Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 29, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:18:24

1922 Freedomain Radio Sunday Call In Show 29 May 2011

Adam Kokesh arrested! DROs and contract enforcement, dealing with abusive bosses, overcoming childhood trauma, religion and sexuality...

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi everybody, it's DeFan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
	It is May the 29th, 2011.
	This introductory podcast goes out to Adam Kokesh, who was recently arrested for dancing, and might I add, quite well for a Marine, an ex-Marine, at the Jefferson Memorial.
	The ironies are too obvious to mention, and so I just wanted to talk a little bit about What I think of this incident.
	He was dancing. There were a few other people dancing.
	There was one couple who was slow dancing and doing all kinds of nice things.
	And what happened?
	Well, they were body slammed, thrown to the ground, we got knees on the back, and in one truly bizarre incident, the policeman seems to be quite concerned with a pair of sunglasses that he doesn't want to have broken.
	Spirits of the citizens, on the other hand, are prime for mashing as much as people see fit.
	Now, There has been some commentary going back and forth, and of course there are people who are coming out that this is police brutality, and there are people who are coming out that this is a profanation.
	It is profaning the sacred monument to Jefferson.
	Now, philosophy, philosophy, true philosophy, is the sworn enemy.
	Let me tell you what people mean when they say the word sacred.
	What people mean when they say the word sacred is I have an irrational attachment to bullshit and I will punch you in the face if you question it.
	That is the brutality that lies under the mental superstructure called the sacred.
	The only thing that is sacred It's human life and liberty and peace.
	The initiation of force is not sacred.
	Rock is not sacred, whether it is in the shape of Jefferson or a turd.
	It doesn't matter. It is simply rocks.
	It is atoms and space.
	It is not sacred.
	Human thought, human freedom, human reason, human passion, that is sacred.
	But people invent the word sacred.
	Sacred is the word that loosens the safety on the revolver.
	Safety is the sound of the fist coming back to punch anybody in the face who dares bring reason and evidence to the sickness called the sacred.
	And what happens when you profane the sacred, when you bring reason to the sacred is you get attacked.
	Sacred is a series of landmines that is set up around sentimental bullshit so that people can attack you.
	And it is all over the place in society.
	It's the flags.
	It's the gods.
	It's the family.
	It's whatever is invented that you must venerate and must worship despite reason and evidence.
	Yeah, there are families out there that are absolutely worth passionately devoting yourself to and loving and living for.
	I wouldn't say so much with countries and certainly not with gods, but the act of dancing to headphone music, swaying a little bit.
	This is where we have come to as a society that these knuckle-dragging thugs will bring down a good man for the sake of a little swaying in front of a statue.
	But this is how bizarre and insane society has become.
	Now, it's not the worst society that's ever been, and there's lots that I admire about the American system and the Canadian system and a lot of the Western system, and it's better living here than Marrakesh, but it's not so much important where we are as it is important where we are going.
	And I feel some outrage.
	I don't feel a lot of shock.
	You know, dancing and authority have never particularly gone a hand in hand.
	You don't see a lot of free-form, jazz, body movement, fluidity exercises in police training.
	You see it in theater school, where you're actually supposed to be creative, and I've done this kind of fruity stuff, and it's actually a heck of a lot of fun.
	I'd really recommend movement and body classes, gymnastic classes, sword fighting classes, all of the things that I've partaken in.
	The freedom of the body, the flexibility of the body, the spontaneous expression of joy and passion, and in-the-moment-ness that dancing represents.
	It's something that authority cannot abide.
	Cannot abide. And some people have said that the police should be sued, that the police should be punished.
	I'm not of that mind.
	I'm just using another state apparatus.
	My argument would be that everybody who was involved in the arrest of these dancing people should be forced to take free-form, gayer-than-hell Body expression classes, where they get to be trees jogging and cats about to fall out of a tree.
	And hopefully that will get them a little bit more in touch with their physicality.
	It might help a few of them lose a few pounds, which certainly seem to be in the cards in terms of health.
	But I think, yeah, let's punish them with some really, really, really flaky-ass dance classes.
	I think that would be the best thing to do and the best thing for them, because then they might realize that there's a little bit more To life, then showing up sweaty and dough-faced and pudgy and bringing down people.
	And Adam, of course, is an ex-soldier and is the host of Adam vs.
	The Man, which you can catch on RT.com.
	It was a great show. I strongly recommend that you watch it, even when I'm not on it, I hear.
	Actually, I know. It's very, very good.
	And all kudos to him for doing what he's doing.
	But you see, here's an example of a man who fought for the freedom of America and comes home and was arrested.
	It sort of reminds me of the fellow who were fought in Iraq, survived several times in Iraq or Afghanistan, came home and was killed by a SWAT team in a mistaken drug raid.
	Well, this is the reality of the world that we live in.
	So, if you are outraged by this, I would suggest don't be, because this is the inevitable extension of state power.
	And Fighting the free and spontaneous expression of creative physicality is natural to the powers that be.
	It's one of the reasons why, you know, the long hair and hippiness of people in Haight-Ashbury in the 1960s was so frowned upon, horrified, and attacked by people who had short haircuts, square soles, and regimented empty heads.
	So, it's natural.
	It's... Tragic, but the best thing that you can do, in my opinion, is to swell the ratings for Adam's show.
	That is the way to turn evil into good, to turn temptation, to turn vice, to turn oppression into liberty.
	Get behind Adam versus the man.
	A-D-A-M-V-S. T-H-E-M-A-N dot com.
	Go and watch his show.
	Go and subscribe to his newsletter.
	Go and onto his website and join the I-Course.
	Write to Russian television and tell him how much...
	You admire what he is doing.
	Use this harassment, this initiation of force for the simple act of fairly getting down marine boogie and go to his show and support his show and encourage his show and praise his show and spread his show.
	That's how you fight this kind of oppression.
	That's how you turn this shattering of the light into a sunrise of possibility.
	That is my strong urging.
	And for the people who've written...
	On my thread, I posted all this on Facebook, and I don't mean to laugh, because it's not funny.
	But the people who posted and said that the Jefferson Monument is sacred.
	My God. Well, I mean, all you're doing is talking about your dad.
	I mean, you know, it's a piece of rock.
	It's a statue. It's nothing.
	It's nothing. The ideals themselves, perhaps, of liberty and freedom from tyranny are sacred.
	The rock is not.
	The flag is not.
	The ideals are, because the ideals are a product of human thought.
	Rather than a blind aggregation of nature chiseled by people usually paid by the state.
	So the ideals of freedom are sacred.
	The rock itself is not sacred.
	The ideals of a small or no government is sacred.
	The flag is a piece of cloth and not sacred.
	And it's a little bit hard, however much I admire certain aspects of Thomas Jefferson's thinking, and he was a fairly good architect.
	It's a little hard to believe that a man who pretty much raped his slaves continually is someone that we should hold in incredibly high veneration as a moral paragon and virtue of the species.
	I'm just saying this seems to be pretty well established by DNA testing that he was a slave-banger.
	That's kind of a shadow on however suddenly you may think of the rest of his soul.
	It's a little bit of a shadow on the soul.
	If we're a little horrified by what Arnold the Sperminator has done with his housekeepers, at least she was somewhat there voluntarily, this is not the case with Jefferson slaves.
	So, it's a little hard, I think, to say that the only problem in the Jefferson Monument is some free-form, slightly swaying booginess.
	There are other crimes hanging over the statue that would perhaps be a little bit more important to keep in perspective.
	So, I'm absolutely, completely and totally happy to hear what you all have to think about this or any other topic.
	But Adam, hopefully we can talk this week.
	I have huge sympathies.
	I'm so sorry that you had to go through this.
	I think that you've got some great moves, which I will be copying and doubtless calling my own, which nobody will believe.
	But, you know, stay strong, stay in touch, and...
	You've got some balls, man.
	You've got some stones. And I admire that.
	And your restraint and professionalism in this encounter with these thugs was enormously impressive.
	And I look forward to hearing the tales from the crypts of the weekend.
	So stay strong, my friend, and I will talk to you soon.
	Well, I suppose just as we're starting out, the listener has asked...
	Asked, not asked, but asked.
	Will you ever see an anarchic society in your lifetime?
	If not, will I? I'm 16.
	I will not see an anarchic society by the terms that you're talking about.
	I have a voluntary society in my life.
	I don't have...
	I've got obligated relationships in my life, and that's a very important thing.
	When I talk about Nothing Sacred, which actually is the name of a George Walker adaptation of a book that I also adapted called Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev, which is well worth checking out if you ever get a chance to see or read it.
	But when I talk about Nothing Sacred, I mean that in my life.
	I don't have unchosen relationships in my life.
	I don't have relationships based on historical accidents And a coincidence in biology.
	I have relationships based on virtue and integrity and a striving for the betterment.
	So I have a voluntary society in my life.
	I will not see a stateless society in the way that I'm talking about, right?
	I mean, some people say, well, Somalia, but of course...
	Somali saying that Somalia is a stateless society is like saying that a country became atheist because the churches collapsed or were on fire.
	That's not the same.
	So, no, I'm not going to live to see it, but that's okay.
	The hierarchy is as embedded as hands in the human DNA, so it's going to take a while to unravel.
	And since it is a multi-generational change, it is going to take more time than I have, absent extendo bot life-spanning technologies from some sort of future genius.
	So, no, I'm not going to see it.
	If you're 16, I don't think that you're going to see it either.
	Just judging by history, it takes 100 to 150 years to create any kind of lasting social change, and even that tends to be pretty slow and staggered.
	And of course, there's a counteraction.
	To everything that occurs, right?
	So women gain some freedom and then the government pays feminist groups to tell them to go out and work so they can be taxed and they lose that freedom to stay home with their kids.
	Blacks strive for freedom from enslavement and then there's a war on drugs which is to a large degree a war on blacks.
	There's a welfare state. There's a collapse of the black family which survives slavery but not the welfare state and they have a pretty grim time of it.
	So, I think that it is a very hard thing to imagine that in the next 100 to 150 years we will see a truly stateless society.
	So, that's my argument.
	And I say that not to bring you despair, but to avoid you a life of continual despair by recognizing how far away it is.
	Would any anarchic society, somebody asked, be defined by geography?
	Well, sure. Yeah, I mean, there's no switch that's going to make the whole world stateless, and so it's going to occur in geographical regions first.
	I think that's pretty clear.
	In the same way, it's sort of ending slavery.
	It occurred in geographical areas and so on, so I think that's how that's going to work.
	Do I see DROs as a modern version of tribalism or something much more complicated and different?
	Are there any parallels? It's a great question, as all of these are.
	I do not see DROs as having anything to do with tribalism at all, in any way, shape, or form.
	DROs are like insurance companies.
	DROs are sophisticated entities where the best entrepreneurial brains on the planet, combined with psychologists and psychiatrists and doctors and all the people who are going to be studying How conflict arises from a sort of medical model from a brain model.
	They are going to be getting together with actuarial mathematicians and philosophers as well, of course, because there are certain philosophical ideals that lead to greater and greater peace in society, and there are those which don't.
	So these are all things that need to be tested in the laboratories of science and in the laboratories of the free market.
	And they're going to be organizations that are going to attempt to encourage as much virtuous behavior as possible by reducing the price of transactions for people who keep their word and honor their contracts and finding ways to encourage those who don't and punish those who really, really don't.
	And so they're very, very sophisticated entities.
	It's not tribal at all.
	Because tribal is around accidental geography or accidental bloodline.
	DROs, you're not going to be born into a DRO.
	You're not going to be, well, everyone on the south side is part of this DRO because that would just be another government.
	DROs are the ultimate involuntary organizations.
	You can choose the one that fits you best.
	You can choose the level of risk that you want within each DRO, just as you can choose the level of risk that you want in any insurance package that you take.
	And, of course, the entire purpose of DROs will be to make themselves as obsolete as quickly as possible, at least within the lifetime of one human being.
	So if I have been an honorable and decent man who's kept his word in his contracts and paid his bills and debts for 20 or 30 years, I didn't do all of that to screw the next guy.
	I mean, reputations take a lifetime to build and sometimes only a moment to destroy.
	And so... They will eventually be free, right?
	And this is the same thing that occurs with life insurance.
	If you start life insurance young enough, they invest the money and it becomes free.
	And so the idea, of course, of DROs is to make their charges obsolete as quickly as possible to lower the price for consumers while providing the best service.
	So no, I don't view them at all as close.
	They're the ultimate voluntary organization.
	You can come and go at any time.
	You can choose the level of coverage you want.
	It's professional. It's neither geographical nor racial nor biological in terms of family lines in any other way.
	So I wouldn't view it at all as similar to tribalism.
	Listen, I'm certainly happy to answer questions, but if you do have things that you want to say, I'm more keen to do this sort of live talk than answer questions.
	I'm certainly happy. Oh, yeah, yeah, okay.
	So the Amazon account.
	Yes, I'm still going to set up this link, but I have all my books on Kindle for 99 cents, and I would really, really like it if people would go and buy those.
	So it makes me a few bucks and all of that sort of stuff.
	So what else do we have?
	Oh yeah, and if somebody has the link from the board, if you could post it in the chat room, that would be fantastic.
	And hello to all the people who've come out today.
	I really do appreciate that.
	Now, somebody's asked, will DROs be on the UN or on the Security Council?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think so. I don't think that they would be recognized by other states.
	So that would be one of my sort of suggestions.
	But DROs, they can't really enter into contracts on behalf of others.
	Like your insurance company can't sign you up for an alarm system on your behalf.
	And so I don't think the DROs will be allowed to enter into contracts.
	I mean, obviously people could give them that right if it was efficient, but I don't think that would be the case.
	And so how would a DRO be able to negotiate for its customers on behalf of someone else?
	So I doubt it. I doubt it, but we shall see.
	Oh, yeah, sorry. I guess I'll change that.
	Go to fdrurl.com forward slash Kindle, K-I-N-D-L-E, and that will be the one which I'll set up to go to the books.
	All right.
	So, yeah, you can still go to fdrurl.
	Sorry, freedomainradio.com if you want to get some of my other books.
	So, question, how will the big privatization of the co-ops of the state go?
	Well, I think that the privatization of the state is...
	I mean, to some degree, it's already underway, right?
	So stuff is going to be sold off by the government to sort of settle its bills.
	Now, that's actually going to be kind of a negative for a while because people are then going to end up paying twice, right?
	So when the government, say, sells off a bunch of parks, then...
	It's not going to lower its taxes because it no longer has to administer those parks.
	It's going to sell those parks because it needs money for its other kinds of general operations.
	But what's going to happen is the companies that bid for those parks are going to be those who think that they can achieve a profit.
	So they're going to...
	I would imagine there may be some increase, whether temporary or permanently, I don't know, some increase in the entrance fees for those parks.
	So as stuff gets privatized from the government, people's costs are going to go up.
	In the long run, who knows, right?
	But that's my feel about it.
	So it's going to be kind of tricky. Sorry, I'm just looking for another question.
	I'm not sure what you mean by pragmatic anarchism.
	I don't know much about seasteading at the moment, so I couldn't really answer that, I'm afraid.
	How can you stop friend politics in this privatization?
	So I assume what you mean by that is that stuff is going to be handed out as political favors to people close to politicians.
	You can't stop it. You can't.
	You can't conceivably stop it and I wouldn't even bother thinking about how to try stopping it.
	You can't. That's the whole point.
	You can't control a monopoly of violence.
	You can't control a minority of people with a monopoly on violence.
	You can't control them. You cannot, cannot control.
	Yeah, of course, it's going to be corrupt as hell.
	Let me just look at what happened in Russia or East Germany or other places where privatization has occurred.
	Yeah, it goes to friends.
	It goes to the local toadies.
	If you could control it, there would be much less reason to need to privatize.
	Hi Steph, I have no microphone so I can't speak to you directly but I have a question.
	My boss is an abusive evil genius.
	One of her tactics is to plant fear and doubt on her subordinates.
	What's your broad perspective in dealing with people like this?
	When you have to. Well, it's the last four words that I would question.
	When you have to. I assume that you are not a serf and have some capacity to change your work environment.
	You can't reason with crazy people.
	You can't. You can't negotiate with crazy people.
	It's like trying to sculpt fog or trying to build a tower out of order.
	Any game that you have is merely momentary.
	And anybody who's in that environment and who stays in that environment...
	I mean, you can, of course, I don't know, you could get together with your coworkers and try to get the boss canned or something like that by erasing stuff.
	But unfortunately, most of the people who stay in that kind of situation end up – well, they're there for various historical family reasons and so on.
	So there's lots of problems with that.
	But they tend not to be the most reliable people if they're still in that environment.
	And what I would do first and foremost is look at my own family history and say, okay, well, is there anything in my family history that would lead me to feel that this is sort of an okay situation or this is sort of a manageable situation?
	Because if you're stuck with an evil genius boss, my guess is that there may have been some sort of evil genius, maybe a woman in your history, maybe a mom or someone else.
	And that's perhaps why you feel that you can't sort of get...
	You can't sort of escape or deal with the situation.
	So self-knowledge to me is the escape from all corrupt situations.
	So that would be my first thought.
	A recent article by Tom Woods, Why Anarchists Should Vote for Ron Paul, argues with Rothbard that voting is not immoral.
	What are your thoughts? Well, I have not read the article.
	So I can't...
	I did see it posted somewhere on my Facebook account, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
	But certainly voting is not evil.
	Voting is just a checkbox.
	I don't think it's – it's not quite the same as the initiation of force.
	But the only argument for voting that I can imagine would be valid is the argument that it can achieve some good.
	And I completely and totally disagree with that.
	And my argument, I've got a whole series on Ron Paul that I did, gosh, close to three or four years ago now.
	That if we believe that we have the power to turn an evil organization into a good organization, then we should forget about the government and we should join the mafia.
	Or we should join the local postal workers union and attempt to get the postal workers union to lower the wages and benefits of the postal workers.
	And we should start off small.
	We should start off small with our turning the tables on evil institutions.
	And we should start with something that's local.
	Or maybe you've got some nasty person in your life who's really difficult and unpleasant.
	Well, you should attempt to reform that person and turn them into a nice person.
	Or somebody who maybe is addicted to alcohol or drugs or something else, then you should maybe get them to quit their addiction.
	So instead of dealing with the largest conceivable evil agency armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and prisons and aircraft carriers and so on, If you have the power through your influence to turn an evil institution into a good institution, just start local. Start local.
	Start with something that's testable in your local environment and see how that works.
	And if you can do that, then start a little bigger, go a little bigger.
	And I think that's the way to go.
	Yeah, and if you're coerced to vote, then go.
	It's got no moral content if you're coerced, right?
	Any more than it's a charity if you give your watch to a guy with a gun in your ribs.
	My question also, if somebody agrees with Rothbard, About the morality of voting, or the effectiveness of voting, then my argument would be, or my question would be, have you done an analysis on why, if this has been tried since at least the 1960s, it has so seriously not worked?
	Well, that's of course the big question.
	I have no problem with people who want to make an argument against history, right?
	To say that this thing's been tried for 40 or 50 years, and of course voting in terms of keeping the government down has been tried by conservatives and classical liberals for over 150 years.
	Well, the government has grown bigger and bigger and bigger.
	My question is, well, what's your analysis of why it's failed?
	And if you have no analysis of why it's failed, then I assume you're just doing some magical ritual to keep your anxiety at bay rather than dealing with the true source of a stateless society, which is the beneficial and peaceful rearing of children.
	You're waving your ballot box around like some magical spell to calm your anxiety and keep you away from the challenges within your own personal relationships, which I can understand.
	I mean, there's... Those challenges are really tough, but it doesn't have anything to do with actually achieving a free world until people can say, if you should do this thing that didn't work for the last 150 years, then here's why it didn't work and here's what we should change.
	But if you're just saying, well, let's just keep voting the way we have for the last 150 years, then I just assume you're not really interested in achieving freedom.
	I mean, because if you're not doing a postmortem, you're not really interested in what killed the person, right?
	So, yeah, that doesn't make much sense to me.
	Again, to my knowledge, neither Tom Woods nor Murray Rothbard were entrepreneurs.
	I'm not saying all entrepreneurs are rational and all entrepreneurs are libertarians or anarchists, but if you're an entrepreneur, the first thing that you always have to do with failure is to go to the root cause and figure out why and not just keep doing the same thing over and over.
	By the way, just while there's fine ladies doing that, again, thanks to everyone for all your support.
	I was on TV three times this week.
	I was twice on Adam's show, Adam Kokesh, and once I got a great half hour.
	And thanks so much to...
	To Max Keiser and Stacey for having me on the show, the Keiser Report, K-E-I-S-E-R Report, keiserreport.com.
	He was very kind and very curious and very smart.
	We had almost the whole show, so 23 minutes of time, half hour I think in total, to talk about a free society.
	And gosh, I mean, I really admire that.
	I really like Max.
	I think his passion is very inspiring.
	And I really enjoy being on his show.
	So thanks so much to those guys for that opportunity.
	Is this better? Yes, that's better.
	Now we have an echo.
	Better now?
	Let me see. Still got an echo.
	Just to move the speakers.
	So, before the show started, there was a discussion related to Adam Koukesh.
	And what some people were thinking was that it was forced.
	Some people were arguing it wasn't showing exactly what police would do because they were doing it to get the reaction.
	When I saw the video I thought it looked quite cool what they've done.
	But maybe you want to comment for the guys who are thinking the other thing.
	That it's forced?
	That they went in there attempting to disturb the ship with the cops and get that kind of reaction?
	Is that right? Yeah, that's what some people don't like and they believe it's not the way to show.
	Yeah, I mean, I don't know...
	Let's say it was forced.
	Let's say they went in there with the express intention of getting arrested.
	I'm not sure what that says against what they're doing.
	Just some people wonder, like, does this mean we should all go around and, you know, make ourselves arrested?
	Those were the comments.
	I'm just repeating.
	Yeah, look, I don't think that – I mean, the whole point of a free society, the whole point of, I think, philosophy of voluntarism is to take the word should out of the equation, at least in unchosen contracts or unchosen situations.
	If people want to go and get arrested – I think that that may show some people the aggression of the state.
	Maybe that will be helpful. I mean, Adam's video got almost 100,000 hits in a day.
	So is that all people who are just saying, you know, damn the cops and blah, blah, blah?
	Or is it people who are seeing, oh, wow, you know, this ex-Marine is being arrested by the cops for dancing?
	That's pretty shocking. Does that wake some people up?
	Yeah, I think it probably does.
	Does that mean everyone should go out and be arrested?
	Well, no. The whole point of a free society is that you don't have a should, right?
	I mean, I think that people should live with the integrity that they can manage.
	They should live with the idea of having a happy and productive life and inspiring people through joy and certainty and purpose.
	So no, I don't think that means everybody should go out and get arrested.
	Look, for instance, I think Adam's show is a pretty good vehicle for getting ideas out.
	Does that mean everybody has to go and get a television show?
	Well, no, of course not. Everybody can do, if they want, whatever they can, to the degree that they can, with the skill sets that they have and the joy and the pleasure that they have.
	So no, I don't think it means that everybody has to go get arrested.
	I think that is to then say, we should all get in line and do the same thing, which seems to me quite the opposite of the division of labor within the movement.
	Cool. Can I ask another thing?
	Of course. Related to my friend that I met today.
	And I was not aware, but he stopped communicating with his parents for three or four months now.
	And he's quite devastated.
	Hello? Sorry, you said he's quite devastated?
	Exactly. That's the point I want to get to.
	They are Muslim and he was raised Muslim but at some point he became an atheist or he was always atheist and then he realized and he married a girl who is not Muslim and they didn't approve this of course and they almost met her very late in their relationship and when he got married they told him they're sad that he's going to hell But,
	you know, he's their son and they're gonna, you know, continue being in some relations.
	And that continued. Up to a certain point when he was very disappointed by his father, who was very ill, almost dying, and he said he doesn't want to see him, he doesn't want him to be informed.
	And this was a point...
	I'm sorry, I just want to make sure we don't...
	If you can get to the question, just because this is a lot of information that the other person may not feel comfortable with.
	I'm just making obvious their connections, because after that, He said, okay, no communication.
	He stopped communicating with them.
	So, now he's not...
	He's certain of that as being a good decision.
	But he's fighting with the fact that they are his parents.
	And this is something I see with a lot of people here.
	It's difficult for them to stay...
	Like, how can I, as a friend, deny him that...
	He believes his parents love him.
	And he keeps repeating this.
	I know they love me, but I can't go back and be okay with them and stuff like that.
	Well, look, I mean, the first thing I would do is say that if you're going to use a word like love, then...
	You should know what it means, right?
	So what does love mean? That would be the question I would ask.
	Say my parents love me or my wife loves me.
	Well, what does the word love mean?
	I think that's a very important question.
	Because we want to make sure that we don't use words in a sentimental way without a clear knowledge of their contents.
	I mean, I have a definition of love, of course, that it's our...
	Involuntary response to virtue, if we're virtuous, that we feel admiration and love and affection for displays of virtue if we're good people ourselves.
	We will feel, if we're evil people, we will feel hatred and rage towards virtue.
	And if we are good people, we will feel anger towards evil.
	And if we're evil people, we will probably feel some sort of sick, positive attachment to other evil people.
	But yeah, so, you know, using this word, well, what does it mean?
	My argument has always been that there are no human beings in the world whose standards of behavior are higher than parents.
	There is no set or group of human beings in the world whose standards of behavior are higher than parents for two reasons.
	One, the power disparity between parents and children is so great that virtue is the most necessary.
	So a man beats his wife, she can leave him.
	A father beats his son, he can't leave.
	And the father has much more power, the child has no economic resources, has no alternatives, has no maturity, has no options.
	So for that reason, the standards of behavior for parents are higher than anybody else.
	That's the first reason.
	The second reason is that for the child, the relationship with the parent is not chosen.
	The parent chooses to have the child.
	The child does not choose to have the parents.
	Now, the parent obviously doesn't choose the child as an individual, but the parent has so much influence over that child that, in a sense, they do choose the personalities of their children through their actions as parents.
	And so, for the very power disparity and for the fact that it is an unchosen relationship on the part of the child...
	The standards of virtue for parents are the highest conceivable standards.
	And there is no other group in the world that I can think of whose standards of behavior are higher than that of parents.
	I mean, you could say, well, what about the cops?
	Well, you can leave town or you can leave the country.
	You still have options as a citizen that you simply don't have as a child.
	So, yeah, I would ask him, what does it mean to be...
	To be loved by your parents.
	I think that's a very good question and I think it's something we should ask as a whole about love.
	And, you know, if you agree with the argument, I think it's a pretty ironclad one, but, you know, maybe there's something I'm missing, that, you know, standards of virtue for parents are the highest and say, well, would you accept this behavior from a stranger?
	Would you be friends with a stranger who acted in this way?
	Would you accept this behavior from somebody on a first date?
	Or a fifth date? Would you accept this behavior from an acquaintance?
	An acquaintance came up and said, this is my belief, this is what I'm going to do.
	Now, if you wouldn't accept this kind of behavior from an acquaintance, from a date, from a stranger, from someone at a party, but you will accept it from your parents, then what you're saying is that the standards of behavior I have for virtual strangers is much, much higher than the standards of behavior that I require from my parents.
	And I think that's a hard position to defend.
	I'm not saying what conclusion comes out of that is up to each individual, but philosophically speaking, the people who've had the most power over us and who we did not choose to have in our lives should be those exercising the greatest virtue, the greatest self-control, and the most positivity in our lives.
	That's my argument.
	It's the way it's always been, and I think, until I hear better, the way it always will be.
	Thanks. Thanks for that. And I have to say that we really came to the exact same points.
	I was going around and around and I was talking about was he betrayed in the same way from a friend.
	And then when he realized this, I saw that it was very difficult for him now to realize That he's having different standards because he thinks the same way as we do, you know, that the parents would have, if not higher, for sure, no different standards than we have towards other people.
	But I think, you know, the point at which now he has to admit to himself that they were bad and they are bad, I guess it's...
	I think it's very difficult to accept.
	Oh, look, there's no question.
	Yeah, there's no question. It's an enormously difficult thing to process if parents or anyone in your life has significantly fallen short of moral ideals, particularly if the people in your lives who've fallen short of their moral ideals claim to be moral ideals.
	It's really, really tough.
	So yeah, I completely sympathize with that and the important thing is to sit down and talk with people in your life that you have these kinds of differences with and say, look, I have these concerns.
	I have this perspective.
	This is where I'm coming from.
	Let's see if we can find some sort of common ground, some sort of acceptance of common ground in the field of ethics in order to move forward.
	Keep having those conversations until you can either establish common ground or If it's not possible, make whatever decision you want from there.
	Cool, cool. Okay.
	Thank you very much.
	And I want to thank you for keeping up the Freedom and Radio as a hub for all the knowledge that we need.
	Well, thank you so much.
	I really appreciate that. And do say hi to your friend from me.
	And please provide him my sympathies and my encouragement to stay in the conversation until he gets some sort of resolution one way or the other.
	Thank you very much. You're very welcome.
	And, yeah, look, the other thing, since this discussion is still going on in the chatroom, you know, as far as Adam's thing go, look, I mean, let's keep our perspective, right?
	This was a clear cut example of the initiation of force.
	Whether Adam did this or Adam did that.
	And let's just focus on the big picture rather than quibbling at whatever may have been going on in other people's heads.
	Because we can't really know that for sure.
	And I certainly don't believe that he was acting with any negative intent.
	But we can very clearly see the initiation of the use of force from people in overtight costumes.
	So yeah, I think let's just focus on that and not worry about, you know, psychologizing the ifs, ands, and buts of whatever people's motives may have been.
	Uh, Steph, where do we, the individual people, start on trying to create this state of society?
	Outside the research and explaining to family and friends the wrongs of the state, using morals, what else can we really do?
	You see, you're saying that like that's not the big thing, right?
	Okay, so I've got this little thing where I'm talking about ethics, virtue, and truth with people around me, but what's the really big thing?
	It's like, dude, that is the really big thing.
	That is the really big thing.
	And, um, so I don't, uh, I don't really have any other answers for you.
	There is no magic switch. We have conversations about truth and virtue and goodness and we ask questions and we are curious about other people's motives.
	And we raise our children with peace and positivity.
	That's really all that we can do.
	That's really all we can do.
	And I think if you think that's not so much, it means all that tells me is that you haven't really done it yet.
	Because if you think that there's more to be done than that, then you have not even scratched the surface of that.
	So that would be my suggestion.
	Yes, you came back, somebody's coming back with the surgeon problem.
	He says, I'm the one annoying you with the surgeon problem because your answer totally contradicts all your ideas.
	Allowing a criminal surgeon unpunished is utilitarianism which you oppose.
	I was interested in how DROs will minimize the damage, how it will make sure the surgeon keeps operating and also compensate his victims.
	I'm sorry, I don't remember enough to be able to comment on that.
	Well, look, and also, I mean, with Adam's arrest, this, of course, is the idea that the state owns the monument and the state must grant you a license.
	I mean, look, this is a big problem with public-private ownership, right?
	I mean, there is no such thing as public ownership, right?
	So the government takes your money by force or by debt or by printing money.
	So force or fraud, the government takes your money.
	And then the government says, you need a permit.
	To stand on the piece of ground that was bought with the money taken from you by force.
	You understand, right? I mean this is like the mafia stealing your front lawn and then charging you money and having you beg for permission and kiss the ring in order to stand on your front lawn.
	I mean it's insane. And so, of course, if the Jefferson Monument was private, as it should be, was owned, then yeah, there could be a sign that said, listen, no dancing.
	You agree to no dancing if you come into this.
	That's no longer a law.
	That's just a contract. And then, yeah, they'd have the right to remove you if you came in and danced.
	In the same way that, you know, if you're at the funeral for your mom and someone comes in and starts doing the Harlem shuffle along the front, you probably want them removed because you're kind of trying to grieve your mom or whatever, right?
	So, yeah, I mean, this is just another example of what happens when you have this weird, bizarre, mutated entity called public, quote, ownership.
	Government steals from you to buy stuff or make stuff, and then you have to have a permit to stand there.
	It's mental. It's completely mental.
	It's hard for us to see how mental it is now, but it'll be pretty clear in the future.
	Steph, what's the spark plug gap on a 1979 Chevrolet 305 engine?
	12.2 parsecs.
	That would be my...
	I'm not even going to pretend that's even a guess.
	So that would be my...
	0.35 millimeters.
	Fantastic. Good.
	Well, glad to have helped. This is one of the largest number of people we've had in the chat.
	That's right. There's a lot of shyness getting on the call today.
	That's all right. So if somebody has written, a surgeon saves, let's say, 10 patients a day and kills, let's say, 3 people a day.
	Not by accident. What to do?
	The surgeon can say, if you try to ostracize me, I will stop operating.
	Um... But the reality is that this is not a situation that would ever exist in the real world.
	So let's say that some surgeon has been saving 10 patients a day and killing 3 people a day, and he gets caught.
	Well, his career is over.
	His career is completely and totally over, and he will never really operate on anyone else again.
	The simple reason being...
	go since, of course, whoever is representing the hospital or whatever would have to tell the truth, right?
	So even let's say that there was no punishment in a free society.
	Okay, I doubt that, but let's say, right?
	So they're going to sit down with you, they're going to say, "Listen, Bob, you know, he's a pretty good surgeon, but unfortunately he has a sadistic personality that wields his scalpel three times out of every ten." So, like, almost 30% of the time, sorry, almost a third of the time, he's going to kill you and not save you.
	No, it's not three out of ten, it's three out of thirteen, so a little bit less, 25% or so.
	So, you know, you've got a one-in-four chance that he's just going to stab you in the throat rather than save you.
	Well, no one's going to go to that guy, right?
	No one's going to want that guy to operate.
	So, I mean, his career is over because there's going to be other surgeons out there with similar skills or whatever.
	And they're not going to be stabbing you in the throat one time out of four.
	So this guy's career is over.
	He's not going to get to operate anyway.
	So, like, no sane human being is ever going to want to go to a surgeon that one out of four times is going to stab him in the neck.
	Because there's not going to be any other surgeon who's going to be so bad that they don't have a 25% greater success rate.
	So, no. Nobody's going to want to go to that guy anyway.
	And of course, anybody who...
	Let's say that you only have civil penalties, right?
	And not legal penalties like prison.
	Well, so he stabs some guy.
	Well, the family just sues the living crap out of him.
	And that's his life.
	We're going to just take all his money.
	Somebody's asked, Steph, I want to have kids in a few years, but I am worried that I was abused too strongly to be able to parent as well as I wish.
	Well, my first thought is, I'm so sorry.
	I'm so, so, so sorry.
	To... To hear about your abuse.
	Absolutely wretched. I don't even know what the content of it is, but obviously if you're concerned about it enough, Which I think is very honorable and very good and very wise and very beautiful thing to do.
	If you're concerned about it to the point where you think it's going to interfere with your future parenting, then I'm going to guess it was pretty damn bad.
	And I'm really, really, really sorry that you had to go through that for so many years in such a helpless, independent situation.
	So, you know, massive kudos, a big virtual hug to you, and I'm so sorry.
	I had, as everyone knows, I had a pretty wretched childhood.
	There was, I think, just about no form of abuse that you could get that I didn't experience to one degree or another.
	And I'm happy and pleased with my parenting.
	I don't really believe that it could be improved in any significant way.
	Yeah, maybe I'll find out that's not the case in the future, but I'm very pleased and content with my own parenting.
	I'm overjoyed at the fact that my daughter Rushes into my arms, comes to wake me up in the morning, climbs under the covers for story time.
	I love the fact that we had some friends coming through town today.
	They came over yesterday and we took them out for brunch.
	This morning, and so that's very exciting.
	It was great to see them. And I really, I mean, I love so much about her.
	I'm trying not to make this about me and my parenting, but I sort of want to point out that it is possible to turn things around.
	This is a man and a woman.
	They recently got engaged, and we're perfectly thrilled, and they want to have kids, so we were talking about Our experience of parenting and what we've learned and so on.
	And Izzy was a little bit concerned when she came down because the guy has a big beard.
	So she was like, hey, what's with the Cro-Mannion dude there?
	And he was in a bare skin.
	She went on a big bone.
	It was very confusing for her.
	But we then went for a walk to the park and she really warmed up to them and she really liked the woman and she wanted to play with the woman and then she asked the woman to carry her home, which was really cute and she was very affectionate.
	And then this morning we went out for brunch and Izzy was very happy.
	Christina and I were sitting on either side of Izzy and it was really cute.
	cute she'd have a bite of whatever we were feeding her and then she would lean over and give a kiss to christina's shoulder and then lean over and give a kiss to dad's shoulder there's three things she does when she's feeling affectionate it's a mykia which is greek for a kiss a big hug and a pat pat so you get a nice sort of soft palm little pudgy hump pat on the head and it was just great i mean you take a bite two kisses maybe the occasional pat pat and once in a while a big hug and that's just great
	i love her spontaneous expressions of affection and joy and love and all of those kinds of beautiful things so i you know i'm so sorry for your history i I completely and totally applaud your concern for your kids in the future.
	That is so fundamental to making a better world for you and for the world as a whole that I can't even express it, or I guess it's 2,000 podcasts or so of expressing it.
	So massive kudos to you, massive support behind what it is that you're doing.
	My answer is, you know, self-knowledge, self-knowledge, self-knowledge is what undoes history.
	So watch FDRURL.com forward slash BIB, the Bomb in the Brain series, to get some understanding of the effects of child abuse on the brain and the personality so you know what you're starting with.
	You know, get a great therapist, invest time in the therapy, read parenting books, grieve your own childhood.
	Commit to a future difference and work to get virtue into your relationships if they're not already there.
	But I think the most important thing is to get a really good therapist and to go through and grieve everything that's happened that was dysfunctional or destructive in the past.
	And that will free and open your heart up to the future.
	And you will feel the Absolutely heavenly and delicious love of a child and towards a child.
	And that really is about the most beautiful thing in the world.
	And it's worth every rock that bites into your knees as you climb the mountain of self-regard.
	So that's my very, very strong suggestion to you.
	And I hope that that helps.
	Now, I'm sorry for the person who was waiting on the phone patiently.
	I am all ears.
	All right, cool.
	Yeah, I just had a couple of questions.
	I got to say that the I tried before, the Church's Gone Off one was absolutely awesome.
	It was very deep, and it made me think about my own growing up and thinking about parenting and all that jazz.
	But what I really wanted to ask was, I'm sorry to derail the conversation a little bit, but what I was really kind of curious about is you've been on the Alex Jones show before.
	You talked to Alex Jones.
	I'm kind of curious as to what your feelings are about he kind of holds the mentality of the New World Order.
	And you think that there is a precedent of the idea of the attack on Christianity.
	Well, I'm no expert on the New World Order.
	I've certainly heard about it.
	You can't really be in libertarian circles and not hear about New World Order and chemtrails and other things and the 9-11 stuff.
	So I don't know.
	That, to me, is not a matter for philosophy, whether there is or is not a New World Order.
	That's a matter for research and empiricism.
	And so, like, it's not a matter of philosophy whether 9-11 was an inside job or not.
	That's a matter for research and engineers and architects and mathematicians and physicists and all that kind of stuff.
	It's not, you know, it's not a matter for philosophy.
	And I do have no doubt that there has been an attack on Christianity.
	No question there has been an attack on Christianity.
	I think, I mean, there are...
	I mean communism was a huge attack upon organized religion, no question.
	Nazism was to a smaller degree – I mean they wanted to set up their own Nazi church, but of course the Vatican was very pleased to achieve concordance and Klein treaties with Hitler, so he was much more gentle with it.
	But socialism is, to the degree with which it's derived from communism, and I think that there's a flavor of communism in all socialism, is extremely hostile towards religion.
	Communism is extremely hostile towards religion, socialism to some degree or not.
	And postmodernism, of course, views all perspectives as equal to paint with a very broad brush.
	And, of course, that is very anti-Christian or anti-faith.
	And Nietzsche, of course, was very anti-religious.
	The existentialists were very anti-religious.
	Freud and Jung were very skeptical of religion and viewed religion as psychological phenomena rather than...
	True things in the real world.
	So, yeah, I mean, there's no question in my mind that there is a strong opposition in a great many social circles towards religion.
	My argument would be...
	Sorry, but my argument would be...
	I'm sorry, I'm talking for a long time, I'll be very brief, but my argument would be that...
	Those who want to expand the power of the state are going to run into religion because the religion has been largely separated from the state.
	And so to me, I view sort of communism and religion as two gangs vying for control over people.
	And socialism tries to get control over children through schools, government schools.
	And religion tries to get control over children through both schools and church.
	And to me, they're just competing irrationalities vying for control over the human spirit.
	And so, yeah, I mean, obviously if religion wants to grow to some degree, the secular state has to shrink.
	And if the secular state wants to grow to some degree, religion has to shrink.
	So there's that natural opposition.
	But it's not to me like then you get any greater freedom either way or the other.
	There's like 100% control, and whether it's 20% religion and 80% secular state or vice versa is less important to me than we have to approach both the question of the state and of religion.
	from first principles, which doesn't do kindness to either.
	Okay, so maybe I'm a little bit confused about this.
	So you're saying that religion in itself is not exactly an issue in the idea of sadism, because you said they butt heads on a regular basis.
	So is...
	I don't know. I'm sorry.
	I was just kind of... Yeah, look, I was more talking about the New World Order and the tax upon Christianity.
	The New World Order, I would imagine, is much more secular, and therefore it's going to have a tax upon religion.
	I mean, that to me would be inevitable.
	As far as the relationship...
	Yeah, now as far as the relationship between the state and religion goes, there was a huge change.
	Religion and the state used to serve each other throughout the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages.
	So you had the priests who praised the aristocracy as appointed by God, and you had the aristocracy who in return gave the priests a monopoly of religion, and that sustained itself for many, many centuries.
	Until the Reformation, until the splintering and the disintegration of Christendom into religious warfare.
	And then there was a separation of church and state because it can really only work – and I use the word work very loosely here – when there's a monopoly of both.
	And when you have a monopoly of the state, which is always the case, and you have competing religions all attempting to gain control of the state, you end up with hundreds of years of civil wars, which were just decimated the British population and the European population to about the same degree as the Black Death.
	So it was a complete catastrophe.
	And from that, you get people saying, well, look, I'm sick and tired of people killing each other in the name of God.
	And so we're going to separate church and state.
	It's going to become a matter of private conscience.
	And that splintered things.
	And that left a whole lot of people with a whole lot less to do.
	Because religious people, priests, no longer had the same power that they used to have because they didn't have a monopoly anymore.
	So what did they do?
	Well, they invented communism and socialism and took their verbal skills over there and started taking over the secular state, which was now the only thing left that had a monopoly.
	If you want to be a monopolist, there's no point being a priest anymore.
	You've got to be in government.
	And so the verbal abusers called priests switched over to government and began to use all of that kind of stuff.
	So, yeah, I think there's been a big change now.
	But once the monopoly of religion in the West, which of course has still at least to some degree to occur in the Islamic countries, but once the monopoly of religion was destroyed or shattered in the West, then everybody who wanted a monopoly left religion.
	And came to government.
	And that created an actual opposition.
	Yeah. Came to government.
	Came to statism. Okay.
	All right. Just one other quick question, and then I'll let you do your thing.
	Okay, so you're saying that what the West is doing right now is that they're abandoning the idea of religion, which in turn would actually kind of...
	Justify what Alex Jones and the militia people say all the time is because we're moving ourselves out of a Christian state and moving ourselves into...
	I guess what you're saying is stateism.
	So we're moving Christianity and we're having our new gods and our new masters is to be the state.
	So do you ever see that people will stop moving towards masters, gods and masters?
	Does that seem even plausible for the human race?
	Because it seems like if we're taking away from it in the Western Hemisphere and we're replacing it with just government, do you think that we could actually move on with that?
	No, we won't constantly go back and forth between states and religion, in my opinion. - The natural What nature of human beings is free and peaceful?
	Sure. I'm sorry. I just want to cut you off.
	No, I'm fantastic. These are great, great questions.
	I love you guys all so much.
	Thank you. Thanks a lot, man. I appreciate it.
	Yeah, the natural state of humanity is free and peaceful.
	There's no question of that.
	That's absolutely... I mean, that's axiomatic.
	The natural state of humanity is free and peaceful, and we know that because it takes a huge amount of propaganda...
	It takes a huge amount of propaganda for people to not be free and peaceful.
	The natural state of humanity is to not believe in gods because it takes huge amounts of propaganda to get people to believe in gods.
	The natural state of humanity is to not be ruled because it takes a huge amount of propaganda.
	For people to be comfortable or to accept being ruled.
	The natural state of humanity is nonviolent because it takes a huge amount of aggression, violence, propaganda, dysfunctional destructiveness to turn a human being into somebody who will use violence.
	So, yeah, the natural state of humanity, you know, think of the ocean, right?
	The natural state of the ocean is for the water to seek its greatest depth, which is why you get a pretty calm surface for the most part.
	That's the natural state of water. Now, every now and then, there's a water spout, you know, some cyclone or something that sucks all the water up into some big spout.
	And you go, holy crap, that's really freaky water.
	Well, that's the amount of energy it takes to turn human beings away.
	From peace and science and skepticism and voluntarism and trade.
	We know that human beings are most comfortable with trade because kids trade all the time.
	And they don't attempt to set up monopolies and cartels and unions.
	This all takes the government. So, yeah, free market, private property, peace, voluntarism, and trade.
	This is the natural state.
	And anybody who's spent any time around un-traumatized children knows for sure, without a doubt, That this is the natural state of humanity.
	And everybody who wants to rule human beings knows for sure that that is the natural state of humanity, which is why they have to grab hold of the brains of children and mold them like an evil clay potter master on a spinning wheel with Demi Moore and Unchained Melody, well, Chained Melody, I guess, playing in the background.
	Human beings are naturally free, peaceful, and respect private property, at least their own.
	And it takes a huge amount of labor.
	You know, the modern human mind, as adults, has about as much relationship to the natural human mind as a Chinese woman who had her foot bound and toes slowly mashed into her heel over the course of many years that that has.
	To a natural person's foot.
	Right? So, if you're around to all these women who've got these little hooves and they're hobbling around and they can't walk, you say, wow, man, you know, the natural state of people's feet is really screwed up.
	No, no, it's not. It's just that's how it's been painfully, brutally molded.
	So... If you want to see human nature, just don't aggress against kids.
	Don't aggress against kids.
	And I can tell you, I mean, this is my parenting.
	This is my wife's parenting.
	We do not aggress against our child.
	We do not raise our voices. We do not hit.
	We do not threaten.
	We do not aggress.
	And she's a great, affectionate, fun, wild, beautiful spirit.
	And she negotiates, and you can reason with her, and you can She can defer gratification and, I mean, she's just perfect.
	And, of course, why wouldn't she be?
	Her body is perfect and her mind is perfect as well because it is not being aggressively interfered with in its natural development.
	And sorry, just to jump back to Adam for a sec because when I think of the word sex, of course, I naturally picture Adam Kokesh.
	But, Whatever competes for allegiance with the dominant power is always attacked by the dominant power, which is why religion is so hostile to sexuality, because sexuality is not religious.
	Sexuality is an implicit repudiation to religion because sexuality is the creation of life through somewhat meatier methods than God's magic hand and clay and breath and all that kind of stuff.
	It's a bit more earthy than that.
	And sexual passion, sexual desire, sexual love Is a form of allegiance that doesn't have anything to do with the dominant power or hierarchy that is.
	And of course, dancing is a form of ritualized sexual foreplay.
	And so, yeah, it's not to me too shocking that the hierarchies get down on the dancing.
	Because if you don't dance, you're no friend of mine.
	Somebody's asked, how is corruption not a factor in a state of society?
	What about special interests?
	Wouldn't there be, for example, the Ku Klux Klan DRO, also totally unrelated?
	How would Anarchy Bypass business compete with government subsidies or with protectionism?
	Well, as to your second point, it wouldn't.
	It wouldn't and it shouldn't.
	This is, again, one of these things that economists are pretty comfortable with, that if somebody else is – some other country is banning the sale of your products in that country, to retaliate is ridiculous, right?
	So an example that's been around for many years is let's say that Japan comes up with a cure for heart disease and America comes up with a cure for cancer.
	And then Japan says to America, well, you can't sell your cancer cure here.
	Does that mean that Americans shouldn't have access to the heart disease cure that the Japanese have created?
	Of course not. It would be insane to ban that.
	It's like, hey, you don't want the cure for cancer?
	No problem. I'm sorry about that, and I'm sorry for all the people who have cancer in Japan, but please sell us your cure.
	For heart disease, right?
	I mean, so that's just an example that I think clarifies things very quickly.
	To respond to protectionism with protectionism is just stupid.
	I mean, it's not stupid for the people who are benefiting from the retaliatory protectionism, and it's a form of, quote, negotiation, the best that states can probably do, but it doesn't make any sense to do it from a rational standpoint.
	As far as corruption goes, well, yeah, there'll be corruption in a Yeah, there'll be corruption in a free society, for sure.
	But corruption is economically inefficient, right?
	So corruption breeds where economic inefficiencies are not subject to the discipline of the market.
	So things like licenses and all that, I mean, there's nobody competing to give you a license.
	And so there's no incentive to keep the cost low.
	So wherever anything is shielded from the efficiency requirements of the free market, then there will inevitably be corruption in an ever-increasing way.
	And so the answer is to move as many things as possible and hopefully everything into the free market because corruption is an overhead.
	Corruption is something which gains a benefit for specific individuals by spreading costs to larger individuals, right?
	So let's say that you're a computer manufacturer of motherboards and you bribe some company to start using your motherboards, right?
	If that is the most economically efficient decision, then you don't need to bribe because the person is going to buy your stuff anyway.
	And so by bribing, you have created a situation where you're benefiting and the person you're bribing is benefiting at the expense of the general consumer.
	But in a free society, whatever you do that is at the expense of the general consumer is not sustainable in the long run because some other company that doesn't accept bribes and uses the highest or best quality components is going to be able to offer a better product to the customer.
	Or a cheaper product or a higher quality product.
	However you want to phrase it, that they're economically as efficient as possible.
	And so the way that bribery is opposed in a free society is through competition.
	And the companies that are corrupt will be less economically efficient, will provide worse solutions to their customers, and therefore they will either go out of business or they will no longer accept or deal with the corruption.
	And don't forget, you know, because we are close to the end of the month, if you don't mind the pitch, if you could go to freedomainradio.com forward slash donate, I would really, really appreciate it.
	It is expensive to run all of this stuff.
	Our server bandwidths are pretty monstrous.
	Certainly, my media appearances have increased traffic to the site.
	And for that, I thank everybody who supported in whatever capacity they have in the past.
	We are, of course, just about to go live with the new website.
	And that's taken some money to get up and running.
	And so I would really appreciate it.
	If you could, if you could, and if you, you know, obviously don't bite into any of your food money, but if you could either sign up for a cheap subscription, 10 bucks or 20 or 50 a month or throw some money my way, I would really, really appreciate it.
	That's enormously, enormously helpful.
	And of course it is all voluntary, so that's the way it is.
	What are your thoughts about all the Doomsday Talk 2012, Rapture Y2K? How do the controllers use this and how can we see?
	Well, I believe, I do believe, I believe that when people are talking about the world, 99 times out of 100, they don't have enough self-knowledge to know that they're talking about themselves.
	So when people talk about the doomsday talk, when they're talking about the world coming to an end, what they mean is that in some way in their own life, they're on an unsustainable course, a course which they cannot survive.
	And I don't mean physically, they're going to die, but maybe that could be the case.
	But they're on some course that is unsustainable.
	So they're in some relationship that they know is going to end, and it's going to be a disaster.
	Or they're getting into debt to the point where they can't get out of debt.
	Or they're in some field which is collapsing, or they're underwater in their house and they don't know how to get out.
	Or, or, or, or.
	And so when people start talking about the end of the world, what they basically mean is that their own Lives are unsustainable in some way, and they're projecting that on the world so that they don't have to deal with their own issues, right?
	I mean, it's sort of like, and I just did a podcast on this that I haven't released, but like the birthers, right?
	I mean, the birthers is like, you know, what does that translate to when they say that Barack Obama isn't born in the United States, so he's not a legitimate president?
	I guarantee you, I virtually guarantee you that most of them are people with stepdads saying, you're not my real dad.
	I don't have to listen to you.
	Yeah, it's nearly 500 people on the forum.
	Woohoo! Yeah, James, if you could throw up the link to donate, that would be fantastic.
	Yeah, you know, $20 a month.
	Like, that's $0.75 a day or $0.80 a day.
	That would be fantastic if you could.
	I mean, it really, really helps.
	I've had to buy, and I'm buying more equipment now for these interviews.
	I had to buy another webcam because the high-def webcams are really bad in Skype because Skype switches to high-def, which messes up the video halfway through.
	I had to buy another microphone because I need something more out of eyesight.
	I had to buy more lights to light things better if I do evening interviews.
	So yeah, it's a lot of stuff to pay for.
	So if you could help, that would be fantastic.
	Steph, I heard your voice in the last two months more than anyone else's.
	How is this affecting my brain?
	Well, I'm absolutely going to hope that you heard them in podcasts and not without any earphones in your ears whatsoever, because if you're hearing my voice without any earphones, you might want to get checked out for a brain virus that's kind of bald.
	So that would be my suggestion.
	Yeah, how's your hairline?
	That's right. Hello?
	Steph? I also have a question since you talk about the cameras.
	Do you have plans to start a camera show?
	We've done that before, but I'm not such a huge fan of it because I don't want to stand in front of a camera for two hours.
	It's not very comfortable. I like to pace around and this and that, so I don't know that there's a really good way to do a Sunday show.
	I did publish some that were me, but People don't want to just sit and watch me talking for a couple of hours, so maybe we will, but I don't think there's anything particularly imminent about that.
	But what are your thoughts on it? Well, I'm curious.
	I think it would be interesting to see.
	Yeah, I think it could be interesting.
	Yeah, I mean, gosh, two hours without picking my nose once.
	But it needs to be technically viable also, of course.
	I mean, as far as what's within the realm of possibility goes, that seems kind of like a challenge.
	So yeah, I was wondering also, maybe you don't want to talk about that in the initial, but like I want to buy a decent camera and I really studied your results. but like I want to buy a decent camera and And I was just planning to buy such a high definition camera for Skype and also to record my videos online.
	Yeah, if you're going to record videos on Skype, don't use a high-def camera.
	Skype starts off at 640x480, but if you have a high-def camera, a fast enough computer, and enough bandwidth, it will switch to high-definition.
	And that messes up your video recording because what you end up is with a frozen VGA top and bottom bars with the middle part in high def.
	And so you have to kind of zoom and tweak and do all this kind of crap.
	So if you're going to record video on Skype, you need to get, I would suggest, the highest quality VGA camera that you can.
	And after some research, I found it was about $100 HP Premium autofocus webcam, although the autofocus sucks because it keeps zooming in and out.
	But you can sort of set it by hand to something that makes sense.
	And that's what I've used on Max Keiser in the most recent Atom show.
	And it doesn't switch to high def, and the colors are fairly good, and so on.
	So that's my suggestion.
	Great.
	Could you type the mark of that camera in?
	I think it does do high def, but Skype doesn't know that, so it doesn't switch to it.
	That would be my suggestion.
	You're very welcome. Best of luck.
	Thanks, Steph. And thank you!
	Somebody just signed up for a $10 subscription.
	Woohoo! Food!
	Everything! Lovely! I was just thinking about what you were saying about religion and sexuality, just sort of mapping it to my own experience.
	What I've sort of come up with is that religion, at least in my history, is less about, because I wasn't raised from birth with it, it's more about my father being kind of nuts around it.
	I mean, my father also was really nuts about sexuality and that didn't really have anything to do with religion per se.
	And so my experience of those two things is more about control and forcing through various means.
	Like, if you don't believe, you'll get kicked out of the house.
	That was the implicit message I got from my father's religiosity.
	I think that meshes with what you were saying about religion, although for me it's just more about direct control over every minute detail of your life.
	So you mean that it's just a way of controlling what people think?
	And given that sexuality is such a strong part of what people think, particularly as teenagers, and I'm still waiting for that teenage phase to end, but it's just a way of controlling people, is that right?
	It's just, at least for me and my experience, and this doesn't mean it's like the general rule or anything like that, but yeah, all about coming down to controlling, not necessarily for the sake of controlling because there's a lot of anxiety goes behind that too.
	but, I mean, yeah, just controlling what's going on.
	Yeah, there's that old statement that says, a house divided against the self cannot stand, and this is very true.
	If you can get people to wage war against their deepest instincts, then you defeat their capacity to look critically at a hierarchy, right?
	So, if you can get someone to turn against his sexuality, Then he's going to be spending forever fussing about whether he wants to masturbate or whether he pictured somebody naked and whether that's infidelity and, you know, his sexual impulses are all bad and wrong and he ends up fussing and going in tiny little circles.
	He can't ever look up at the powers that be and question their legitimacy.
	So, you know, a healthy relationship with sexuality is in some ways, I think, pretty essential to a productive relationship with authority.
	In other words, a skeptical and critical relationship with authority.
	Because if you're bullying and bossing yourself for something that you can't solve, You may bully and boss yourself to some degree about, I don't know, quitting smoking, but you can quit smoking if you can't stop thinking about sex and you can't stop having sexual impulses or being turned on by stuff.
	And so what people want you to do is to have a dysfunctional relationship with your basic instincts.
	And those instincts are things like sex and eating and things like that.
	And so they want you to wage war against yourself and And count calories rather than count the crimes of the powers that be.
	And that essentially takes you out of the ring of any productive social change.
	Yeah, if you recall our first conversation, I had a very – the first place I went to when it came to my childhood was not the crimes that I've committed, but some – I mean almost obscure sort of thing about vegetarianism, which had very tangentially related –
	yeah, very tangentially related to – It's not unrelated.
	It's part of the picture, but it's not the big crime.
	It's not the...
	Like I said, fucked up sexuality and religion and food.
	I mean, that's part of it, but there's so much more that you actually, you know, I don't have to go through the list.
	That's a very good clarification.
	Thank you. I appreciate that. No, it makes sense.
	It makes sense. So I interpreted doomsday to death of something.
	How would you interpret anarchism?
	That's a good question. I am happy to answer that, but I don't want to eclipse whatever else people might be talking about.
	If we had any other questions or comments in the chat room or live, I'm happy to entertain them as best I can.
	Oh, and listen, if you do enjoy my appearances on these television shows, and if you wouldn't mind, you know, maybe you don't have any money to donate, that's perfectly fine.
	Or maybe you just don't want to, which is also perfectly fine.
	But if you wouldn't mind dropping a line to Max Keiser at MaxKeiser.com or to Adam and saying, dude, you know, that was great.
	Thanks for having him on. Or maybe whoever you like, Alex Jones, whoever you like.
	That's helpful. I think that's useful for people to get that kind of feedback.
	and it certainly is helpful and raises the odds of me going back.
	Jeff, can I ask another question about your technology?
	Sure.
	Yeah, I think your voice quality is excellent in the podcasts, but I'm wondering, are you like for the Max Keiser show?
	No, I try as much as I can to use.
	I have a very good microphone that I picked up that was pretty expensive, about 200 bucks.

▲