I just feel like I feel on top of the world.
	Well, you should. You should.
	I mean, I appreciate that and I appreciate you calling in with the great news.
	Look, you should. I mean, travel is, you know, it is impossible to have a mind smaller than the miles you have traveled in the world, right?
	I mean, one of the things that is really true in my experience is when you meet people with very limited perspectives, they have had very limited travel.
	And so I think that what you're doing as a student of the world, as a student of philosophy, as we all are, is a fantastic thing to do to broaden your perspectives and your horizons.
	I mean, I was lucky when I was younger to be able to travel quite a bit just because it was one, I guess, slightly better side effect of my family being so messed up is that I got to go to Germany and to Ireland and to Africa and into places that was really cool.
	And so that kind of travel...
	It did, I think, have something to do with looking at my own culture from more of an outside eye and seeing the flaws and problems within it.
	So I think that it's going to be an incredibly memorable, life-affirming, life-changing, wonderful, exciting trip.
	The only time I've done anything close to that...
	Kind of travel was 2002, I think it was.
	I spent a couple of weeks going through Mexico and Belize.
	I learned how to scuba dive and I was traveling with a woman.
	We sort of spent the nights either sleeping in her car or sleeping in, you know, real divey places and buying bread and cheese and eating by the side of the road and meeting up with people.
	And it was just an amazing and fantastic freeing time.
	It does, I think, call to our very natures to wander the world.
	I think that we are mobile, moving, nomadic creatures.
	And I think it does our spirits good.
	It's bracing and it's exciting.
	And it gives a kind of perspective to where we came from that you almost can't get any other way, right?
	So you grew up in a certain kind of culture until you go and live in other cultures and see how immersed and how absolute other people are in their own cultures as you were in yours.
	It's almost impossible to deconstruct culture without putting yourself in another culture.
	The same way it's almost impossible to deconstruct religion without immersing yourself deeply in some other religion.
	So I think that what you're doing is a pretty important if not essential part of a philosophical education, which is not to say that you won't get a chance to drink deeply of wine, jump off piers, have sex and have fun.
	So I'm not saying it's, you know, you must go through life like a monk and absorb philosophy from the four corners of the world.
	But there is that aspect to it that I think is enormously exciting.
	Wow, congratulations. I think it's fantastic, and if you get a chance to post on the board about where you are, what you're doing, maybe even a picture or two, I think we'd all be very excited to follow you.
	Oh, I definitely plan to.
	What you said reminded me of a quote, and I don't remember who said it or exactly how it goes, but it was talking about how if you travel to a different country, you're essentially...
	It's the closest thing you'll come to becoming a child again because you...
	You don't know the language.
	You don't know how to get around.
	You don't know what the social cues are yet.
	So you have to kind of re-teach yourself.
	You kind of become your own parent in a sense to adapt to new, completely different situations than what you're familiar with.
	And that sounds pretty exciting to me and I'd like to see how that goes.
	I completely agree. So, congratulations and, you know, just have an absolutely wonderful time.
	It does get a little bit more tricky later in life, though I hope to do it when I get a little bit older again, but it is a beautiful and wonderful thing to do and I think you have absolutely every reason to be purely excited and thrilled and this will be a fantastic thing for you to do.
	So, you know, I share your enthusiasm and I wish I could come.
	Well, if I'm ever in Mississauga, I'll give you an email or something.
	Well, I will say this, that if your desire to explore the most exciting corners of the world brings you to Mississauga, I think you'll have effectively missed your objective.
	But absolutely, if you're ever coming through, I would definitely love to meet up, so do let me know.
	Luckily, exciting isn't necessarily the criteria, so I think we'll be okay.
	Alright, mate. Alright, but keep me posted and congratulations again.
	For sure. Have a good day.
	Thanks, you too. Bye. Yeah, I had a question about, I guess, some of the drug-related stuff.
	You had posted a post on the board in May that I'll share in the chatroom here about hallucinogenic drugs and the long-term effects that those have on happiness.
	And I was kind of wondering how that article you posted might have revised any of your views on drugs.
	Now, just remind me, this is the article where there were some benefits to drugs in terms of people's therapy.
	Is that right? It was the hallucinogenic drugs and they just gave some people hallucinogenic drugs and a number of other drugs as a control and they found that those that took the hallucinogenic drugs had a long-term increase in happiness like 14 months down the line those with the hallucinogenic drugs reported being happier Right,
	right. Well, I thought it was very interesting.
	I hope that those studies are continued.
	I have no doubt that drugs have an effect on people.
	I have no doubt about that whatsoever.
	They may have long-term effects and they may even have slightly positive long-term effects or even significantly positive.
	Long-term effects but the reality is that can those effects be achieved without drugs?
	And can they be achieved in a deeper and more permanent way?
	And also the challenge with self-reporting is always a problem.
	Self-reporting is just always a problem.
	So it's really tough to know whether people are objectively happier or not.
	Now, I'm not going to dismiss this, and I certainly don't have the expertise or competence to dismiss it, but just because somebody feels better under drugs doesn't mean that they couldn't feel even better in a deeper and richer way.
	Then they did under other things like therapy or other kinds of approaches.
	So for instance, I would like to see measurements about whether people's marriages lasted longer if they had received these drugs.
	Something objective. Did they hold on to their jobs longer?
	Did they, I don't know, get promoted more?
	Or whatever. Those to me would be sort of more objective Yeah, I mean, I published that because it certainly was counter to some of the stuff I thought about.
	I definitely would like to see more about it.
	But I'm still not convinced that it's necessarily the best way to go, but I thought it was very interesting.
	But no, I still think that self-knowledge and therapy and all those kinds of things, that is the way to go, in my opinion, for long-term sustainable happiness.
	And these drugs reported a slight increase in happiness, but Chris Boyce, who is a guy I interviewed for FDR, he had research that there was dozens of times happier through therapy, so people will still be better.
	Off through therapy than they would through these kinds of drugs.
	Plus, it's not illegal, right?
	Well, not all drugs are illegal everywhere.
	And also, you don't necessarily have a And potentially pursued both drugs and therapy and self-knowledge.
	And then the third thing which came up when I was discussing this sort of thing with someone at the barbecue was that with drugs it seems like we take the opposite approach we have for most other activities.
	For most activities we say it's It's inconsistent with a philosophical life until proven otherwise.
	With drugs, it seems like people take the approach.
	It's inconsistent with having a philosophical life.
	Can you tell me why this is important to you?
	Well, I have done a little bit of drugs in my day, and I am somewhat curious about it.
	I'm not heavily invested in it.
	I could read A Rich Full Life without drugs, but from what I've found, there are experiences that They can be had with drugs that you can't get anywhere else, or at the very least, if you could get elsewhere, it's going to be very, very difficult to replicate it.
	And when was the last time you took drugs?
	A couple weeks ago.
	I don't do it very regularly, but that's...
	You know, happen to be within a couple of weeks.
	Right. And what are the benefits that you have experienced from drugs?
	It kind of depends on the drug and the particular experience, but with one example, I was able to get a sense of my false self just melting away.
	Obviously, this is very much my own interpretation of the experience I was having, but it felt as if all of my defenses were gone and I got What I interpreted to be a sense of what one might feel like without any sort of scar tissue or defenses and all that.
	Right, right.
	And have you tried therapy as well?
	Yeah, I'm currently in therapy.
	Right, right. And your therapist knows about the drug use?
	Right, yeah.
	All right. Well, I mean, look, I don't think that drugs are immoral.
	I don't. I don't think...
	I mean, if you enjoy taking drugs, you know, I certainly would never use any kind of force to stop you.
	Right, right. It's just the implicit sense I was getting from a lot of the stuff that you said in previous podcasts and also with others is not that...
	It's immoral, but that you are, you know, living less of a life.
	For example, one can, or I would describe as not a philosophical life, so you're avoiding self-knowledge.
	You're not necessarily doing anything immoral, but violating some strong aesthetic rule.
	I don't remember saying all of that kind of stuff about drugs, which is not to say that I didn't.
	I do remember doing a video on drugs where I was saying that people say that they get all of these great insights through drugs, and I've asked people to tell me what those insights are.
	And so far, nobody has been able to tell me what they are.
	Now, you say, well, my soft false self melting away and so on, and I think that's fine, but And that's an experience.
	It's not a philosophical truth, right?
	See, philosophy is not about experiences.
	Philosophy is about, you know, truth and falsehood.
	And so philosophy just doesn't have much to do with drug use.
	Like any more than philosophy has to do with a dream.
	And so I think that if you are having a particular experience, then I think that's great.
	But if people say that philosophy has led, sorry, drugs have led me to this kind of insight or whatever, then I just have yet to hear that kind of stuff in a philosophical way.
	So, that's my particular perspective.
	I'm not particularly harsh.
	I'm not trying to harsh people's buzz, so to speak.
	I think that there's better and more reliable ways to achieve and maintain happiness.
	But I also recognize that I'm talking out of my ass to some degree because I've never taken any drugs.
	But I think that the scientific facts are fairly clear about that, that the stuff with drugs is pretty minor relative to the effects of therapy.
	So, you know, therapy is proven to be more reliable and longer lasting than drugs as far as that goes.
	Significantly, like many times, many, many times more.
	Helping people to achieve greater and more sustainable happiness.
	And, of course, you don't have the dangers of illegality and arrests and records and hassles and all that.
	So, yeah, I just generally think it's better to go with that stuff.
	But, hey, if you have great experiences doing drugs, I'm not going to tell you that they're not great experiences.
	They don't have anything in particular to do with philosophy unless you can validate them using some empirical method after the fact.
	Hello, Steph. Hi.
	Hi. I'm Lo.
	I'm a long-time listener and a first-time caller.
	I wish I had a cool sound for you.
	Excuse me? I wish I had a cool sound for you.
	You know those radio shows, the first-time caller.
	Oh, yeah. Well, my question is about morality.
	I know you've gotten a lot of these questions, you know, as long as you've been giving a show and doing your podcasts.
	I hope you'll endure one more for my sake.
	I don't think it's too lifeboat, but I can't make any promises in that respect.
	I've read through UPD once, and I didn't really totally understand everything, so it's a possibility that I'm dismissing something pretty obvious here.
	Alright, and we don't have enough time for a lot of caveats, so if you can just get to the question, that would be great.
	Okay, okay. Well, is there a UPB-vowed theory, a moral theory, under which politicians have accountability for the actions of their subordinates?
	Well, I don't think so because I think what you're asking, right?
	So politicians are the receivers of stolen goods, right?
	So the politicians receive money that the police extract from the population under the threat of force.
	So your question is, to analogize and not that much of an analogy, your question is, is there a UPB valid theory by which the receivers of stolen goods can be good managers?
	Or can be responsible for the actions of others?
	Well, no. Because UPB shoots down taxation as a valid moral theory, because it's not universal.
	And so you think of two guys in a room, right?
	Bob and Doug. This is always a good place to start.
	And I've been meaning to put together a UPB questionnaire, but I'll do that at some point before I'm dead.
	But, right, so Bob says to Doug, I'm going to put 40% tax on you.
	So you don't have to give me 40% of everything you make.
	Well, it's a UPB, right?
	So if only Bob gets to do that, then it's not UPB and it's not ethics.
	It's just a shakedown. But if it's ethical, then it's equal to Doug as it is to Bob.
	Right? And so if Doug says to Bob, give me 40% of everything you make, Doug just says to Bob, okay, give me 40% of everything that I just gave you.
	Or give me 40% or give me 100% back of everything I just gave you because that's my tax.
	And so it can't be – you can't do it.
	It can't be universally applied.
	Any theory or system of taxation cannot be universally applied.
	Therefore, it cannot be – An ethically valid system or a valid ethical system.
	So I would say that no.
	It doesn't matter whether politicians are accountable to – or the subordinates are accountable to the politicians or – because the reality is that they're just the receivers of stolen goods and therefore the very category of politician is morally invalid,
	if that makes any sense. Alright, well that makes sense, and I think I understand why taxation can't be plowed under UPB, or rather can't be considered, I suppose you'd say, a UPB valid theory.
	But my question is really more like, I mean, can I say a politician is immoral when he incites another person to do violence?
	He's just using words, right?
	He's not actually picking up the gun himself.
	That's really more the essence of my question.
	I don't know if... Well, no, using words is tough, right?
	Using words is tough because if I go into a bank, in a free society, let's say, I go into a bank and I just put my fingers in my pocket like I'm making a gun, in my jacket pocket, and I say, give me all your money or I'm going to shoot you.
	Well, I don't actually have any weapon.
	I'm not holding a weapon in somebody's face.
	I'm just using words, but I'm still committing a crime.
	I'm still threatening someone, even if I can't follow through on the threat.
	They don't know that at the moment.
	Well, that seems to go to defining, like, intimidation in an objective way.
	I mean, that's almost a problem I'm having, I guess, if I had to summarize it.
	How do I say that someone is being intimidated?
	The media who cheerleaded or cheerlead, I suppose, the Iraq War, to me, would be complicit in the war, morally, legally, in a free society.
	And there is an incitement to violence, right?
	So you can actually be arrested in many countries.
	And this is, I think, part of the common law, but don't quote me on that.
	So if you give a speech which is so fiery and so incendiary and so angry that people go from a peaceful crowd to a bomb-throwing mob, you can be thrown in jail for the incitement to violence.
	And I fail to see how that's any different from what the media did with the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, let alone Afghanistan, but just to focus on Iraq.
	That to me, what the media did in its absorption, its ratification and its amplification of the words of war from the administration, from the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld administration, this was an incitement to violence.
	They didn't have any guns. But the speaker only has a microphone, and they have the biggest microphone of all.
	So these assholes who amplified the calls for war from lying sociopaths and turned a nation into a war footing are almost as responsible, if not as responsible, as those people who began it.
	Because without the media's participation, the war would have been impossible.
	I mean, after people had media exposure, over 80% of them believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11 and had weapons of mass destruction.
	And they sure as hell didn't know that without the media, because they didn't have direct access to Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush and Powell and all those other monsters.
	And so, if you are necessary for the commission of a crime, then by God you are responsible for that crime.
	If the crime cannot occur without you, then by God you are responsible for that crime.
	So, yeah, I think that the media is soaked in blood, in the blood of hundreds of thousands, the US media, and they've done precious little.
	To own up to and acknowledge that.
	But without a doubt, you would be, I think, in a free society.
	If you incited people to violence through lies, that to me is exactly the same as going into a bank and threatening them to get money.
	All right. Well, I don't want to use up all your time.
	I guess you've only got, what, eight minutes or something left.
	So I think that I should probably chew over what you've said thus far.
	I think that's a good point about the necessity of a person being involved if it would have been able to happen if they weren't there.
	I'll have to think about that.
	Well, we know this. Sorry, let me just give you an example.
	Let me just give you another example, right?
	So driving down the street is not illegal, right?
	Assuming you're going the speed limit.
	Driving down the street is not illegal.
	But if you're the getaway driver for a bank robbery, Then all you're doing is people are getting into your car and you're going down the street just like any taxi driver.
	But you are complicit in that crime now.
	You are responsible in part for the crime of robbing the bank because you're the getaway driver.
	And it seems very likely that if there was no getaway car, there would be no bank robbery.
	Like if they couldn't secure a getaway car and a driver, there would be no bank robbery.
	So, if you are driving the criminals away and the crime would not have occurred without a getaway car, then you are responsible, at least in part, for that crime, though you yourself are not doing anything illegal.
	Now, this is a pretty well-known aspect of law, right?
	So, there was a case in the United States where a guy went in to rob a convenience store, and the convenience store clerk pulled out a gun and shot at the robber, but missed the And hit someone else, a customer who died.
	Well, who got charged with the murder?
	Who got charged with the death?
	The robber. Though the robber did not even have a gun.
	The fact is that he set the events in motion that resulted in the customer being shot by the clerk.
	So the murder charge went to the guy who was the robber, even though he carried no gun.
	I don't even know if he had a weapon.
	So if your participation is necessary for the commission of a crime, then you are responsible for that crime.
	This is the question around statists in our relationships, right?
	Statism relies upon people morally praising statism, saying that it's either morally necessary, pragmatic, or morally virtuous.
	Without the approval of the general population, the crime called statism cannot occur, so they're all driving the getaway car.
	Everyone who is a statist is driving the getaway car for the state and are morally involved in the crimes of the state.
	And that's the challenge that we have when we analyze the ethics of the situation.
	What is our relationship with people who support the crimes of the state?
	And without whose support the crimes of the state could not occur?
	What is our relationship to those people as ethicists?
	I think it's a very challenging question.
	It's one that I've been mulling over and talking about for years.
	I have my answers, but, you know, obviously there's more than one set of answers that are interesting to look at.
	Well, I think under certain circumstances it might not be easy to tell who is necessary and who wasn't, especially as far as politicians go.
	I mean, they're all sort of voting for supremacy.
	You know, in politics, they're always inciting violence, is the thing.
	They're always asking for tax increases or something or other.
	And it always involves violence.
	So, I mean, I guess they're all accountable, but to what extent, I mean...
	Well, but... I guess maybe I'm...
	Look, you've never gone to jail for your beliefs, right?
	No, I haven't. But have you ever experienced personal attack or scorn or rejection or even threats of an emotional kind from other people because of your beliefs?
	I've been made uncomfortable over it.
	I tend to avoid I'm just an empiricist, right?
	I'm just an empiricist. So when I was doing the libertarian speech, I asked people in the audience, I don't know, there are 40 people or whatever in the audience, I asked people, how many of you have gone to jail for your libertarian beliefs?
	And not one of them put up their hands.
	And I said, how many of you have been attacked at a personal level for your beliefs?
	And every bond put up his or her hand.
	That's the enforcement, you understand?
	That is the enforcement that makes the state possible.
	The state is horizontal, it is not vertical.
	So forget about the politicians.
	Politicians can only do what they do because people attack people like us for speaking the truth.
	They don't have to have censorship because we get censored by everyone around us.
	We get censored by the media who mocks freedom and liberty.
	We get censored by family members and friends who roll their eyes and mock freedom and integrity and virtue and liberty and philosophy.
	So forget about politicians.
	The politicians are only the effect of our willingness to attack each other.
	The state is the infection that forms in the wounds we give each other.
	For having the temerity to speak the truth.
	Forget about the state.
	The state only feeds off the carcasses that we create out of each other's integrity and virtue.
	The state is an effect of our relationships.
	The state causes nothing.
	The state is a carrion feeder.
	The state is a parasite.
	That feeds off the wounds we give each other.
	It is the bacilli that infects and infest the lashy stripes we carve into each other's backs for having the temerity to stand up and speak the truth.
	The government is not important.
	It is the interpersonal viciousness and attacks that is important.
	The farmer of us has no fences even.
	He has no gates.
	He has no fences. He has no cattle prods.
	He has no sheepdogs.
	The farmer only has us to attack each other.
	The state only survives because we attack each other.
	There is no other source of the state's power.
	It is only Our uncivil warfare that produces the cancer of the state.
	The state does not dominate us.
	The state feeds off our dominance of each other.
	The state is not in control.
	We control each other and it picks up the scraps.
	The state does not rule us.
	We rule each other and it picks up the scraps.
	There is no dictatorship but the dictatorship of the slaves.
	There is no dictatorship but the dictatorship of us slaves with each other.
	That is the only hierarchy that makes any other hierarchy possible.
	It is the only tyranny that makes other tyrannies possible is the tyranny of all of us who attack each other for daring to speak the truth.
	That is the state It is not in Washington.
	It's around your dinner table.
	It is not at 10 Downing Street.
	It is the guy next to you in the pew who spreads slander about you for questioning the existence of God.
	It is not in Moscow.
	It is not in Rome. It is in none of these places.
	These places are just where the people congregate to drink the blood we hack out of each other.
	So, forget about it.
	The government, you're looking at the effect, not the cause.
	You're looking at the knee going up, or the foot going up, not the doctor tapping the knee with his little hammer.
	You're looking at the shadow, not what is blocking the light.
	What is blocking the light is our viciousness towards each other.
	Our lack of support for each other when we stand up and speak the truth.
	Our willingness to join with the baying horde and attack anybody who stands up and speaks the truth.
	Ayn Rand, Socrates, Aristotle, Spinoza.
	You name them. They have been savaged.
	Mostly. Horizontally.
	Nobody had to pass a law banning Atlas Shrugged.
	Because every cock-bastard intellectual asshole on the planet was willing to scorn it and turn its nose up at it and viciously attack it without ever approaching its core arguments.
	They don't need censorship.
	Because we have the ridicule of each other to keep us all in line.
	What Dr. Fine called geopressure.
	That's the government. That's the true tyranny that we live in.
	It's the tyranny of the cowardly attacks from our fellow slaves.
	That's all the enforcement that is needed in our society.
	They just pick up the scraps that's left over after we savage each other.
	They're like the pilot fish that hang around the jaws of sharks.
	They just pick up the scraps of fish that the sharks attack and eat.
	So that's my...
	I would say forget about the politicians.
	They don't matter. They don't matter.
	Well, the politicians were more an example, and I guess it is a sort of...
	It's sort of silly to concentrate on them, I guess, for the reasons you described, but...
	I'm still—I still have a little control.
	I mean, in terms of who is blamed—like, at the dinner table, let's say, someone ridicules me for having—for, you know, presenting an argument against God, let us say.
	Are they wrong for doing so?
	I mean, there's still words.
	There's still just words, right?
	I'm sorry, you mean if you make an argument, you make a reasoned argument for some position and you get attacked at some bullshit emotional level?
	Yes. I mean, how do I say, do I say the person is wrong?
	Can I say that and how do I establish it, that they're wrong in a UPB context?
	How do I put forth a moral theory that shows them that's wrong?
	Well, give me an example.
	I count to UPB on an abstract.
	Give me an example. Okay, let's say I've heard this example or seen it in, I guess it was one of your podcasts or something, and it's happened to me before.
	You present an argument against God, and then someone says something like, oh, I'm sorry that you hate God so much.
	Right, that you are the one who's full of contempt and it's contempt for this big benevolent spirit or something to that effect.
	I mean, that's what I call a really cool or emotional fact.
	I would ask that person, what on earth does that have to do with the truth or falsehood of my proposition?
	I mean, just insulting me is not an argument.
	Well, it doesn't have anything to do.
	I mean, that's why I'm describing it as ridicule.
	No, but I understand that it doesn't have anything to do.
	Trust me, I know. I've experienced this, right?
	But I would ask that person, what does my emotional state have to do with the truth or falseness of the proposition?
	Let's say that it's all true.
	I hate God. Just like I hate leprechauns and invisible moon spiders and gremlins and all the other things that don't exist.
	I hate them all. I hate them all.
	I hate Nazgul for being the fictional characters that they aren't.
	So what? What does that have to do with the truth or falsehood of a proposition?
	I mean, if Newton hates apples, is that a successful rebuttal to his theory of gravity?
	No, no, it isn't.
	But I don't see how that...
	What I'm looking for is moral accountability.
	You know, that somebody... It carries the blame for how things are.
	I mean, I know that sounds kind of, I don't know, accusatory in some way, but...
	Can you give me an example of moral accountability?
	Sorry, let me interrupt.
	Hello, hello, hello.
	Sorry, I have to be pretty efficient here because I'm going over.
	Give me an example of the moral accountability that you want to create in someone.
	Well, if someone ridiculed me for presenting a...
	Well, look, this is a complicated question.
	It is not evil because the person is not initiating force against you.
	It's not fraud, specifically, because they're not lying to you.
	They're basically saying, I can't think.
	And they're saying it about as obviously as they can.
	I'm frightened and angered by what you're saying.
	I can't think.
	And in my panic, I'm going to lash out at you in an ugly and emotionally abusive way.
	So, it's not evil.
	It's not fraudulent.
	I think it's ugly and it's abusive.
	It certainly is corrupt.
	But I would not call it evil.
	It is an enabler of evil.
	Because it is all those people who use emotional attacks against atheists who enable the continued predation upon children that all religions exercise.
	So they're definitely morally complicit in the abuse of children that is religiosity.
	So they're, you know, driving the getaway car, so to speak.
	Because if people did not emotionally attack other people for bringing up rational and intelligent questions, then we'd have the truth about the world in about 12 goddamn minutes.
	Because that's all a basic argument for the truth of God or determinism or statism.
	That's all it takes. About 12 minutes.
	2,500 years after Socrates, we're still waiting for those 12 minutes to show up.
	So who's responsible for keeping that 12 minutes separate from humanity?
	Well, all the assholes who pull out emotional, bullshit, abusive tactics when faced with an intelligent and reasonable argument.
	So, yeah, I mean, it's corrupt as hell, and it's an enabler of evil.
	It's not itself directly evil, though.
	Okay, that's really what I want to know.
	It would be great if I had a moral argument to offer against ridiculing people in a sort of evasive and dishonest way without addressing the issue.
	Sorry, but you can't have a moral argument with the immoral.
	Right? Any more than you can have a scientific argument with a creationist.
	Because they're anti-rational.
	Anti-scientific. Right?
	You can't create or inflict a moral conscience on someone.
	At the extremes, as far as I understand it, sociopathy is incurable.
	I mean, didn't you just assume that they are immoral?
	I mean, if someone is attacking me, and that's all I know about them, attacking me in words, then can I say they're immoral if I don't have a moral argument against it?
	Let's say I don't even present them with that moral argument.
	If there isn't a moral rule I can use, are you giving me a valid moral rule?
	That indicates they're bad for attacking me, then can I say that they're bad?
	Of course you can. Yeah, look, I mean, if the moral rule is, if I call somebody arrogant, then they're wrong.
	Let's say that that's the UPB rule.
	Anybody who calls anybody arrogant wins the argument.
	Well, that can't work, right?
	Because somebody, I say two plus two is four, and somebody says, well, Steph, you're arrogant.
	Oh, okay, well then I'm wrong.
	Oh wait, no, because I can call you arrogant back, in which case I'm right, and then we're both just shouting at each other arrogant in a room while nothing ever gets moved forward or solved.
	Right, so this is why ad hominems don't pass anything to do with UPB, because they can't be universally applied.
	Reason and evidence are UPB compliant.
	Ad hominems, straw manning, all the other bullshit that people do, fogging, All the other bullshit that people do in the guise of intellectual arguments, they're not valid.
	Because personal attacks can be replicated by anybody, and if personal attacks means you win, then everybody wins.
	Which means nobody wins, which means there's no such thing as truth.
	So I would simply point out that somebody is doing that, and if they escalate, and if they just get progressively crazier, I just detach.
	I mean, for the same reason that I get out of a lion's cage.
	Okay, so you're saying I don't have to offer a moral rule, because they're already offering, in some way, they're already offering rules that are not UPD valid.
	They're already, okay, I think I understand, I'm not certain, I think I'll have to listen Listen to Paul over again.
	I'm sorry for going over...
	No, look, it doesn't matter whether the other person accepts the moral argument at all.
	It doesn't matter whether somebody accepts the moral argument at all.
	You know, the truth of your moral integrity and your moral passion is not dependent upon the acceptance of rationality by crazy people.
	If somebody wants to sail around the world thinking that it's shaped Like one of Angelina Jolie's boobs, they can do that.
	You can try and argue them out of it.
	But if they just want to go on sale and say, I'm just going to go around the cape of D-cup or B-cup or whatever the hell she is, then they can go and do that.
	They can completely reject your argument.
	And you don't have to swim after them shouting, no, no, no!
	It's actually like one of Steph's man boobs, not one of Angelina.
	You don't have to. Because they're just wrong.
	Alright, well...
	Somebody attacks you emotionally for an argument you put forward, you don't have to prove that they're wrong.
	By simply making that argument, they're wrong.
	If you say to me, 2 plus 2 is 4, and I say, well, you're an arrogant jerk.
	I have just confessed that I'm wrong.
	I don't know how to think.
	I'm frightened. I'm manipulative.
	I'm a bully. I'm a coward.
	I'm pitiful. I'm pathetic.
	I'm vicious. I've completely confessed in blinding white sky writing exactly who I am as a human being.
	There's no doubt. That doesn't mean like if somebody says, oh, you're a jerk, and then, you know, half an hour later they write to you and say, oh, I'm really sorry, I lost my temper.
	That's fine. But somebody who sticks to that bullshit line, you know, come on.
	There's no doubt that they've just confessed to anybody with any eyes and any brains whatsoever.
	They don't know what the hell they're talking about, that they're just a weird, pathetic, emotional bully.
	You don't need to convince them of that because they've already told you.
	I mean, it's like some black dude walks up to me and says, I'm black.
	I don't have to convince him that he's black because he already told me.
	Somebody comes up to me and says, you're wrong because you're a jerk.
	They don't have to convince me that they're wrong because they just told me.
	Okay. They don't have to tell me that they can't think.
	They just told me they can't think.
	They don't have to tell me that they're emotionally immature.
	They just told me. They don't have to tell me that they're cowardly and vicious.
	They just told me. I don't have to convince them of that.
	They already told me. Anyway, I know this is a little bit tangential to what it is that you called up about, but I would say that's probably more the essence of it.
	I don't think it's tangential at all.
	I mean, I started off with an example that was poor, I suppose.
	I just took five minutes to come up with it.
	I suppose I should have thought more, thought of a better one.
	But yeah, I think you've addressed what I was talking about.
	I mean, I guess you're saying that moral arguments are reserved for people who respect morality.
	Yeah, you don't talk about science with witch doctors.
	You just don't. You talk about science with scientists.
	Mathematicians don't walk up to people in the middle of an epileptic fit and try to explain a theorem because they're not in a position to hear it.
	They just can't do it, can't process it.
	In the same way that I don't have long philosophical discussions with people who only speak Taiwanese.
	Because we don't speak the same language.
	It would be insane for me to try and have a philosophical discussion with somebody who only speaks Taiwanese.
	Because I don't speak Taiwanese, I don't speak English.
	So if people don't speak reason and evidence, don't talk.
	Accept the empirical fact that I don't speak reason and evidence and move on.
	Okay. I'm not saying it's easy.
	I'm just saying that that's, I think, the rational thing to do.
	Okay. Well, thanks for addressing my question.
	I really appreciate it. You're very welcome.
	And if you come up with any other ones, please feel free to call back in.
	All right.
	Thanks, everybody. I'm sorry we didn't get to the property question, but if you still have it next week, I am more than happy to hear about it.
	And please remember, drop past freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
	Your money is absolutely necessary.
	You know, people say, why does irrationality win?
	Well, frankly, part of it is because irrationality spends a hell of a lot more money than philosophers do, or people who are interested in philosophy.
	So, I can only donate most of my former income, a huge amount of my time, all the technology, and all the expertise that I can bring, and all of the integrity and passion that I can bring, that's all I can donate.
	But I can't sustain it without you.
	So, if you'd like to drop pass and donate, it would be hugely appreciated.

▲