Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 17, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:36:10

1891 Freedomain Radio Sunday Show 17 April 2011

The emptiness of consumer culture, violence in a free society, feminism, philosophy and freedom, and subjective ethics and UPB!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, good afternoon everybody.
	It is the 17th of April, 2011, just after 2 p.m.
	One day we will start on time.
	But my friends, that day is not today.
	So I hope you're doing wonderfully well.
	My condolences to my American friends who are currently in the throes of tax season.
	And I hope that it hasn't been too bitter.
	Also, on a hopefully not too selfish note, to remind people that donations to FDR dip a little bit around April because of people's concern about their taxes, which I completely understand.
	So if you had a decent tax year or you're not in that tax jurisdiction, if you could throw a few shekels to the FDR server, that would be great at freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
	Remember, it is your dollars that keep this, I guess your dollars and my deferred dollars of income that keep this all running.
	And I think it is essential that we continue to grow as we have been growing.
	And for those who weren't aware, I was on Adam versus the man, which was not as I had first anticipated a retelling of Genesis, but was in fact Adam Kokesh's new show, which you can find at RT.com.
	And I was the very first guest and I had four minutes and I took unfortunately four minutes and two seconds.
	There were some people who were concerned about Adam cutting me off.
	I am here to tell you that it was not his fault, but it was my fault for going over.
	And he did exactly the right thing.
	He has a schedule which we in the podcasting world don't have to worry about.
	So I hope that you will check out.
	You can go to adamvstheman.com to find more information about the shows.
	And thanks to everyone who voted for me as a return guest.
	They took my name off because I've already been on once.
	But I'm sure that I will be back.
	How do I feel about my TV appearance?
	Well, I thought that I could have been a little bit less in the frame.
	I thought it was like giant talking bald melon head of volunteerism.
	So I thought that was...
	Unfortunately, I just had already sat down and bound myself into all of the cords like Gulliver in Lilliput.
	And then I remembered that I hadn't brought my count, my stopwatch.
	Because I had rehearsed, of course, to stay inside four minutes with some points for questions.
	And unfortunately, I mistimed and was about to get my final sentence in when Adam did the right thing and interrupted me, which is not the truth and true thing as I went over.
	So I thought it was fine.
	I thought it was fine. I thought the questions were good.
	I thought that I was able to stay relatively concise and engaging.
	And of course, I mean, it's a very...
	I was very honored to be with the opening guest.
	That's quite a positive thing and I got lots of good feedback.
	So to be able to get any of these ideas out on TV, I think it's a good thing all around.
	So I was pleased with it and I think Adam is a good host and I think that his show is going to...
	Continue to grow. And so, yeah, I would rather have Steph on Russian television with Adam as a guest.
	Well, that's very kind. But remember, Adam is very popular and he's a very good speaker.
	And so I think that is something we should get behind and try and share with others, if you have the chance.
	So I hope you will check out his website and check out the show.
	If we have anyone who wants to talk, that's fine.
	We did have somebody who wanted to go in-depth into some dreams, if you don't mind, if you could hold off on that.
	I don't feel too particularly like doing dreams today.
	They tend to be very long, and either people really like them, or they find them staggeringly boring.
	And... Let's see.
	Family questions. I happen to talk about family questions.
	I have been leaning a little bit more towards philosophy and economics of late, but you are in the driver's seats, my friends, so let me just...
	I'll do a couple of questions from the chat room, and then we'll get on with anybody if they want to talk.
	Somebody says, can I just throw in a question?
	Is advertisement part of corporatism or capitalism?
	The mass media is part of the state, and since using the police to force out profits is corporatism, then...
	Look, I think this is a great question.
	I've really been mulling over, hopefully in a semi-deep and semi-intelligent way, this question of advertising.
	I've been quite fascinated by it.
	And I think it's really worthwhile for us to examine the question of advertising.
	The market is a reflection of demand, obviously, right?
	In some instances, you can create demand.
	The iPad or the iPhone or cell phones or whatever, they created a demand that didn't hitherto exist because it wasn't there.
	The products weren't there. So you can create demand through the invention of a new product.
	Now, unfortunately, in this world of scant philosophy and tsunamis of propaganda, you can also create demand through the infliction or the expansion of insecurity.
	And I think that is something that is really, really important.
	You know, when we defend the market We are defending obviously the non-initiation of force and we are defending a respect for property rights and for contract law which is all very good.
	But there are people who will sell stuff in the market through creating or exacerbating people's insecurities.
	And that is something that I think we can obviously never oppose through force or even fundamentally morally.
	But I don't think it's good.
	I don't think it's good. Like, if you use guilt to get someone to do something, obviously that's not evil.
	I wouldn't even say it's particularly immoral.
	I mean, unless there's direct falsehoods involved, but it's kind of manipulative.
	And I think we always want to make sure that we don't defend some specific manifestation of our ideals.
	I say our ideals like you share them, but let's just say the basics.
	So I think we want to defend the non-initiation of force.
	I don't think...
	Well, I shouldn't say we.
	I don't want to defend...
	Like if you go to a drugstore or whatever and you look at women's magazines, and this is not a new topic, but I think it's worth mentioning in this context because this is where a lot of advertising is.
	In women's magazines, you have, you know, the.0001% of people born with perfect faces, and the subset of those born with perfect skin, and the subset of those born with great hair, and the subset of those who want to go into modeling, and the subset of those who photograph well at almost every angle, and the subset of those who can be airbrushed into a complete perfection.
	And to hold these consistently up As what beauty is, you know, a mere, frankly, somewhat boring physical symmetry, I think is not a very good thing to be doing.
	I think it's not a very good thing to be doing.
	I don't think it's very healthy or positive or enriching or encouraging.
	To hold out these ideals.
	And I mean, to some degree, it's Men's Health magazine as well.
	You know, you have to have a six-pack and you have to be kayaking down some waterfall in the Andes to have a meaningful and fulfilling life.
	And there used to be...
	Some comedian used to talk about men's magazines, you know, back in the day, you know, men's magazines, you know, what was the harm?
	You had... A couple of articles about stereos, you had a couple of gay guys in suits in the advertisements, and you had maybe another article about how chicks dig love handles on men, or something like that.
	And that's sort of changed now to where there's this insistent hyper-testosterone masculinity being put forward as the ideal.
	And I don't like that stuff.
	I don't like it. I think it's negative.
	I think it's destructive.
	I think it's dangerous to people's happiness.
	And unfortunately, of course, the population is instructed in inconsequentialities and trivia and falsehoods for the most part through education and through the church or the churches.
	And so I think people do have a problem aggressively separating people.
	Image from reality, ideal from existence.
	And so I have some significant issues with the kind of advertising that goes on.
	I don't think it is reflective of a healthy culture.
	I think it exploits and expands upon and extends people's insecurities.
	And I think that it does serve power in a way.
	I don't think it necessarily serves power directly or there's any kind of, you know, people who are rubbing their hands together and saying, you know, here's how we serve power.
	But I was thinking about this this morning before the show and it struck me.
	that when you read about people's recounting of particularly their pubescent and teenage years if they were raised in a very religious culture or a very religious household A lot of what they're doing is warring with themselves.
	So, you know, like I would have these sexual impulses and then I would remind myself that that's a sin.
	And then I would look at somebody and feel envy and then I would remind myself that that is a sin.
	And so you'd have these impulses and then you would feel at war with yourself.
	And when the citizens are at war with themselves, they're very easy to rule because they're very susceptible to criticism or to humiliation or any of those kinds of things.
	And so it has struck me that advertising does a lot of that as well.
	So instead of being concerned about your virtue and your courage and your achievement of good and you're making a positive difference in the world and struggling to overcome the obstacles always placed in the way of virtue, I think a lot of people are like, oh man, I have a pimple or oh, I have a little bit of back fat or my thighs are a bit floppy or my feet are too big or they feel self-conscious about it.
	I mean, what was this? Some Brooke Shields.
	Commercial on about some product that was supposed to thicken your eyelashes.
	And you sort of read to the fine print, you know, may cause this, this, and this horrible consequence or whatever.
	It's like, they're eyelashes for heaven's sakes.
	They're not, it's not your heart.
	It's not your liver.
	It's not an essential organ.
	But this is what goes on for people.
	You know, are my boobs...
	Too small or my boobs too big.
	I mean, it's just me every morning.
	But I think that there is a lot of having people fuss and worry and fret over pretty inconsequential aspects of their own appearance.
	And I think that makes people easier to rule because you're worried about whether you have a slight muffin top or whether your calves are too small or whatever.
	Talk to anyone. Who's been exposed to a lot of Western advertising and they have a list of things that they feel should be better about their physical appearance and it undermines, I think, our strength as individuals.
	It undermines our courage as individuals and I think that makes us easier to control.
	Yeah, I'm not a big fan of advertising as it exists.
	I recognize that it's part of the vestiges of the free market but I think that in a truly healthy society, Advertising would be more informative, it would be less propagandistic, and it would be less likely to profit from the extension of people's insecurities.
	Yeah, somebody's written, the free market has also created FDR, which is beneficial for people's self-esteem.
	I do believe so.
	I do believe so. Somebody has asked, what are your thoughts about age differences in relationships?
	Say a younger man and an older woman.
	I'm not sure I have any particular thoughts about it, other than to say that I do think that if there's, say, a 30-year difference, you know, like, I don't know, like a 20-year-old guy and a 50-year-old woman.
	Is that the guy from...
	Grey's Anatomy, Patrick, whatever his name is.
	I think he was in a relationship with a much older woman when he was younger, which he called his Oedipus phase, I think.
	I'm not saying I'm proud that I know that.
	I'm just saying that I have spent some time in a dentist's office with some magazines of pretty people.
	So, I think that there can be a problem there, because I don't think you can magically accelerate life experience or...
	I think there's some stuff that just has to be netted into your bones through the fingertips of time, so to speak.
	And so I do think that if there's a significant or extreme age difference, that there may be less compatibility in the long run.
	That would be something I would be concerned about.
	Not that anybody should care about my concerns, but this is just my sort of initial thoughts on the topic.
	I think that relationships...
	I think that relationships are to be entered into.
	I think relationships should be subjected to some Critical and healthy self-examination.
	If you're going to get into a relationship with someone, and particularly if you're head over heels in love with someone, I think it's worth examining why this might be occurring.
	This is not to say examine it with the point of getting rid of your infatuation.
	I think infatuation is a wonderful thing.
	But I do think that it's important to understand, as best you can, why you may be attracted to somebody, particularly if there are some signs of concern, like a significant age difference.
	Somebody's asked a question.
	How do you discipline a child when you keep asking them to stop doing something nicely and they do not stop, even after explaining it many times using all kinds of rationales?
	Could you tell me, if you don't mind, what age of child you are talking about?
	I mean, if they're young, then it is going to take a lot of repetition.
	So Isabella is not...
	Seven years old.
	Okay, so Isabella is not allowed to throw balls.
	She's got quite a hook, and we're concerned that, you know, she's got some balls that are sort of those, you know, those sort of firm rubber bouncy balls.
	And she can throw them quite hard, and they can either hit someone or break something, so she's not allowed to...
	To throw anything except ping pong balls and balloons.
	And it took months to get her to do that on a consistent basis.
	There was a lot of repetition because she doesn't think in the moment.
	Her neofrontal cortex is still fairly small and her impulse centers are very strong.
	So there's just a lot of patience.
	A lot of, no, we don't do that.
	No, we don't do that. And so on.
	And when we first talked to her about anger and gave her the angry, like the word I'm feeling angry or whatever, then she would sometimes thump us a little bit.
	She never hit, but she sort of thumped us a little bit.
	And we wanted to nip that in the bud.
	And so we'd say, you know, there's no hitting.
	You know, we never hit you.
	We don't raise our voice at you.
	And we don't hit.
	It's owie.
	And also, I think it's important as a parent to remind the child that you have vulnerabilities as well, right?
	So I would say, look, I'm scared.
	I get scared when you pick up one of your big rubber balls and you're going to throw it at me.
	It's scary because I don't know where it's going to hit me.
	And so I think it's important to remind your child the honesty of your experience of the child.
	Like, I'm scared. I don't want to be scared.
	I want to be able to play with you and really relax and enjoy myself.
	And this can change over time.
	So when Isabella was younger, I would lie on my back and I would invite her to sort of jump up on me and we'd sort of wrestle and tickle and have a great deal of fun.
	And then she got bigger and now she's 27 months and she's quite a big girl and if she jumps on me, you know, she might leave some semi-permanent, semi-pudgy imprints on my belly.
	So we've had to change that and that's taken some time for her to understand that this is no longer something...
	That we can do because she's bigger and she's stronger and all of that sort of stuff.
	So I think that's an important thing, that if you're going to change rules, and rules do change, of course, over time or guidelines, I think that's important to remember.
	Be extra patient with that.
	The other thing that I would recommend is if you're dealing with a seven-year-old, And you have changed your parenting style, perhaps from something a little more authoritarian to hopefully something a little bit more participatory, then your child may have a habit of not listening to you that you have inculcated to some degree, let's say.
	And I think that's really important.
	If you are changing your style of parenting, I think you just have to be extra patient.
	And also you have to make sure that if your child's seven, I don't know the mental age of the child, that can vary quite a bit at that age, but...
	You know, it may be worth saying, look, it's, you know, I'm changing what I'm doing and I'd like you to listen, but I understand that, you know, maybe I yelled at you in the past or whatever and you didn't listen as much and so on, right?
	So if you're changing the style that you're working with, then I think you really, really need to be extra patient.
	And to be vulnerable, to say, you know, it's frustrating for me.
	To be honest, right?
	It's frustrating for me when you don't listen.
	And, you know, I've sort of explained that to Isabella in the mall, right?
	So when we're walking with her in the mall, it's like Brownian motion sometimes.
	Like, we need to go to X. I need to go get a haircut.
	And, you know, we leave a little bit of extra time, or sometimes more than a little bit.
	But at some point, I have to say, look...
	You have to walk with us. Like, you know, I don't want to carry you anymore, and I don't want you wandering off X, Y, and Z. I need to go and get a haircut, so you need to walk with us.
	And, you know, you go down, you're calm, you say, look at me, make sure you have eye contact, And what I have found to be very helpful is to get a commitment out of the child.
	So if you walk with, then we can go to the popcorn store and you can watch popcorn getting made, which she loves.
	Is that okay?
	Is that a deal? Do we agree?
	And then she says, okay.
	And I repeat it to make sure that she's got it.
	And then I have found it to be very powerful that if she then starts to wander off, I say, remember, Isabella, you remember you agreed to walk with us to the barber, right?
	And if you've made, if you've gotten a commitment out of the child, obviously not forced a commitment, but if you've gotten a commitment out of the child, then reminding the child of that commitment is a very powerful thing because children are UPB animals, right?
	As we all are, but unfortunately it gets broken down a little bit earlier.
	So that would be my suggestion.
	You know, obviously be patient, to be vulnerable, to express your frustration if you feel it, you know, in a calm way.
	And to work to try and get a commitment out of the child that is voluntary and, you know, maybe sort of a reward-based one is okay in my opinion.
	And then remind the child of that, you know, you promised, right?
	So Isabella, oh, she wants to take the blocks out.
	Okay, well, if we take the blocks out, will you help data put them away?
	Yes. Okay. So then when she's done, she wants to go off and do something else.
	And I said, no, wait, remember? Look at me.
	Remember we said that if we play with the blocks, you'll help data put them away.
	And then she will. So if you get a commitment out of your child and remind the child of that commitment, I found that to be an enormously powerful way of, you know, getting them to obey, so to speak.
	So I hope that helps. And if it doesn't, you know, please let me know.
	Yeah, discipline is a very tough word.
	It is a very tough word to work with.
	I really prefer to work with negotiation.
	Children... Yeah, Parental Effectiveness Training is a great book because, you know, I'm no expert, right?
	This is just sort of my experience of parenting.
	He says, thanks, Steph. It does help.
	It's what I was thinking. Yeah.
	And, I mean, depending on the mental age of your child, it may also be well worthwhile for you to ask the child, well, what's it like for you when I say this?
	Right? So, I don't know what it is.
	Maybe they, you know, put their toys away after they finish playing.
	It's like, okay, so when I say this, what's it like for you?
	I mean, do you feel angry?
	Do you feel bored? Do you feel resentful?
	Do you feel whatever?
	Do you feel sad? Try to get the child to To give you his or her experience of your interactions.
	I think that can be really, really helpful to find out what is working for the child and what is not working.
	So if they say, well, I feel resentful.
	Okay, well, why?
	Do you feel resentful, do you think?
	You know, if you always felt resentful, well, you used to yell at me and I didn't like it.
	It's like, well, that's very important.
	Now you've got some information about why the child is not listening, because there's some resentment about the ways in which perhaps you're used to parent.
	I'm just, I don't know, right? I'm just guessing.
	And then you have some great information.
	Then you have a cause and effect.
	And I think that's really, really important, right?
	And then just your work to undo that.
	And of course, if you have been a yeller in the past, I would strongly suggest to say, I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry. So I think that's important.
	And you can spend a long time talking about what it was like for the child if you were yelling at the child in the past.
	How did that make you feel?
	And was it scary?
	And all that kind of stuff. And really try to get a sense of your child's experience of you as a parent.
	I think that's so, so, so important.
	Because you're asking, in a sense, for empathy from the child.
	When you're asking the child to do something, you're asking for empathy.
	And... The best way to ask for empathy in a legitimate way is to give empathy, right?
	To empathize with your child first.
	So somebody has asked me, what do I think about age of consent laws?
	In a state of society, what would be a sensible way of preventing predatory relationships?
	And by that, I assume that you mean childhood sexual abuse.
	I'm going to assume that that's what you mean.
	The best way, in my opinion, it's only in opinion of course, but the best way to prevent these kinds of predatory relationships is for the child to have a great relationship with his or her parents.
	That is the way to go.
	If you have a great relationship with your parents and you don't have a hunger for validation or praise or rewards outside the family, then I think you're pretty bulletproof as far as that stuff goes.
	And of course, if you've ever experienced sexual abuse within the family, it would seem to me that you would be more likely to be vulnerable to that kind of exploitation outside the family.
	But no, just have a close, warm, loving, respectful relationship with your family.
	And I think that those predators would steer pretty clear.
	That would be my best approach.
	Now, as far as the repercussions, I think that, you know, there's that old saying, you know, if If pedophilia is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.
	And I think that's important.
	Society has, I think quite rightly, an extraordinary revulsion towards people who sexually prey upon children.
	And damn well should.
	And I think that it would be catastrophic in a free society for any individual to be convicted of such heinous behavior.
	I think the amount of social ostracism and economic rejection would pretty much drive them to go and live in the wilds somewhere.
	And that would be my...
	I think that would be the best way.
	But of course, the people who tend to prey on children sexually tend to have been sexually abused themselves.
	So once you start getting better families, this stuff all tends to go away.
	I mean, the way that I view the future, this is I think an encapsulation that hopefully will be some of some use to people in understanding why I don't think this stuff is going to be such a big deal.
	Think of bad parenting like smallpox.
	Think of bad parenting like smallpox.
	Well, bad parenting can change.
	The quality of parenting can improve.
	In fact, I would say that it must improve and it has improved over time.
	I have the sense in a weird kind of way that it's actually improved Since I've started doing this show, please understand, I'm not saying that this show is responsible for it, maybe in a tiny way, but I saw more bad parenting five years ago than I see now.
	I think things are changing.
	I think that things are changing for the better in a faster way.
	And this is not scientific, this is just my experience.
	So if bad parenting is like smallpox, okay, so when you were a kid back in the day before smallpox or polio was eliminated, then you'd say, well, how would society 100 years from now deal with the scourges of smallpox and polio?
	Well, the answer is that 100 years from now, smallpox and polio won't be an issue.
	And I think that's really important.
	Now, this is not the best metaphor in the world, but when people say, well, you know, how will you deal with child sexual abuse or sexual predation of children in a free society?
	It's like, dude, or dudess, if there is still this kind of abuse in society to any significant degree, we will never have a free society.
	We will never have a free society as long as significant portions of the population are abused as children.
	It won't happen.
	It won't happen because we will still have too many criminals, we will still have too many politicians, we will still have too many people desperate to defer their lives or significant portions of their lives to others in authority.
	You will continue to have this horizontal attack on people who propose freedom.
	So when you say, well, how will the effects of child abuse be dealt with?
	In a society where there's virtually no child abuse, I think the question answers itself.
	There will not be a free society while the significant portions of the population are abused children.
	So once we have a free society, one thing you know for sure is that children are being raised in peaceful and respectful and positive ways.
	So people say, well, what about...
	What about mass murderers in a free society?
	Well, yeah, I mean, I don't know.
	It could be, I guess, people who get some brain tumor that messes up their head and turns.
	But that's somebody who's ill, not somebody who's evil in the way that we talk about it now.
	And so I don't believe that once we achieve a free society, that will be a generation or two or perhaps three after.
	After. Parenting has become peaceful.
	And by that time, by the time you're in a free society, these kinds of crimes will be so extraordinarily rare that, you know how there's this show, House MD, and it's not lupus!
	They have these really obscure illnesses.
	Well, that to me will be The criminal system of the far future.
	That every now and then there will be some person who goes haywire and they'll have to figure out why.
	But will this be an issue for society as a whole?
	I would argue. I would argue not.
	Hello? Hello.
	So you can hear me?
	I sure can. Hello, Seth.
	It's me again from last week.
	Hi. With a weird accent.
	So, I am spending some time listening to your feminism theories.
	Right. Maybe, obviously, because I'm a woman.
	And, if I can notice, you don't have so many ladies listening.
	So, the first question is, why?
	Why do you think, I would say, you have a majority of men?
	That's a great question.
	I don't have a definitive answer, of course.
	If I had to sort of guess, and this goes into the wonderful world of gender stereotyping, so I'm not going to say that these are necessarily innate.
	I would say that Women are often, in the Western culture at least, raised to keep the peace.
	And so I think that philosophy is really not about keeping the peace.
	Philosophy can make people very upset.
	It can anger people.
	It can enrage people. It can frustrate people.
	It can baffle people.
	And so I think that there's some cultural influences that Have caused women, I think, to value more keeping the peace and reducing conflicts.
	I mean, the sort of stereotypical thing within families is that you have these aggressive males and then you have these women who are just trying to keep the peace and all of this sort of stuff, the go-betweeners, the lubricants within the family machine, so to speak.
	And so I think that there's a lot about...
	Real philosophy and about good philosophy that is intensely challenging, both interpersonally and within ourselves.
	And I think that unfortunately, and I think it's a tragedy in many ways, I think that women are They are not raised to be as comfortable with that kind of confrontation or those kinds of confrontations as men are.
	And I don't know whether this has anything to do with It's easier to be, quote, confrontational.
	I mean, I'm just looking at biological stuff, which is, you know, just a pure theory.
	But it's easier to be confrontational if you're not laid up and big with child and need the support of a community to help you raise that child or even deliver that child or all that sort of stuff.
	I mean, having children puts you in a very vulnerable position as a woman in terms of your need for others to help you out.
	And so it may be that because of that, women have been somewhat selected.
	Those women who were sort of confrontational from a philosophical standpoint may have had less reproductive success over the course of evolution than women who were able to sort of submerge their own needs and go along with the tribe whose help they so desperately needed to raise their children.
	And bring them food and protect them from predators and so on.
	So, I mean, I don't know whether that has any truth, but I think it's a vaguely plausible theory.
	So, I mean, there may be more to it.
	I'm sure there is a lot more to it than that, but that's the first thing that pops into my mind, if that helps.
	Yeah, and if that is true, you know, why would the women go this way?
	Why would they, if this is stopping them from fulfilling the Reproductive role and all of that.
	Why would any woman, you know, try to go deeper?
	Yeah, I mean, if you look at, I mean, one of the more confrontational women of the 20th century was Ayn Rand, who didn't have a child.
	And I guess, I don't know, I don't really watch Oprah, so I don't know if she's confrontational or not.
	I guess she was with that one guy who Lied about his memoir of drug recovery or whatever, but she also doesn't have a kid.
	And there's this stereotype.
	When I was in the business world, this would come up, of course, that a man who thumps on the table is being assertive and aggressive and good, whereas a woman who thumps on the table is shrieking and being a bitch.
	There just are those stereotypes.
	I think a lot of I think a lot of men are pretty frightened of women and particularly female aggression because I think it overwhelms them and I think it may take them back to times in their childhood when you know perhaps if they had an aggressive mom or whatever so I think that Female aggression tends to be frightening for people,
	and therefore they create these stereotypes that an aggressive woman is pushy and demanding and bitchy, whereas an aggressive man is a go-getter and an entrepreneur and a man who gets things done.
	And so I think that women are sort of trapped inside these mythologies and...
	We'll also, of course, may face a lot of criticism from other women who themselves want to be more assertive but are afraid of it if they see a woman being assertive.
	So I think that has something to do with it.
	Okay, so while listening to this, I have to say I agree on a large part, especially about the feminist movement making a lot of damage to women's rights.
	And you know I live in France and in France they really emphasize this so-called equality between women and men.
	But as far as I've seen, it's almost like women have a right to be like men.
	That's basically what it means.
	And not really the idea of us being equal but more like women being like men.
	And that's good. I agree with the fact of pushing women into starting to work and being taxed.
	On the other side, you have children that are left unattended in a way and left to the state to take care of them.
	But while listening to it, I've seen some sort of inconsistency In your talk, it sounded a little bit like going between what you call the preferable behavior, to what majority would do, to what minority would do.
	I couldn't catch, you know, what was your, like sometimes I felt like your experiences are influencing your theory.
	I'm sorry, you just cut out there.
	What is influencing my theory?
	I wonder if you would say the same things, you know, a couple of years before, before meeting your beautiful wife.
	Will you say, you know, I felt there was a little bit of inconsistency and I guess you agree, this should not change it.
	I have no doubt that I have inconsistencies, so I'm sure that I'm perfectly guilty of that.
	And I also have no doubt that my experiences have influenced my theories.
	I think that to say otherwise would be to imagine some sort of platonic philosophy generator in my head.
	I would say, though, that my daughter is very assertive.
	And she's also very empathetic and entirely kind and gentle and also, you know, fierce at times.
	I would say that she's very passionate.
	And she's not like women that I've met in my life.
	You know, she's not...
	She's messed up by culture.
	And I don't just mean women. I mean men are, but just in a different kind of way.
	But she's not been messed up by advertising or by culture.
	She doesn't even particularly know that she's a girl, right?
	She is a person and she has preferences and she has desires and she's very strong about negotiating for them.
	And she will quote back down if she is presented with a good enough reason or argument, but she's very assertive that way.
	And I think that's wonderful.
	I think that's how it should be.
	I think, of course, it's going to be a challenge for her as she gets older in society, but I think you can't cripple your kids because other people are in wheelchairs, right?
	That doesn't make much sense. So I have...
	I don't listen to podcasts after I put them out.
	So I know that those were a couple of years ago, that before I became a parent, you know, could I find inconsistencies or things that I would disagree with now?
	I think I could.
	I think I could. So, you know, obviously, you know, nothing I say is gospel, and certainly there can be inconsistencies.
	And it's always worthwhile to bring them to my attention so that I can either iron them out or correct them or, you know, disagree that they're inconsistencies.
	So I think that's, I really appreciate you bringing that stuff up.
	Okay. Although I'm not entirely sure I understood what the inconsistency was.
	So if you want to take another run at that.
	Well, it's difficult for me to, you know, elaborate every sentence, whatever it is.
	It's hours and hours of podcasts.
	But I just felt some resistance.
	It was mostly related to, you know, family versus single people, because you seem to be very focused on explaining the role of a woman in a family, as if You know, this idea of being single is bad in any way.
	And, you know, like you were tying this with the whole feminist thing, working woman, blah, blah, blah.
	But then, you know, these are not the only reasons for people to be single.
	Obviously, I'm talking about myself.
	So, that's where I was like, okay, what is preferable?
	What is majority? What is minority?
	I'm a little confused between those ideas and terms.
	Do you mean is it preferable for a woman to be like a mom and a wife or to be single?
	Is that what you mean? Well, that's basically what you were saying.
	Well, I think love Romantic love, if it's good and virtuous and healthy, I think that romantic love and a lifelong partnership is better than being single.
	I think it is. I think that being in a bad relationship is worse than being single.
	So I think it's important to look for love, but it's important not to accept anything less than love, as I have at times in my life, in the past, always to my regret.
	So I hope that helps.
	I mean, I think that romantic partnership is great, and I think that's an ideal, but it's not something that people should sacrifice virtue to achieve, because I don't think you can achieve it if you sacrifice virtue.
	So I think that I admire people who remain single because they haven't found the right person to fall in love with, and so I hope that helps.
	Yeah, yeah, and there is this thing of, you know, not complying with what the society, you know, what the society, what blah, blah, blah, everybody wants.
	Everybody pressurizes all women of my age to do so and blah, blah, blah.
	So, yeah, I just feel like you were talking about me.
	Oh, yeah. I had to react.
	I had to react.
	Anymore because people are probably waiting.
	Just a very small comment.
	I keep saying it and nobody cares.
	I don't know. Never mind.
	But I really, really, really didn't like the whole TV appearance thing.
	Okay, the interruption and all that.
	There are other people to be in the show.
	But the whole concept of the show.
	I don't know. I'm very surprised that you keep kind of being positive about it.
	And I'm not that you are supposed to think like me.
	I feel like there is a lot of...
	It's not complete.
	I'm happy about the idea, I'm happy there is such a thing, but I don't think the right messages are sent.
	And what are the messages that you feel are problematic?
	I've seen that show, oh my god, so many.
	I mean, it was like pop monarchy.
	That's how it looked to me.
	Like a pop libertarian type of thing.
	I don't know, maybe that's the way.
	That's the way to bring it closer to some people, but it was too light, too weak, too superficial.
	It was too superficial.
	And do you mean, tell me in what way you felt it was superficial?
	Oh, especially his jokes.
	Let's call them jokes.
	The part where he puts a picture of a guy and he says a few sentences about it and, you know, it was made in a type of talk show, type of, I don't know how to say that, template.
	Yeah. I just, you know, all the time I was thinking, oh my god, if I would do this so much better.
	It was really not funny, not witty, not...
	Well, okay.
	I mean, I can understand what you're saying about the humor.
	Humor is a very difficult thing.
	And of course, without an audience there, you're like a comedian speaking into a tape recorder.
	You don't know if it's working or not.
	But I will say this.
	I mean, to remember that it was the very first show.
	Which means that it was a show with no audience feedback.
	Right? And that's really...
	That's tough. I mean, it's tough.
	Now... I'm in the fortunate position of being five years plus into this show.
	And so I'm also in the incredibly fortunate position of having received literally hundreds of thousands of feedbacks about what it is that I'm doing from...
	comments on YouTube videos, to emails, to message board posts, to feedback in the chat room, to everything you could imagine.
	I have received feedback on what it is that I'm doing.
	And so the show as it stands now has a lot to do with the feedback that I've received over years and years and years.
	And that started quite quickly for me.
	But it certainly didn't start the very first time I published an article.
	So I think it's important to remember that he is trying to land a helicopter blindfolded, like he's got no feedback as yet.
	Now, what happens is when you continue to do a show, particularly in the internet age, is that you continue to get more and more feedback.
	And through that feedback, you can figure out what's working or what's not working for the audience that you want to have.
	And everybody, like it or not, we need an audience.
	I need people to listen.
	I need people to donate so that the show can continue.
	And he needs, obviously, people to watch his show.
	If nobody watches his show, he will have no show.
	Or if not enough people watch his show to justify the expense in return for ad revenue, then he's not going to have a show.
	So when he's starting, he's flying blind.
	He's saying, well, this is what I think a good show is, but I guarantee you he's gotten hundreds of emails and probably thousands of different pieces of web feedback now that he's done the show for a week or whatever.
	And I guarantee you that they're continuing to make changes to the show based upon audience demand.
	I certainly can tell you that I have made changes to the show, to Freedom Aid Radio, extensively and consistently and continue to do so based upon audience demand.
	And so that would be I think that's the thing to remember, that this was a show with no feedback and you'll see.
	So we don't know what the show is yet.
	We don't know what the show is yet.
	We will see how the show develops over the next month or two based on the feedback that Adam and his producers and all of the people involved in the show are receiving.
	So I hope that helps.
	Yes, I understand.
	I actually always admire your ability of being so understanding to the other side.
	I remember one conversation with a girl who talked to a mother meeting her child and even the police came and I heard you trying to To make this girl understand even the mother who was beating the child because she doesn't know any better way of...
	So yes, I understand what you're saying.
	We will give him a chance.
	Yeah, look, I mean, Seinfeld, I think for the first season or two, Seinfeld was not particularly popular, not particularly successful, and then they kept tweaking and they kept working on it.
	You know, almost, you know, what version 1.0 is ever perfect?
	It never is, right? You're continually tweaking and improving.
	And so I think it's a show worth watching, I think it's a show worth continuing, and I think it's a show...
	That you can learn a lot from.
	If it succeeds, which of course I hope it does, then it will succeed because it is taking the feedback from its customer base and it is finding its niche market and it is working to satisfy those people.
	You may not be part of that niche market.
	You may not be part of who they're trying to reach.
	So, I would continue to watch it and, you know, even if you don't like it, to see how it changes based upon the feedback that is being received.
	And I think it's a fascinating process to watch.
	You know, some people may not be that interested in it, but I certainly am and I would recommend it from that standpoint.
	Okay. Okay, thanks and thank you for everything you did.
	Well, and thank you. I always enjoy your calls.
	They're very, very intelligent, very well argued, and I thoroughly admire your command of English because my command of French would be a very, very short conversation.
	Well, I'm not French. I'm Serbian.
	I don't even speak French. Oh, Serbian.
	Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.
	No, you're right. You're right.
	I should notice that accent is not French.
	All right. Thank you very much, and feel free to call back anytime.
	It's always a pleasure. And look, I mean, I think that the media as a whole is certainly not ready for a show about philosophy.
	On the other hand, I think that some that is on the outskirts of the mainstream media, like we're adding this, I think is ready for a little taste of voluntarism.
	It is water wearing away stone, a reason against historical prejudice or culture or whatever.
	It is a very slow process.
	There have been times in my life, not even too long ago, where I felt that progress was going to be faster.
	I do think that it is going to be...
	A long and challenging process and so I think that it's worth getting the word out wherever is reasonably possible and I would strongly recommend people but you know this is a don't hold your breath kind of change in the long run so I hope that helps.
	Someone has asked how to deal with a co-worker who makes fun of you in public.
	That may be a tad little to go on if you wanted to give me a few other bits of information that may be helpful.
	Mockery is generally a coward's fist fight and I don't have a lot of respect for people who use mockery in that kind of way.
	I did do a show that I was pretty pleased with which was recently I was on Truth Transmission with Jay Kettle and we had an enjoyable conversation about a variety of topics including Roman history.
	It's FDR 1-890 if you're interested in checking that out.
	And thanks again to Jeff Tucker, who was kind enough to come on the show recently.
	Yes, I hear somebody.
	All right. I've been on the line for a while and I'm kind of confused about this new system.
	I've called once before and it was a little more streamlined than I think what's going on right now.
	Can you hear me well? Yep.
	I hear you great. Okay.
	Well, If it's alright, I would like to ask a question about my interpersonal relationships, I guess, or as it relates to other people, with former military personnel, veterans that are coming back from the war and have seen combat experience.
	Now they're becoming part of normal life, but they don't seem to have any realization of What they've done and how it's wrong and they seem to think they're heroes or something or they're just going to hide it or whatever.
	And for me, I find it kind of difficult to sit back and think, God, this guy is sitting next to me in class because I'm in university and has killed a lot of people.
	I'm not sure he realizes how wrong your situation is.
	So, how do you reach out to people like this without being aggressive or accusatory of any sort?
	I mean, I understand that they may just not realize what they did was wrong, but these people are still part of our society.
	How do we interact with them?
	Well, I guess the first question I have is why would you want to?
	I have to, I guess, but I don't know, I'm kind of starting to lean towards dropping out of college, so I don't have to participate in a lot of courses, relationships, i.e.
	my professors and their demands that I'm not going to be a worthwhile member of society without their input.
	Where are you in your college studies?
	How far along? I'm about six hours away from graduating.
	You're sorry, six classes away?
	Well, we do it in...
	I'm sorry, I forget the 60s difference in other places.
	It's two classes.
	Oh, you're two classes away from graduating?
	Yeah. Well, gosh, I would say do it.
	I mean, I would say, you know, don't let the war take away your education, for effort's sakes, right?
	I mean, I would say, you know, try as best you can to get it finished.
	Yeah. You know, to have education that's incomplete on a resume is a real challenge, right?
	Because what that says to employers is, I start things, but I don't necessarily finish them.
	And that can be alarming to people.
	So I would say, this is just my advice, you know, obviously nobody can tell you what to do with your life, but if it's two classes away, I would, you know, if you can do a correspondence or you can do it remotely or, you know, if you don't want to be there, but I would really try and get it finished.
	Well, I'm in an art program and it's kind of close-knit and there's a lot of insane people in the art department that are very abusive and delusional.
	They have these egos and they don't listen to anything you say.
	No, I get it. And you have to work closely with them over time because there are people that are assigned to specific majors who take the same class to the same person over and over again.
	It might be better for me to transfer, but Really, I guess, I live in Texas, and Texas has a really high military enrollment.
	I know people who have been to Iraq and seen lots of combat action, and then also I know people who are considering going and considering doing other military jobs.
	Like, I have a friend who's a sociology major who, well, not so much for him anymore, but he wants to Have a job where he tells, he does psychological screenings for the military for people coming back and then go ahead and wave these people through and says they're okay to enter society again and they don't need counseling.
	I just find hard to imagine that anybody could get away with not needing counseling after going to Iraq.
	Right. Right.
	Yeah, look, I mean, let me make the case...
	It's a part of the culture is what I'm trying to say.
	Right, right. Let me make the case for inactivity on your part.
	Let me make the case for not acting.
	I believe that change has value when restitution can be made.
	Right, so if I go and steal a candy bar, then I can go back to the store with 10 candy bars and an apology, and I have made restitution, or $100, or something like that, right?
	I have made restitution.
	And I think, therefore, it is of value to instruct me morally about what's wrong about stealing candy bars, because I can make restitution.
	Now, if you can't make restitution, if you can't undo what you have done, then I'm not sure about the value of moral instruction in a situation where restitution is impossible.
	I'm not convinced of that.
	I'm not saying that we shouldn't have moral clarity about these situations as outsiders and so on, but if somebody cannot make restitution, Then I'm not sure that it's worthwhile.
	Okay, that puts them in a really difficult position.
	And that's one thing I've really thought about that.
	Well, you know, what if they are sorry about what they did, but they just can't do anything about it?
	Well, then you don't have any particular issues with them, would you?
	I mean, if somebody has made a terrible mistake morally and has recognized that mistake and is working to do whatever they can to, and there are, you know, I mean, I was on Adam's show.
	Adam was in the military. I had Karen Kowalski on the show.
	She was in the military. I've had other people who've been in the military who are now trying to help people either get out or not go into the military.
	And so if somebody was in the military and has realized that this was morally challenging, to say the least, and is working to figure things out, then I don't think you have a lot to tell them, as far as opening their eyes, so to speak.
	In fact, they probably have a lot of things to tell you about the challenges they're facing.
	But if somebody is not on that road, and obviously they've had some exposure to it, because it's pretty hard to miss the anti-war movement anywhere in the world, Then I don't know that it's either worthwhile or valuable or productive to attempt to open somebody's eyes to evils that they've done where restitution is impossible.
	I'm not saying this is my final argument, I'm just saying this is a case that I'm making.
	Okay. I guess my biggest concern would be with people who are on the middle ground and don't even necessarily talk about what happened.
	I guess it's in essence not my business, but it's so bothersome to me personally and I guess it's something I have to work through on my own.
	Right, right.
	Yeah, I mean, the people in the middle ground are always a challenge, right?
	The people who are already with the truth, we don't have to worry about.
	The people who are never going to be with the truth, we don't have to worry about.
	It's the people in the middle who are the challenge.
	I mean, I wish I had any big words of wisdom.
	I will say this, though.
	I've said this before, and I don't think I can say it enough.
	I will say this, though. Trust your instincts.
	Do not have a rule called intervene in situations of moral compromise.
	Do not have a rule called speak the truth, whatever the cost.
	Do not have a rule called illuminate others regardless of circumstances.
	Trust your instincts.
	Where I have not trusted my instincts, I have made bad mistakes.
	Where I have trusted my instincts, I have never regretted it.
	So if you feel a great deal of unease, if you feel a great deal of fear or anxiety, In talking to somebody about this stuff, don't do it.
	Trust your instincts.
	There's no rule that says you have to go out there and take all the bullets for the cause of truth.
	There's no rule that says that you have to go out there and be the shining example of everything that is true and pure and good in this world.
	And so I would very much say that if you feel fear or anxiety or stress in a particular situation where you see moral compromises or moral errors or the effects thereof, trust your instincts.
	Certainly don't act in the moment.
	You may want to sort of think about it later, journal about it later, talk about it with trusted friends or a therapist later.
	But don't use philosophy to order yourself around, to give you rules that say you must do X, Y, and Z. You must get people to understand about this moral issue or that moral issue.
	I think that is not to be free.
	And that is to turn philosophy, which is about freedom, into rules that you must follow regardless of how you feel.
	There is a huge deal of wisdom.
	In the unconscious, there is a huge deal of emotional intelligence in the unconscious, and if you feel anxious or scared of a particular interaction, don't force yourself to do it, but instead strive to understand in your own heart where your cautions are coming from.
	That would be my very strong advice.
	All right, and well, since we kind of got on the subject about the university, I mean, Supposing I hadn't started the university,
	what do you think about the natural-slave relationship, as you call it, in regards to intellectual capacities that so many of these professors I interact with, they argue from The position that I'm the professor, so you have to listen to me.
	And that's basically what college seems to be about to me.
	I don't attend the best university at what I would call a degree mill and other people have.
	So, what is your opinion about the state of the university and that so many Professors hold the position of intellectual power rather than right reason, I guess. Right.
	Well, you know, credentials are a challenge, right?
	I mean, if somebody's going to take out my appendix, I damn well want to know that they're good at what they do.
	When it comes to To things like philosophy, I think that credentials are not particularly helpful and can actually be quite harmful.
	People who wave around credentials I think sometimes do it because they feel insecure about the value of their arguments.
	And there is something that is difficult, to say the least, in the professor-teacher relationship or the teacher-student relationship, which is that you are there to get a degree.
	And obviously you're there to learn and so on, but the professor has the capacity to pass or to fail you.
	And the appeals process, I would imagine, is pretty tricky and difficult.
	And of course we'll be staffed by people who probably have much more in common with the professor than, say, your average atheist, philosophical anarchist or whatever.
	So there is a challenge and there is the, I think, significant potential for subtle abuses of power within the academic relationship between a professor and a student.
	There is, of course, the challenge that professors aren't exactly in the free market, particularly once they get tenure, and that a lot of universities are very expensive because massive subsidies have caused far more people to enter into universities, particularly combined with the bad economic situation in most countries, particularly the US. At the moment.
	So yeah, I think there is a challenge in that kind of relationship.
	And fundamentally, they do have a power that is much greater than reason and evidence, which is the power to pass or fail or grant the degree or not grant the degree.
	And so yeah, I think it is a problematic relationship.
	And that doesn't mean it's always bad or always abusive or anything like that.
	But I think it's set up that There could be good people in a bad situation.
	There could be very good people in a bad situation.
	To take an extreme example, there were lots of Germans in Hitler's Germany who sheltered and protected and helped Jews.
	But what we want, of course, is to create a society where you don't have to be an extraordinarily good person to do the right thing.
	You don't have to take a lot of bullets to do the right thing.
	And so, yeah, I know what you're saying.
	I think that there is a challenge in that kind of relationship.
	And there is no sort of third party.
	You know, I'm always concerned about relationships where there is no third party, right?
	So when I was in the business world, I would say, let's do X. And somebody else would say, let's do Y. And how would we resolve that dispute?
	Well, hopefully, we would do some market research, we would talk to some existing or potential customers, and the customers would say, well, I prefer X, or I prefer Y, or I prefer neither.
	So there's a third party there.
	Relationships where there aren't third parties can be really problematic.
	With the state, of course, there's no third party.
	With professors, there's not really any kind of third party.
	There are lots of other relationships, particularly around statism, where there aren't third parties.
	With the parent-child, often there aren't third parties.
	I think that is the approach that I would take to at least understanding that, if not necessarily.
	You can't wish it away, but that would be my approach to it.
	Well, I would say the third party is evidence like materials, books.
	You know, I refer to these things and then they say, well, I'm the professor.
	It's really kind of a...
	Well, but it's... Sorry, it's...
	I am an...
	In an art department, so there's that whole subjective truth kind of element that they teach.
	Well, but the third party has to have some authority, right?
	It can't just be waved away. A book is not a third party, right?
	So that would be my suggestion.
	I mean, again, I just want to reiterate that I would strongly suggest that you find a way to finish this.
	That would be my suggestion.
	I mean, obviously, this is just my advice.
	It means nothing other than it's my advice.
	I would try and finish it.
	I think it will be a lot better for you in your life if you have finished this thing than if you leave it incomplete and have to explain that for the next 10 years or whatever.
	Thank you, Steph.
	I hope you have a pleasant afternoon.
	Thank you so much. It's the third party in Steph's marriage, Christina.
	No, the third party in my marriage is philosophy.
	It's reason and evidence.
	Somebody says, how can you know that in a free society, propaganda won't resurrect the state?
	That then everything starts from zero.
	Just the existence of this site tells me that we're not at zero now.
	Well, that's a great question.
	And I would answer it this way.
	I don't know. I don't know.
	Nobody can predict the future with any great degree of certainty.
	But I will say this, that It's very hard to overcome social norms.
	It's very hard to overcome social norms, right?
	So we have a social norm called...
	Voluntarism is good for marriages, but it is not good for adult-parent-child relationships, right?
	That's a social norm. And overcoming that is a great challenge.
	It's a great problem. And so when society is free, when there is I mean, I hate to even say when there is no state or no religion or whatever like that, but when society is free from its illusions, and the way that society will be freed from its illusions is a simple process of calling things by their proper names.
	We call it religion when it's a superstitious illusion.
	If you were to refer to religion by its proper name, it would not last very long.
	You know, we call them laws, not violence.
	We call it the state, not a gang with guns, right?
	So, we don't call things by their accurate names, and that really fundamentally is what propaganda is.
	So, I mean, I had this sort of vision the other day when I was thinking about this, that if I could just invent a product called a completely profitable product, that's what it's called, its name is a completely profitable product, Then can you imagine the ridiculous-sounding business meetings where it's like, I really want to cancel a really profitable product.
	I don't like a really profitable product.
	I really want to stop producing the really profitable product.
	Whatever. I mean, it would be really hard to have that conversation and have it make any sense to people.
	Obviously, it's rich for comedic potential.
	But that's, of course, what we're talking about.
	And I was thinking about this because You read about, you know, with this budget cuts and all of that, where people say, well, it's the social safety net.
	And this is what I talked about in Porkfest last year, that the government owns the language.
	It's the social safety net.
	It's medical care for old people.
	You can't argue against things like that.
	So in the future, people will only be free because they have accepted the need to call things by their proper names.
	And so it will be very hard to mount propaganda.
	Like, for these things.
	And I'll give you an example, right?
	So, the word rape, you know, once was considered, it was considered to be the spoils of war, right?
	I mean, way back in the day, right?
	It was the spoils of war.
	You would rape the women as part of your victory as a warrior.
	And it was not considered to be wrong.
	It was considered to be the just spoils of war.
	And now, of course, rape is recognized as a hideous crime, one of the most hideous crimes that exists.
	And so you can't mount a pro-rape propaganda.
	I mean, you shouldn't, right?
	But even if you wanted to, you simply couldn't do it.
	I mean, if you start taking out You start running ads about how great rape is, society will deal with you pretty effectively.
	So once people understand what things really are, propaganda doesn't really work anymore.
	You can't obscure things.
	So I would I would argue that it's pretty much impossible once society sees things for what they really are to say, you know, it would be the, let's bring that back, the state would be the equivalent of trying to say rape is good these days.
	I mean, look what happened when Roman Polanski got arrested for his long ago crime of rape against, what was her name?
	She was in Tess of Durbervilles.
	I can't remember her name, but anyway.
	And I think Whoopi Goldberg said, well, it wasn't rape-rape.
	And of course she got raked over the coals for this.
	Raked over the coals, I said.
	So I think once people see things very clearly, it's really hard to go back to propagandizing them.
	because the reason they couldn't see them clearly to begin with was because of propaganda.
	Hello.
	Jeff.
	Hello.
	This is Economics Junkie.
	How are you doing? Oh, hey, man.
	How's it going? Good, good.
	A few questions about UPB. Hit me.
	I had a conversation with a woman on a plane the other day, and I tried to take her through the steps to introduce her into the concept.
	And she brought up some objections and I was curious to hear your responses to those.
	So I kind of got stuck at the point where you explain how everybody basically accepts UPB when he engages in a debate, right?
	I said that as an example, if you use The language that I understand to communicate to me, then you implicitly accept that there's a universally preferable means of communication, if that makes any sense.
	Yeah, now I describe those as evidence for UPB, not proof of UPB. Right, sure.
	Evidence for. So then to that particular point she responded, well, But language is required to have a conversation.
	So she was saying that preferable would mean that there's a choice.
	But in order to have a conversation, you have to use language, so it's rather required.
	So I was wondering what you would say to that.
	Well, language is required for sure to have a conversation, but people can still But absolutely,
	she's right. She's right for sure that it is required to have some comprehensibility in your language to have any kind of meaningful conversation, for sure.
	But the choice is to not have a meaning.
	You don't have to have a conversation.
	That's the preferable part, right?
	This woman didn't have to engage with you in a conversation at all.
	That's the choice. But that's not a conversation, right?
	Yeah, that's right. So the choice is to have a conversation or to not.
	Now, if you have a conversation, then yeah, there is a UPB aspect which is around comprehensibility.
	So she's saying, well, if there's no choice, then it can't be preferable.
	But there is a choice, which is to not have the conversation.
	Right, but if you have the conversation, then how can using language be preferable if it's required?
	Well, but to me, that's like saying, well, you don't have to diet, but if you do diet, you have to cut your calories or increase your expenditure or both.
	It's like, well, once I choose to diet, I have to reduce my food intake, so I don't have a choice.
	Well, you have a choice, which is to not diet.
	But once you choose to diet, then there are certain things that you have to do if you're going to call yourself dieting, right?
	But I don't see how the choice is robbed from someone if they have a choice to engage in a conversation or not.
	Now, if they choose to engage in a conversation, then they have to use language that makes sense.
	I mean, to have a conversation.
	But they're always free to choose or not choose to have that conversation.
	Yeah. Yeah, that's what I told her, but I really got stuck there because she kept on saying, yeah, but if I have a conversation, then it's not a choice.
	Well, but look, this is like me saying, okay, you know, we're lost in the woods, but I know that we have to go north to get to the town, and north is this way, and I point sort of this way, and I'm right.
	And you say, well, we both want to get to the town, right?
	And so we start heading north, and then you turn to me and you say, I'm forced to go north.
	I don't have a choice to go north.
	It's like, well, of course you have a choice to go north.
	You can turn around and go south or east or west.
	But if you want to get to the town, you have to go north because the town is north.
	Right? So if you turn to me and say, well, I want to get to the town, which requires that I go north, but I'm not free to go south.
	You understand that doesn't make sense logically.
	Of course you're free to go south. But if you want to get to the town, you have to go north.
	So if you want to have a conversation, you have to be comprehensible, but you're free to not have a conversation, right?
	So given that there's a goal called getting to the town that we both want, we have to head north.
	And given that you and this woman have a goal called having a conversation that is at least comprehensible to the other, then you have to use language that makes sense.
	But, um, so, so...
	She still has the choice, of course, right?
	And she even has the choice to break into speaking gibberish or to speak some language that you don't.
	It just means the conversation is over.
	That's all, right? So she still has all the choice in the world.
	But if she wants to be understood, then she has to use language that is comprehensible to you.
	If, right? So it's the if part that gives her the choice.
	Okay. Sorry, if she steps out of the plane, she doesn't have a choice about falling down.
	That's different than what you're talking about.
	Right. I also told her that just that it's required doesn't mean that it's not also preferable, I guess.
	Another thing that I told her was, well, also you're affirming that truth is preferable to falsehood, right?
	Truth is preferable to falsehood.
	I'm saying that...
	Sorry, go on with your question.
	Yeah, so I told her, by engaging in a debate and making truth claims, you're affirming that truth is preferable to falsehood.
	And then she said, well, but there are some people, there may be people who don't tell me the truth, but what they think about me, and I'm I actually like that in certain situations.
	I don't want everyone to be perfectly honest to me.
	So how would you respond to that?
	So if you are engaging in a debate with somebody and you're making truth statements, the truth is preferable to falsehood, but she says, there may be people in my life who think I'm boring, but they don't tell me, and I prefer that, right?
	Well, but...
	I would argue that that's a theoretical.
	Now, is it theoretically possible that people could be withholding information from you that you prefer?
	Well, they're not making truth claims.
	Like, if I say to you, I find you boring, I'm not sure that I'm making a truth statement, like E equals MC squared or 2 and 2 make 4, right?
	Well, you are. I mean...
	About your feelings. Well, yeah, but I'm saying something about my feelings, not about...
	Objective reality, right?
	I mean, there are some people who find me boring, and there are some people, hopefully, who find me, what I have to say, interesting, right?
	But that's different from saying Steph is a mammal, right?
	So somebody's opinion about whether I'm interesting or whether I'm boring does not fall into universal truth, right?
	Well, the feeling that he has in the moment, I would say, is also an objective fact of reality, isn't it?
	Well, sure, but the objective fact is the feeling, not what it's describing, right?
	So, let me sort of give you an example.
	So, if I'm colorblind, and I look at something that's brown, and I say, it is gray to me, Then I am stating a truth about my experience of the color, right?
	But I'm not stating that the color itself is gray.
	I'm saying my experience of it is that the red or the brown looks gray to me.
	Yeah, the effects triggered in my iris or my brain or whatever are the following.
	Right, and I'm making a truthful statement about my experience, but that's not the same as making an objective claim about reality.
	To do that, we would need something which detects wavelength, right?
	Which would then say, well, the wavelength of this is whatever number it would be, right?
	Okay. I mean, that's why in software, everybody refers to colors according to numbers, right?
	So I don't say, you know, I want this web element to be brownish or light brown.
	I say, you know, here's the RGB or whatever it is, the hex color that I want.
	That's why you have those things, so that people can vault over some of that subjectivity.
	Right. But aren't my feelings...
	Aren't those in the end also objective facts of reality?
	Even though they may be different from things outside of me, but it's still some objective things that exist in reality.
	My brain cells, my endorphins and all that stuff.
	Absolutely, but they are not statements of objective, external, from consciousness reality, right?
	So let me sort of...
	I'm sorry?
	The truth versus falsehood.
	So what exactly is the UPB statement, truth is preferable to falsehood?
	What does it refer to?
	Well, no, it refers to whatever truth statement is currently being made, right?
	So, for instance, if I say to you, you are making me angry, Then that is a truth statement that is not specifically causal.
	You don't have any direct control over my brain, right?
	So I'm inferring, or actually here openly stating, that you are making me angry.
	But that is not a true statement.
	That is not a valid statement. Now, if you...
	If I stick a fork in my leg and I say, you are causing me pain, that's a little more true, right?
	Because obviously you're doing something directly to me then, right?
	But if I feel angry when I'm talking to you and I say, I feel angry, assuming I'm not lying, that is a true statement.
	It is a true statement that I feel angry.
	But if I say, you are making me angry, it's your fault that I'm angry, that is not A true statement.
	And that's sort of why I say, like in RTR, I say, you know, if you feel angry, say to the person, I feel angry.
	Not, you're making me angry, or you did this, or whatever, but I feel angry.
	I'm not sure why, what do you feel, and all that.
	Because if you feel angry, saying I feel angry is a true statement, and it is a valid statement in someone, right?
	But if you ascribe the cause of your emotions to something which is not really the cause, then that is not a true statement, if that makes sense.
	Okay. So if somebody says, I'm bored, when he feels bored, then that's a true statement, right?
	Yeah, that is a true statement.
	Sorry, but the difference is that that's not binding on anyone else, right?
	So if you and I go to see some film in Croatian, and let's say you speak Croatian or whatever, and I don't speak Croatian, and it's a really talky film, and I say, I'm bored, but you think it's the best film ever, We're both right.
	The fact that I'm bored is not binding upon you.
	It's not incumbent upon you to agree with me, right?
	But if I say two and two make four, it is binding upon you if it's a true statement about objective factual reality.
	If I say the world is round and not banana shaped and I'm making that statement, if that statement is true, then it binds you to agree with it if you value reason and evidence.
	If that statement is false, It binds me to no longer make that statement, right?
	Whereas a transitory emotion that may be subjective, purely subjective, like I'm bored, is not binding on anyone else.
	It's not binding upon you to agree with me that the film is objectively boring.
	Especially if you're having a great time watching it.
	So, a statement of personal experience is not binding on others.
	The fact that I happen to like chocolate does not mean that you have to like chocolate.
	The fact that I say that chocolate is made with dairy is kind of binding upon you to accept that chocolate is made with dairy, because I'm no longer talking about a subjective preference, but an objective fact.
	Now, her argument, I'm not exactly sure.
	I don't see the connection quite yet or argument that she might prefer for people to tell her to make false statements about their own feelings or subjective experience, that that is a refutation of the thesis that truth is preferable to falsehood is always a UPB statement.
	Or that you're implying that Truth is preferable to falsehood whenever you engage in a debate.
	That was our argument, right?
	No, my argument is that if you're making truth claims, objective truth claims, then you are, or if you're rejecting somebody else's arguments or objective truth claims, if you say to me that two and two make five, and I say, no, it doesn't, then I'm immediately saying that there's some objective measure That can be used to determine this.
	And that it is preferable to reject error and accept truth, right?
	But is it universally preferable?
	Well, if it is a statement of universals, then yes.
	Now, if...
	I mean, but this is where the preference thing comes in, right?
	So, some people want to go to a doctor if they're sick.
	And they want the best empirical medicine that has been scientifically validated and so on and so on, right?
	And, you know, that is, I think, a good thing to do.
	Now, other people want to go to a witch doctor or pray or something like that.
	And they don't want...
	That objective truth, right?
	They don't want that empirically validated medical approach, right?
	Now, if the person says, well, I just prefer to pray.
	I don't, you know, I just prefer it.
	It's not, you know, it's nothing true about it.
	It's just my particular preference.
	That's fine. But if they say prayer is better than medicine, if they say, you know, Western medicine is bad for you and prayer is good for you, then they're making a truth statement about reality, right?
	Yeah. And that's when UPB comes into play.
	Somebody has to make a statement that can be objectively verified or rejected in order for UPB to come into play.
	So saying that universality is undermined by the fact that some people choose subjectivity Is not a valid argument.
	Yeah, some people will always choose subjectivity.
	The fact that some people don't want to use the scientific method doesn't mean that the scientific method is not objective.
	Sure. Sure.
	That wasn't the argument though, but yeah.
	Well no, her argument was that she prefers falsehood.
	Well, in fact, she prefers not...
	Yeah, so she would rather people tell her she's boring even when she is being boring to them, right?
	She's not boring, even if she's boring to them.
	Right, right. So, okay, so in a sense, she's just choosing falsehood over truth.
	In fact, she doesn't even have a standard of truth in that point, right?
	Because she doesn't know that she's boring because she's asking everyone to tell her that she's interesting, right?
	I mean, evidence may accumulate over time if people don't invite her to dinner parties or whatever, but that's her basic approach, right?
	But to me, that's a little bit different than if she's standing in the rain to say, well, I want a friend to tell me that it's not raining even though I'm getting wet.
	Because what she's talking about there is subjective...
	How's it different? Well, it's different because there is a matter of subjective interpretation around boring, and there is a matter of objective verifiability around, is it raining?
	I don't see that, because the rain, we perceive it with our eyes and ears, you know, senses, and in the same way we perceive our feelings by other means, but through our senses as well, don't we? Well, yeah, but I don't think we can perceive other people's feelings through our senses that way.
	Yeah. And she's talking about other people's feelings, right?
	Yeah. And so I think that's a different situation.
	You can't objectively prove whether somebody finds you boring or not.
	But you can objectively prove whether it's raining or not, right?
	Yeah. Yeah.
	So the truth versus falsehood really only applies to objectively verifiable theories.
	Well, I think so, yeah. Because, I mean, if somebody tells me that they find my podcast really interesting and they listen to a whole bunch of podcasts or whatever, I mean, I guess I could say, well, they're lying to me.
	They find me really boring.
	But, I mean, how would I ever know, right?
	The evidence is, well, they told me they found me interesting.
	They listen to a bunch of podcasts.
	They talk about philosophy.
	So there's every piece of evidence to say that they find it interesting.
	Now, I could say, well, but they're just trying to save my feelings and they really find it boring and so on.
	But there would be no way to verify that, right?
	And what about, for example, if she's overweight and she prefers people to tell her that she's not overweight?
	What if she made that argument?
	She prefers that falsehood over the obvious truth.
	Ah, that's interesting because, yeah, that's something more objectively verifiable, right?
	Right. Completely objectively verifiable.
	Right, right. Okay, yeah.
	So then she would be rejecting evidence that even she herself could see in the mirror or on the scale or from her doctor or whatever, right?
	Right, right. That's interesting.
	That's interesting. I'm just trying to think of where this fits in or whether it's something I'll have to sort of mull over because I think that's a great objection.
	Because, yeah, I can certainly see where somebody would prefer...
	You know, do these pants make my ass look too big?
	No, they look great, you know?
	Whatever, right? That people may prefer that kind of stuff.
	Or, you know, do you think I look older?
	No. No, you look great, or whatever, right?
	Right, right, yeah.
	That's interesting. You know, I mean, I have some answers that pop into my head, but I want to make sure that I give them due consideration, because that's a really great objection.
	So let me mull it over and see what I come up with.
	Hey Steph, I just remembered that the solution to this issue, that this woman does not want people to tell her the truth, is that she is not making a universal statement about values.
	She's making a subjective statement about her preference for truth.
	In other words, she's not saying it is universally preferable at all times to prefer values.
	She's saying, under particular circumstances, I prefer falsehood to truth, which is not UPB. It's not a UPB statement.
	It's just a personal preference like, I like ice cream.
	I prefer falsehood, not that falsehood is universally a higher value than truth, and that's how to solve it.
	I just realized that, of course, 10 seconds after I ended, but I wanted to mention it anyway.
	Sure. No, those are great objections.
	Also, we're just coming up to the end of the show.
	It's a great objection, so let me mull it over and see what I can come up with.
	Okay, cool. Thanks, Jeff.
	Thanks, man. Always great questions, and I'm certainly glad to hear that you are talking about this with people.
	I really appreciate that. Alright, thanks man.
	And I'll give you a shout on the board when I've come up with something that hopefully makes some sense or when I withdraw the theory in the book completely because of this one objection.
	Alright, thanks man. And thanks everybody for listening and tuning in and thanks again as always for your support.
	Please remember April is often for...
	People like me, the cruelest month in terms of donations.
	So if you can at all afford it, if you can sign up for a subscription, I would really appreciate that.
	Donations are also more than welcome to offset server costs and bandwidth costs and food-in-the-belly costs.
	And so I really appreciate it if you could drop by freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
	It is always hugely appreciated and does give a big lift to my spirits if that is at all of interest to you.
	You know, when a couple of days go by without a donation, it can be a little stressful for the old StephBot.
	So I would really appreciate it if you could drop by and chip in.
	It really does depend on you to keep this conversation going.

▲