Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 14, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

02:08:42

1975 Freedomain Radio Sunday Show, August 14, 2011

How to forgive the religious, avoiding the nausea of clear vision, the decaying of illusion of materialism, and more philosophical parenting!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, good afternoon, everybody.
	It's DeBan Molyneux from the radio of Freedom Domaining.
	It is the 14th of August to 2.06pm.
	Just under a month, I guess, I will be speaking in New York.
	New York! September the 10th at Liberty Fest 2 with Tom Woods, Adam Kokesh and Luminaries Aplenty.
	So I hope that you can join there.
	You can check out Libertopia.org.
	I will be the master of ceremonies there, which I believe comes with a cape and tights and that's all.
	A belt, I believe, that I can put just about anywhere.
	And I'll leave it to your imagination.
	And with any luck, it will only stay in your imagination.
	But I hope you will drop by there.
	So, interesting this week.
	The Straw Paul.
	The Straw Paul in Iowa.
	It was quite fascinating.
	Michelle Bachman, one, but very close behind her, was Ron Paul.
	And that was really quite fascinating.
	And just out of curiosity, just out of curiosity, I thought that I would have a look at the news stories to do with this.
	Because they talk about a lot of stuff to do with Michelle Bachman.
	And I thought it was interesting to have a look and see what people would say about Ron Paul coming so close behind her and far ahead of just about anybody else.
	I thought that was really interesting.
	And I have looked at probably 10 to 15 articles.
	And the only thing that I could find was it said here, Paul, 75, benefited from committed supporters drawn to his fiscal policy.
	Which calls for a return of linking the dollar to gold and a non-interventionist foreign policy that is the basis for his opposition to the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
	And, I mean, that's the least, I mean, that's important stuff, but of course he's against the income tax.
	He wants to repeal most of the federal government, and, you know, as he points out, the income tax is mostly going to pay interest on the debt, so it's not even going to any particular services.
	But what there was was a resounding echo of nothingness in terms of any kind of policies to do with Ron Paul.
	And I know the straw poll, I mean, McCain wasn't in it, and then he won the nomination, and people feel that Ron Paul is not nominatable.
	But I thought it was interesting, kind of predictable, but interesting, the degree to which no policy, none of Ron Paul's policies were actually discussed in any way, shape, or form, except for this one mentioned without any context at all.
	And I think that's very interesting.
	I think that's very interesting.
	Bachman had 48-23.
	Ron Paul had 46-21.
	And Paul Entey had 22-93.
	I mean, yeah, so like another 200, 180 or whatever, Ron Paul would have won.
	And you still wouldn't have seen anything about his policies.
	He would have been called a libertarian.
	He would have been called an extremist, perhaps.
	But I think that's really important to just notice that...
	There is no discussion of any kind of policy that's going on in anything, anywhere.
	There's no discussion of any policy.
	There's snippy stuff, there's snappy stuff, there's labels that are added, but people really can't think in this way.
	And I think that's really, really important to remember, particularly in the States, but Lord knows we're not going to be able to escape it anywhere, going into this cycle of...
	News for the 2012 presidential election.
	And there's not going to be anything of substance.
	There's not going to be anything of any intelligence.
	There's going to be snippy stuff. There's going to be, you know, Ron Paul, if he gets anywhere, is going to want, you know, to serve homeless people in a bagel to bankers for lunch or brunch, perhaps.
	But there's not going to be anything intelligent.
	So I just wanted to mention that.
	And so...
	Let's get on with the show.
	It's your show. I don't have anything particular monstrous to add at the moment, but I just wanted to turn it over to the brilliant Heaven Sent listeners.
	Do we have anybody on the line?
	We most certainly do.
	Free for all. Go for it.
	Thanks. Hey, Steph.
	Long time no talk. Hey, how's it going, man?
	Yeah. I had two questions.
	One was personal, one was something I can let you go on a speech about.
	You're assuming that the personal one is not going to include a speech.
	That's optimistic, and I applaud you for that.
	So, recently, and this came up again, I was just going to kind of sit there with it and journal about it and stuff like that, but recently, a really close friend of mine Was talking to this religious woman outside her apartment.
	She lives right next to a church.
	And the way she talked about it, she seemed kind of relaxed and relaxed about it.
	And she's had a history of...
	She's been religious before, but now she's an atheist.
	But she seems so relaxed and comfortable talking to a religious person and She seems really relaxed and comfortable singing religious songs because she likes to sing.
	In some way, I wonder why I feel so uncomfortable about it.
	I feel really anxious about it and exasperated around religious people and the idea of singing religious songs and hearing them again after growing up with them.
	And then the other night, there was a guy in the park.
	We were all there at the park.
	And there was a guy there speaking through a megaphone against homosexuality and saying that everybody's going to go to hell and saying repent and all that stuff.
	And everybody was booing him around the whole thing.
	Inner circle of the park where he was shouting through the megaphone.
	And James, I think, had a better idea of just not going anywhere near him.
	But I had this strong urge to engage.
	And I didn't engage him, but I felt...
	I just feel a lot of exasperation and anxiety around...
	Anything religious, and I guess to just get to the crux of my question, it may be a two-fold question, but when I think about your points that you made in the Bomb and the Brain series,
	and I have a lot of trouble feeling sympathy Instead, I feel exaggeration and anger and some rage, still, even now, towards people who are just not getting it.
	Because when you made the argument that they were traumatized in their childhood, I was traumatized in my childhood.
	And I chose to change my mind and value, reason, and evidence, and they didn't choose that.
	And so I have trouble with the idea.
	You had a call a long time ago where you talked about the lack of sympathy the caller had for himself.
	And that's why he couldn't empathize with the people who just don't get it.
	But... I have trouble with that.
	I have a lot of trouble sympathizing with these people.
	Now, by these people, do you mean the guy who was ranting against homosexuality in the park?
	Him and any religious person who still believes this nonsense, you know?
	Like, in the 21st century, there's still...
	Right. And, yeah, they were traumatized.
	They were indoctrinated as children.
	I understand that, but so was I. Right.
	And so...
	Why do you... Okay, but do you have a...
	Do you have a should in your head about how you should?
	Like, what do you think would be the ideal, most mature, most philosophical, most floating-on-the-cloud-of-high-wisdom response to some religious thing like this, which is pretty...
	I don't know, the degree to which I'd call it extreme.
	I mean, the Bible certainly does command followers to put homosexuals and unbelievers and sorcerers and witches and all to death.
	But this kind of literal...
	Screaming against homosexuals in the park is fairly extreme, I would think, probably even for most Christians.
	But do you have a should?
	Like, if I were at the summit of wisdom, I would feel X towards this person.
	Do you have something like that? Yeah, I would feel like my friend does.
	And your friend feels sympathy?
	Sympathy and...
	She feels more relaxed around the idea, and she thinks it's funny, but also has sympathy for these people and understanding about their history and where it all came from.
	That's my perspective of what I'm observing.
	She may not have all these...
	Maybe she's divided as well, but on the outside, I get that she's Relaxed about the idea.
	She's comfortable going into a church.
	She's comfortable, you know.
	And is it because she feels, but why?
	The feeling has to come from somewhere, right?
	So what is her belief that she has about these people that gives her this, as you say, relaxed state of mind?
	That I don't know. I probably have to ask her.
	Yeah, see, that would ask, right?
	Because I think there's logical ways that you can look at Analyzing this, that's not necessarily going to give you any kind of final answer.
	But I think that it's reasonable to say that if you believe that people are helpless in the face of the stimulus that they receive, or some people are helpless in the face of the stimulus that they receive, then you're going to feel sympathy for victims of ideologies or religions, right? Right.
	Does that sort of matter? Not exactly, no.
	Okay, well, let's say there's a 10-year-old kid in Russia in 1958 who's been raised in Stalinist daycare with Stalinist propaganda and communist propaganda and all this, that and the other, right? Right.
	I don't think that you and I would say that kid is bad for believing in communism, right?
	No, and I would have more sympathy for him because he doesn't have access to, A, other people's propaganda, B, evidence to the contrary, which is widespread, all over the internet, everywhere, bookstores, everywhere.
	No, I agree with you.
	I agree with you. Let's just delineate the two possibilities first, though, right?
	And in the same way, to take an even more extreme example, so some kid raised in the Hitler Youth is like, gosh, poor kid, right?
	Right. That's terrible.
	Yeah, it is terrible. And so if he's a Nazi when he's 10, we actually look more towards those who are indoctrinating him rather than he himself, right?
	Does that sort of make sense? Right.
	Okay. And so it has to do with our perception of free will.
	Now, those people who deny free will as a whole tend to have more sympathy for people who have bad ideas, right?
	Because those bad ideas were just kind of injected into them, right?
	Right.
	And so they're not really – people just respond to stimuli.
	And if they just never came across the atheist stimuli or the agnostic stimuli or the science – more science-y kind of stimuli – Then it's like, well, okay, well, so that person was never exposed to Gaelic, and therefore I guess they don't speak Gaelic.
	That's a shame, right? Right.
	So that's one...
	Now, the problem is, of course...
	Well, the problem is that if you feel more condemnatory towards these kinds of people, what would your friend say, do you think?
	Um... We've talked about it, um...
	Well, what does she say? She said that I should ponder about it, journal about it, and try and figure out what it is that's different about me versus her.
	Well, but see, that's very interesting, right?
	So the guy who's screaming his hatred of homosexuals is somebody to be sympathized with and understood, right?
	She's not going up and correcting him, right?
	No, she wasn't.
	She was... Like, poor guy, what a terrible experience.
	He must have had to end up with this way, blah, blah, blah, right?
	Right, and I didn't ask her how she felt when that guy was doing that.
	No, no, I got it, but let's just go back to the point that I'm trying to make, which doesn't mean that we can't stand your point.
	I just want to make sure this point gets across, right?
	Right. So he should not change because he's to be pitied, or whatever, for how his mind has come to be, right?
	Right. Right. But you should ideally change, right?
	Right, I should have pity for a guy like this.
	Right, right. So the question then is, well, why is my dislike of this guy in a different category from his dislike of homosexuals?
	Like, why do you have pity for him, and understanding for him, and sympathy for him, but I... And he doesn't have to change in a sense because he has no choice in the matter, but I... And I'm not saying she's being critical, she may be being very sympathetic towards you, but you understand these are two different categories, right?
	Right, and I don't think this is any...
	Yeah, there's no criticism coming from her about it.
	But it's coming from inside me, and it's me comparing myself to her and wondering what the hell...
	When you were talking about the kids that are being subjected to this, and I... I talked to her about this the other day, and it's like, I have a lot of sympathy for people under 18 who are religious.
	But the moment they're over a certain age, where they're outside the family now, they're in college or something, then my sympathy starts to dwindle.
	If they're in their late 20s or early 30s, I start to really have a lot Less respect or sympathy for them.
	Sure. Because the information is widely available, they're not being forced and indoctrinated at this point, and if they're not seeing all this information, then I just can't feel sympathy.
	I don't feel sympathy.
	I don't know that I can feel, maybe I can, but...
	Right, right.
	I, you know, I don't know that there's an objective, right way to respond to this kind of stuff.
	Right, so I wouldn't necessarily say that your friend's tolerance is better than your indignation.
	Right. Right?
	Right. I'm not sure, because it really depends on stuff that may be outside of our knowledge.
	So if you found out that this guy used to be a scientist-atheist, but now he has a brain tumor, you would not feel the same kind of indignation, right?
	No, then I'd realize, oh, that's just the brain tumor.
	Okay. He has no choice.
	There's no free will there.
	Emotional impulses were so strong that his odds of coming to some sort of rational life were significantly diminished.
	You would feel more sympathy than you would indignation, right?
	Possibly. Then it comes to comparing his childhood to mine.
	And scientifically we know that there is some relevance to that, right?
	In other words, we know that more adverse childhood experiences lead proportionately, in a dose-dependent kind of way, to more problematic things, to put it mildly, in adult life, right?
	Right, for sure. So if this guy had been brought up in some satanic cult and repeatedly raped and starved and beaten and this and that, we would say, wow, that is a really shitty place to start.
	And you may find some Empathy or at least some empathy, if not sympathy, for his experience.
	Right. Now, the problem is, of course, that we can't find out everything about this stuff, right?
	Right. And so there is some...
	We can't hold him to the standard of, let's take another ridiculous example, right?
	I'm sorry, those probably aren't all ridiculous, but let's take an example and say, okay, this guy was a rationalist philosopher, but because he found some woman really attractive who was Christian, he decided to go to church just to get into her pants, and then he found there were lots of other women there who would have sex for Jesus or something.
	I don't know what I know, right?
	And sort of bit by bit, he sort of dissolved his brain in his pursuit of lusty Christian women or whatever, right?
	And then he ended up this way.
	We'd probably say, well, I have slightly less sympathy for that, right?
	Right, right.
	So, but how are you ever going to know that when you just go up and talk to some guy?
	Like, you just see some guy yelling in a park.
	You're not going to know. The degree of childhood trauma versus adult decisions, whether he was exposed to different kinds of information, whether he has some sort of brain disease or injury, who knows, right?
	Right. And so that's different from, say, if you look at your parents, say, then you have much more information than you do about some guy in a park, right?
	Right. So you can make, I think, much more informed judgments about, say, your parents' moral responsibility with regard to something like religiosity than you can some stranger.
	I mean, you have much more information, right?
	Right. And so I would focus on getting comfortable with the judgments that you have about the people you have the most information about.
	If that makes sense. Because you have some...
	You know, otherwise it's like instead of having all the knowledge, it's like I say to you, stranger, guilty or innocent.
	You're like, I don't know. Right?
	I don't know. I don't know, right?
	But there are things that you do know about your own history or people in your life and, of course, about yourself, right?
	Right. I mean, if I had not been exposed to Ayn Rand and through that developed a love of philosophy or...
	If you had not been exposed to the various influences that you were exposed to, or if I had been born in the 17th century, or you'd been born in the 8th century, or something like that, or we'd both been born in Mogadishu, or something, right?
	I mean, we would be very different.
	Very different people. Yeah, that's the thing.
	You know, this is the 21st century.
	Right. So I'm not saying that...
	A guy born without legs cannot be a hurdler, but that doesn't mean that everyone who's born with legs has the same level of competence, right?
	So there are people, and I think you and I are in that number, at least I hope we are, there are people who try to make something good out of even difficult origins or difficult situations, who try to do the right thing even in the face of sometimes significant opposition and all this kind of stuff, right? And I think that we can take some pride in that.
	I think we can because the world doesn't advance in any inexorable way.
	It's not like, you know, a mountain will slowly decay and fall down to the ground or to the sea.
	That is natural, right?
	Solar systems will form if there's a star and significant mass and gravity and so on.
	Those are just unfolding things.
	But the moral advancement of society is something that has to be willed in sometimes a teeth-gritting way by individuals, right?
	So I think that if we make the right decision, if we do the right thing, despite its opposition, I think there's something to be proud of.
	Now, there's also something to be humble about, which is we happen to be in that position.
	We're internet-enabled.
	We have access to all of the great works of philosophy and literature at the click of a button or at least a walk to the library.
	And so we have amazing opportunities, which is great.
	That doesn't mean that we become good or great people, but it means that we have a necessary but not sufficient opportunity.
	A necessary but not sufficient criteria for achievement of that.
	So I think that we have something to be proud of.
	Now, the moment that we have something to be proud of, we also...
	This is just like, you know, the moment you put up a statue, you get a shadow.
	The moment you have something to be proud of, you will automatically become critical.
	That's inevitable, right?
	If it's up to you to lose weight and you've lost the weight and you're proud of losing weight...
	Then somebody else who's in a similar situation who doesn't lose weight, you can be critical of that person.
	Like I was reading, one out of five diabetes sufferers in the US would rather have medication than change anything to do with their diet or their exercise regimen.
	Well, yeah, I think that's sort of problematic.
	So, pride and criticism go hand in hand.
	Because if we have nothing to be proud of, if we have no free will, we have nothing to be proud of, And therefore we can't criticize anyone.
	So self-esteem, pride is an aspect of self-esteem, self-esteem and criticism go hand in hand.
	I don't think you can have good self-esteem without at least the capacity to criticize others because self-esteem is being justly proud of your difficult accomplishments and that automatically comes with a negative judgment towards those in similar situations who've chosen badly and continue to choose badly.
	And of course, We don't know.
	This guy in the corner, it could have been a sudden, he hit by lightning, scrambled his brain.
	It could have been. There's an old Spanish proverb that says, habits begin as cobwebs and end as shackles.
	So they begin, they're very little, very light.
	You can keep moving. You can do all of this great stuff.
	Then eventually, they get harder and harder, and then you're in a straitjacket, and then you're in an iron maiden, and then you lay down at a concrete tomb as it hardens over you.
	And... So yeah, I just wanted to point out that to me, self-esteem has something to do with just pride in accomplishments and the difficulty of particularly working in the moral sphere, which can be quite volatile.
	I think that's good.
	And naturally, that is going to come with criticism of those who choose badly.
	Given that a lot of the world does choose badly and often resents better choices being presented because then it highlights the choice and the results of those choices.
	It can be a steep and slippery slope to a seemingly bottomless chasm to get into sort of mentally castigating people who make bad choices.
	So I try to focus on the happiness that I have about making good choices and criticisms that I have about myself about making bad choices rather than focus on the bad choices of the majority of mankind because I think that's just going to Have me spitting venom like a shaken cobra every 10 seconds.
	I can see how that might be helpful if the fact that my choices didn't...
	I think what made...
	Something clicked there when you said that.
	What my choices have done as far as the vast majority of society is that...
	It has distanced me from all those people and I think that's part of what's so exasperating for me is that since they don't have the courage to make these choices I'm sort of left further away from everyone else and it's isolating and it's frustrating for me Because they're being...
	In the face, with the knowledge that exists in the 21st century, to me, they're being cowards.
	They're just...
	I think that I'm justified in calling them cowards because we're in the 21st century, there's a lot of knowledge around that's never been around before, and...
	Because I'm choosing to accept things that are true instead of believing the short-term gain of things that are false, then it's distancing me from the world.
	From the world?
	No, no, no, no. It's bringing you closer to the world.
	It's distancing you from error.
	But you understand what I mean.
	It's distancing me from everyone else.
	I mean, not my friends, of course, but, like, it's bringing me closer to my friends.
	Right, right. But you see, this is how society attempts to seal off the thinker, right?
	So society will attempt to provoke the thinker into misanthropy, into disgust, into what Nietzsche called nausea.
	Right. A society that behaves badly...
	I'm trying to think of a good way to put this.
	It is going to attempt to provoke disgust in you, so that when people look at you, they say, a knowledge of the truth equals unhappiness and disgust.
	Therefore, I will avoid the truth in the same way that I would avoid having somebody dump a maggot on my steak.
	Yeah, like the house thing.
	And it is, I mean, philosopher after philosopher, thinker after thinker succumbs to this.
	And it's a tough thing, right?
	It's a tough thing to see.
	And so people will...
	And it's not just the people who are yelling about gays in the park.
	It's people who excuse them and who will say, well, he's not responsible for his actions and you should change your way of approaching it.
	I'm not talking about your friend in particular because I don't want to say she's not your friend or anything.
	I don't know anything about the relationship.
	But the important thing to remember is that to provoke disgust In the man or the woman of clear vision is a way of warning other people about the price of wisdom.
	If you pursue wisdom, you society will make you throw up.
	And you want to keep your food down, don't you?
	So maybe wisdom isn't to be for you.
	Right. It's a way of sealing off The thinker.
	Not by responding to the thinker's arguments, right?
	Who does that, right?
	I mean, how many articles have I read about Ayn Rand over the past couple of years, particularly with what's happening in the world and the anniversary of Atlas Shrugged and so on.
	And, you know, they call her all sorts of names, but they don't actually...
	I've not seen one single article where anybody addresses her actual arguments, of course, right?
	Unless it's a straw man, in which case it's not her argument.
	Well, no, not even a straw man.
	I haven't even seen that. Oh, you know, she had an affair with one of her followers and she took Medicare when she got lung cancer.
	And, I don't know, like she ran a collective or just all of the crap, but none of that has anything to do with the arguments that are put forward.
	Right. And the goal, of course, is to embitter the truth-teller.
	And to provoke the truth-teller into lashing out.
	And then they can say, well, that Nate guy, I mean, he's just perpetually angry.
	And therefore, I can dismiss all of his arguments.
	What a relief. I've experienced, yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about.
	And look, I'm not saying don't feel what you feel.
	I'm just saying that it's part of a strategy.
	People are desperate to dismiss what the thinker says for two reasons.
	One is that a lot of them can't think, and that's a very humiliating thing to be in, right?
	It's a very humiliating position to be in, and it tells them everything they really need to know about their culture, their education, their society, and so on.
	So people have huge amounts of difficulty thinking.
	And then they have to say, well, why do I have difficulty thinking?
	Because I sure as hell wasn't born that way.
	My daughter is an incredibly logical thinker.
	Very precise. It's as innate to her as learning how far it is from the ottoman to the couch for jumping.
	And say, well, okay, so why...
	Was I crippled? I was born knowing how to think.
	I can't think now.
	What the fuck happened?
	And why? Well, that's a terrifying ledge to step up to, right?
	So, they don't want to evaluate the arguments because they realize that they lack the tools to.
	Right? Like the goose that has its wings clipped.
	So it can't fly because it's in a farm.
	Doesn't want to join the wild goose through a flight because deep down they know they can't fly but they don't want to know that they can't fly because then they see why they can't fly and then they see that their wings were clipped and then they see that they're on a farm and then they see their destination and they're not happy with that.
	So they just want to avoid the whole topic so that they don't find out that the wings are clipped which leads them to the why.
	So that's one. And the second thing is that even if they can't think, then they will look at the arguments of the thinker.
	They may find flaws.
	They may agree. They may disagree.
	But then they're then in a situation in a, you know, that slippery slope that leads down to self-actualization, to authenticity, that lifts the veil of culture from the reality of society.
	And, you know, people for...
	A variety of, I would say, often quite sensible reasons from a sort of short-term perspective.
	They don't want to do that.
	But can I call them cowards for not doing it?
	Because I've done it. And maybe that's too strong.
	But because they're not doing it, it still affects my life in some way.
	Yeah, look, I mean, but coward is a spectrum, right?
	I mean, coward is not one of these black and white terms.
	So, you know, I get letters, emails from people who say, I'm an atheist caring for my mom in a small Christian town.
	I can't leave because my mom's sick and I, you know, I love her and I want to take care of her.
	Yay. Yay. And I can't be open about my atheism.
	I have to... I mean, it's really tough.
	And I have a lot of sympathy for people like that.
	I think that's a very hard situation to be in, right?
	Atheism is the new game. For some reason, I have a hard time calling that guy a coward.
	I don't know why, but...
	Right. Well, I mean, I think that caring for a parent that you love is more important than getting into arguments with religious people.
	Right. In my opinion, right?
	I mean, we all have to make challenges...
	Sorry, we all have to make compromises.
	To get by in this world.
	And I'm not going to say to anybody.
	I mean, people say to me, Steph, do you pay your taxes?
	Well, if you do, you're a hypocrite. Well, yeah, I pay my taxes.
	I obey the law. I do.
	Yeah, not engaging crazy is not cowardice, I don't think.
	Right. So there's sort of one example.
	On the other hand, there may be some...
	I don't know, a professor of biology who may face some disapproval from other professors in his university if he were to come out strongly in favor of evolution and openly and so on.
	And, you know, if that person punks out even though he can't be fired and all he's facing is some social disapproval, well, I think that's more cowardly.
	On the other hand, if...
	If his daughter is sick with leukemia and he's got enough stress on his plate and he's just, you know, he's like, I'm not taking on this fight because I've got this fight that's much more important, then I'm going to be like, yeah, okay, go take care of your daughter, of course, right?
	Right. So it's complicated, that's all I'm saying.
	And I'm not saying it's complicated in all cases, but it's a tough label to just sort of scatter shoot Something like Coward, right?
	Just sort of load it up in the shotgun, put a blindfold on and say, well, I'm sure I'm going to hit someone fairly, right?
	Right. So you're saying withhold my judgment until further information?
	Well, see, you're looking for an answer, right?
	Yes, I am. I'd like something to do.
	Do you have any homework for me?
	Well... I think that if you can come to a conclusion about the people in your life whose religiosity did you real harm, then I think that would give you some peace because what you don't want is to say, well, you know, I think it was your parents, right?
	My parents' religiosity did me harm and therefore, you know, people who are religious are like my parents and are doing great harm to the same degree and so on, right?
	Well, I don't know. I don't know that that's true.
	I mean, I certainly wouldn't argue that some religious person who's written a great book on economics is doing the same harm as someone who beats their kid to drive Satan out, right? Right.
	So just make sure you're not projecting your experience or your feelings about your parents onto the world as a whole, because that, I think, would be an example of casting the net too wide, a kind of injustice.
	Like, my parents were this way.
	They were religious. All religious people remind me of my parents, and therefore I'm going to have those same feelings.
	I think that may be too broad or projected a response, if that makes any sense.
	Does it make sense that after, what, five years of therapy now, and maybe the last three years are really intensive, that I would still be projecting my parents onto other people?
	Well, I don't know.
	That's something that you'd have to figure out.
	I think it's possible. I think that to remember that there's a nuance in a lot of things is a stage of wisdom that I find tough, right?
	I mean, like most thinkers, I want to carve things into black and white.
	And there are situations where I think that's appropriate, but there are situations where that is not.
	Right. I mean, so to take two different examples, right?
	So let's say there's some 90-year-old spinster woman Who believes in God or is a Christian or whatever and she never had any kids.
	She doesn't teach kids about religion.
	She's old and facing her own mortality and so on.
	That is not religiosity that is doing an enormous amount of harm in the world as a whole and that is religiosity that's going to end when that woman ends.
	If you contrast that To the people in, I think it's Richard Dawkins' Enemies of Reason, these guys who go around the country with these terrifying shows about hell, which they aim at children.
	Well, those are two very different categories of religiosity, right?
	Right, one is perpetuating it, the other one is just tapering off.
	Right, right.
	Right. And I don't think that we would want to sort of have the same level of indignation for both situations.
	Right. And again, I'm just trying to point out that there's complexity in this.
	So let's take another example.
	A parent who teaches their child that there's a higher power Not necessarily Jesus died for your sins and blah blah blah, but there's a higher power and we'll occasionally try to find comfort or solace in that higher power or whatever.
	That's sort of a quasi-religious or religious type of approach to communicating something about the universe to a child.
	That's sort of one example. Another example is an atheist who beats his children.
	Yeah, the atheist I would have a lot more indignation towards.
	Right. Right. So, again, you don't want to sort of have, you want to have a dial that goes up and down, right?
	It's just, it's not an on-off switch.
	I guess you want a dimmer switch.
	You don't just want the on or off switch, right?
	Because there's complexities in a wide variety of situations, right?
	Yeah, I have a part of me that just, that is an on-off switch.
	Sure, I understand that.
	And that seems to, to my perspective, Amateur understanding of it seems to come out of trauma.
	Trauma results in black and white thinking.
	Just as, you know, fight or flight.
	Fight or flight is not flight with a little bit of fight or fight with a little bit of flight, but it's binary, right?
	Situations of stress and anxiety tend to produce binary responses, right?
	Some guy comes running at you with a chainsaw, you know, you have two options, right?
	You fight or you run.
	Right. So binary thinking tends to come out of trauma, and I think is something that we want to...
	I mean, we can't eliminate it, and I don't think we should.
	Right? I mean, if a church moves a pedophile priest to some new diocese because they don't want to get in trouble, that's just...
	I mean, that's not a shade of gray situation, right?
	Right.
	Hmm.
	But I think we want to save our indignation for, like our genuine indignation, Just remember, it's a dial, right?
	Now, look, a guy screaming out hatred of homosexuals in a park?
	Absolutely. That's horrible.
	It's horrendous. I mean, imagine if he said, you know, we should gas the Jews.
	I mean, people would be like, oh my God, right?
	Right. I thought it was great that he was kind of on his own.
	There was one guy with him and everyone else around him was booing him, which is nice to know I live in a nice liberal area, but of course they're all statist, but...
	And remember, look, I mean, at least in the West, religion is a fading force.
	I mean, I know it doesn't feel that way to people who were brought up religious, but it is a fading force.
	And the estimates, sort of in two generations, religion is going to be virtually extinct in the West.
	So, you know, if this thing's already falling over, we don't have to put a lot of back sweat in to push it.
	Right. And I'll just say one other thing, and I'm sorry, I know we've spent a lot of time on this, but there's certainly been some interest in it in the chat room, and I appreciate you bringing it up, because it's a big topic, and I hope you understand.
	I'm not giving you any clear answers, because I struggle with this stuff, too.
	So I hope that you're not thinking, like, ah, you know, Steph is giving me the instructions, but I can't read them.
	No, it's a tough thing.
	It's a tough battle.
	But I would also ensure...
	So if your friend comes to you and says, you know, well, you seem to really be bothered by this guy or whatever, right?
	Then, yeah, okay, that's interesting.
	So you can focus on your emotional reaction to the guy.
	I think that's important, right? But I think it's also important to explore your friend's feelings about you being bothered by it.
	Right. Don't go on the couch, so to speak.
	Both sit on the couch.
	You know, it's that sort of psychoanalytic metaphor or whatever, right?
	Like if you're going to... Explore self-knowledge, then I would explore it in a mutual context.
	I think that's the best way to sustain friendships of that kind.
	Yeah, and this is probably one of the best friendships I've ever had.
	I mean, I'm among some of the most intelligent people that I've ever met in my life.
	I mean, James, you're included there, and I just really enjoy being in this for not to...
	Not to jab at James, but this community thing we have, whether we have a quote-unquote community or not, that it's a great bunch of highly intelligent friends and she's among them and she's She's really incredible.
	I don't think she's being critical of me about it.
	I think I'm being critical of myself about it.
	Fantastic. Well, I want to hugely, uh, you know, applaud you for that friendship.
	I think that's wonderful, you know, treasure it, keep it close.
	Uh, and, uh, I hope that, uh, I hope that works out.
	And, uh, just to send you off onto a speech and I'll, um, um, I guess, uh, I've got other things I can do, but, um, but thanks so much.
	Um, If no one else wants to talk, I wanted to leave you with a question that you can answer later or maybe in your own podcast.
	It's about the guy you've been doing a couple of interviews with, the economics guy, the guy that's living down in South America somewhere.
	Jeff Berwick? Oh, Doug Casey?
	Doug Casey, that's the guy.
	Yes. I have trouble understanding why if the state collapses and why if the dollar collapses, why toilet paper will be in such demand.
	Why is it so hard to make toilet paper?
	If people already have the resources to make it, why won't they just continue making it?
	It's not just paper, but I don't understand why anything will...
	I can understand maybe a shift in things and maybe it'll be uncomfortable, but I don't see why...
	It's going to be some kind of...
	Why there would be shortages.
	Armageddon. Yeah, why there would be shortages.
	Right. I think I can answer...
	I'm not going to answer for Doug Casey because I'm not going to pretend to, but I will answer what I think of the case.
	The case is not...
	Okay, so if the state goes through some significant contraction or the economy goes through some significant contraction, it could all be solved in 6 to 12 months based on history, but that would mean the government would have to let The allocation of capital follow actual consumer demand.
	And so the concern is that if the economy goes south, that the government is going to rush in with things like price controls and Directive 289 or whatever it was from Atlas Shrugs.
	You can't fire people.
	You can't hire people.
	You have to produce exactly what you produced last month.
	They're going to try and freeze everything in place, right?
	Like a man trying to grab every fish coming out of a broken net.
	And that is going to result in shortages.
	So, look, if the government collapses and vanishes, then we'll have a great booming economy in six months, and all the children will be well-educated in about a week and a half, or starting in about a week and a half.
	But if the government views a deteriorating economy as an excuse or a reason to impose further controls on the economy, then you're going to see shortages.
	They're going to put on price controls, and price controls inevitably lead to shortages.
	They're going to restrict hiring and firing, and that is automatically going to lead to a misallocation of resources.
	I mean, imagine, just imagine, right?
	More than 10% of American houses stand empty.
	Imagine how much wealthier everyone would be if all of the energy and labor and materials and capital that went into building those houses had actually been invested in improvements in productivity that people wanted.
	Well, that would be a couple of points of true GDP growth.
	I'm quite positive, probably five to seven.
	So that's just sort of one tiny example.
	So if the government continues to expand its power as the economy deteriorates, that's what you're going to get shortages.
	Okay, there was step one, state collapse.
	Step three, Short it is.
	I never understood Step 2, so that fills it in.
	That's right. All right.
	So, I think we got another caller or two.
	Yes, the Sleepy Salsa.
	Yes, hi. Thanks for having me.
	My pleasure. How are you doing, man?
	I'm doing well, Steph.
	It's nice to be back on your show and whatnot.
	I know there's a bunch of people coming after me, so I will attempt and be as brief as I possibly can.
	I wanted to ask, for those individuals who can't afford a therapist, how effective is self-therapy, relatively speaking, vis-a-vis each other?
	Well, I think that it certainly doesn't hurt.
	My opinion. I did a lot of self-therapy before I went to therapy, and I achieved some good stuff out of that.
	But what I did find is that it made me faster in terms of therapy, in terms of really dealing with some core issues.
	So yeah, look, I think keeping a journal is good.
	I think trying to figure out your dreams is good.
	I think the pursuit of self-knowledge is always an important thing.
	And it's not like my pursuit of self-knowledge ended the day I finished therapy.
	I mean, it has continued...
	It has continued since then.
	And so I think if you can't afford a personal trainer, that doesn't mean you shouldn't lift any weights.
	And I think that there are workbooks out there.
	I know Nathaniel Brandon has some, which I'm a big fan of old Nate.
	And there are other people out there who have sort of self-help workbooks, which you can work through and discuss with people.
	So yeah, look, I think if you want to get to optimum fitness, I think a personal trainer and a nutritionist and all of those things could be very good.
	But if you can't get access to those for whatever reason, then I think that there's lots of great stuff that you could do on your own.
	And the worst case scenario is that it does do you a huge lot of good, but you have eliminated a lot of possibilities when it comes to going into therapy for real.
	But I think it does a lot more good than that.
	Awesome. My next question is about the kind of old notion about nationalism.
	Does nationalism actually exist, or the notion of having a common heritage, a common culture, a common language, etc., does nationalism exist in actual objective reality, or is it more of a fiction, somewhat similar to the legal fictions that we understand that are corporations?
	Yeah, look, I mean, Existence is one of those tricky things in philosophy.
	There's two extremes.
	A rock exists.
	It exists independent of human thought.
	It would exist whether human beings were here or not.
	It certainly existed before human beings were here.
	A rock exists.
	A unicorn does not exist Outside of human consciousness, right?
	So it doesn't exist objective and independent of human consciousness in the same way that a horse does.
	But it does exist as a pattern of electrochemical energy within the mind of a human being who is thinking about a unicorn, right?
	Hobbits don't exist, but when someone is designing a hobbit for a Peter Jackson film, then hobbits exist in that person's mind as a fiction that they're attempting to recreate.
	Does that sort of make any sense?
	Yeah, so in other words, the actual human beings exist, but maybe the notion of a heritage is possibly a fiction, much like a corporation or a legal person or something like that.
	Well, can you give me an example of, just to make sure we're talking about something more concrete, so to speak, can you give me an example of a belief that you would place in the category of heritage or nationalism?
	Okay, yeah, sure. Well, you have folks that say that, okay, we're Americans.
	We have this common heritage that the founding fathers and all this other stuff.
	And there's also other versions of it where our heritage goes back to Europe and all that.
	We have this thing in common.
	But it's almost as if, I mean, except for a common language, which is obviously how I'm able to talk with everybody, except for something like that, which is much more objective, The notion of like a common culture is really kind of, I don't know, it seems sort of ephemeral, like a unicorn. I mean, the human beings are real, but it's almost like they're accepting a common fiction.
	And so I was just trying to kind of debating with myself about whether nationalism exists or not, because actually, a lot of things are riding on whether nationalism or a common heritage of any kind is actually real or not.
	Right, right. Now, There is a huge amount of complexity in your question, and I'm just going to touch on a few thoughts that have popped into my head.
	I'm certainly not going to be able to say anything definitive on the subject, because it's a huge subject.
	And thank you for bringing it up, by the way.
	No problem. So, let's talk about the American heritage.
	Right, Chris? We do hear a lot about that.
	You know, the founding fathers and their dedication to life.
	Liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, the Western tradition of individualism and so on.
	Well, I don't know about that.
	It seems to me that the only thing that makes tradition survivable is that which hugely opposes tradition.
	So it's kind of tough to say we have this tradition that binds us all together, when the only thing that really has made that tradition survivable is that which has attempted to overthrow that tradition in one form or another.
	To talk about the founding of America and to say, well, that's our common heritage and our common culture, the founding fathers and so on.
	I mean, the typical response, and you see this all the time on sort of comments on YouTube videos or comments on YouTube.
	Magazine articles, right?
	Or newspaper articles.
	So somebody will say, well, we had founding fathers who believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
	And somebody else will write back and say, well, I think there are a couple of million slaves.
	I think there are about five million dead Native Americans.
	And I think there are huge numbers of women who would disagree with the degree to which the founding fathers were really interested in liberty and equality for all.
	So you get those sort of two poles.
	And the one, I understand both.
	So the one is you look at the language that the founding fathers were used.
	All men are created equal.
	Asterisk. Except for those slaves who brought over 10,000 to a boat, half of whom died on the voyage.
	And so if you just look at the words, they're very inspiring.
	I mean, if you can hold your nose and stomach the cotton candy nebulosity of Barack Obama's speeches, they're pretty cool and pretty noble.
	He's a damn fine public speaker.
	So if you just look at the words, then you get one approach.
	But if you look at the facts, then you get quite another approach.
	So I think that culture tends to be that which looks at the language.
	And philosophy tends to be that which looks at the facts and is skeptical of the language.
	And I think, obviously, I cast my lot in with philosophy more so than I would with culture.
	Certainly nationalism doesn't exist as an independent thing because nations don't exist as an independent thing, right?
	They just color vats on a...
	On a map. And the map doesn't exist.
	Maps are only a representation. So I don't think that exists.
	Now, that having been said, there is something different, say, between the Western tradition and the Eastern tradition.
	So the Western tradition is anti-traditional in some ways, right?
	Because the Western tradition has had philosophers in it from the very beginning who have challenged...
	The theologians. And it has had thinkers who have challenged the state and challenged militarism and so on.
	And to me, the modern West began with the Reformation, which was the splintering of the unity of the Catholic domination of Christendom, as it was then called.
	And that opposition to, you know, what was then a 14, almost 1500 year monopoly on Maybe not quite.
	At least a thousand years. Well, that was very anti-culture, anti-tradition.
	And that splintering, which elbowed aside the power of the church and allowed for some of the faint green shoots of the scientific revolution to come up, which led in turn to some revolution in economics, which led in turn to the industrial revolution, which really led to the modern era.
	Well, that was about pulling a Moe, Curly, and Larry in the face of a very stern...
	Historical authority, the Catholic Church.
	And so what I think has made the Western, quote, tradition valued the most has been its opposition and skepticism of tradition.
	So can you have an anti-tradition tradition?
	I don't know. I guess so, but I like to call it just thinking.
	No, fair enough.
	People always mention about, oh, we're a people.
	We are a nation.
	That's kind of also the other problem.
	If you even just look linguistically, they have to use first-person plural pronouns.
	We instead of I, for instance.
	So it's we this, we that.
	Technically, It seemed to be initially to be a bunch of collectivist language, which then popped in the course, the question popped in my head.
	Well, is nationalism of any kind whatsoever just another excuse or another flavor of collectivism?
	You see, that's kind of the big question I was just trying to get answered.
	Well, yeah, sorry. I'll tell you.
	I mean, I think that there's a very functional, which is not to say moral, but there's a very functional reason.
	Why things like gods and nations and races and peoples are invented.
	It's because if I walk up to you and tell you what to do, your first response is going to be, who the hell are you to tell me what to do?
	You're just some guy, right?
	And this is particularly true if I'm 80 and you're 25, right?
	Because you're going to be like, move aside, Gramps, I've got things to do.
	You're tottering old bag of bones or something like that, right?
	And so as strength leaves the elder generation, they need to maintain their control over the younger generation.
	And this is not just generationally true.
	It's true of a variety of situations.
	And so if I come up to you and I say, you've got to give me 25% of your income, you're going to be like, screw you, Gramps, Baldy, or whatever.
	No thanks, right? But if I come up to you with a big invisible choir of infinite authority, I look a little bit different.
	And I say, well, God requires you to give to the church.
	That's a little different than me saying, give me money.
	The good of society requires that we pay taxes.
	You care about the poor.
	You want to educate people.
	You care about the sick. You want to have roads, don't you?
	I mean, the taxes are the prices we pay to live in a civilized society.
	It's not just some guy coming up and saying, give me some money.
	It's a whole moral, magical cathedral of non-existence that people cart around them like this big giant helium balloon.
	And they say, well, it's not me who wants your money.
	It's the helium balloon that wants your money.
	And the helium balloon is always right.
	Can't argue with the helium balloon.
	Get on your knees before the helium balloon.
	And the helium balloon is a wide variety of things.
	They say it's countries, it's peoples, it's culture, it's whatever, right?
	But the helium balloon rules.
	And so people who tow around the helium balloon will ask you to obey not them, but the helium balloon.
	And that feels different than just obeying some guy who's asking you.
	So you've got to have this celestial, collectivist, abstract backup That makes you not some guy telling another guy to do stuff.
	Does that make any sense? Yeah, so if I'm hearing you correct, if I'm understanding you correctly, it seems to be like a lot of what political dissidents are doing, a lot of what various types favor are different helium balloons, except for very few which are more individualistic, if I'm hearing you right. Oh, absolutely.
	Yeah, for sure. Look, I mean...
	The communists said the helium balloon of the church is the opiate of the masses.
	What we really need is a helium balloon called the proletariat state.
	Right? And what the philosophers do is they look at all of these huge sky castles of helium balloons with all these clowns jumping up and down to them and we take out a little tiny pin.
	Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop.
	And that's, of course, unsettling to people, to say the least, right?
	Because if you don't have the big helium balloon, then you actually have to reason with people.
	Because the big helium balloon is not just these ancient things, it's also new things.
	You will be so fucking sexy if you put on this deodorant.
	You got the big helium balloon called two big...
	Boobs that you get. I don't know.
	You'll be sexy if you buy this car.
	People will think you're successful if you have a harpsichord on your front lawn.
	Do you know what I mean?
	If you have this handbag, people will envy you.
	So it's like another brand then, okay.
	But it's another brand, another fictional brand, okay, that makes sense.
	See, that was something I was kind of struggling with.
	But people have to feel very cast down in order to want to grab one of these helium balloons, right?
	So a man just standing along, right?
	So picture this. Okay, this is a ridiculous metaphor, but you're just walking along.
	You don't want to grab some big helium balloon that's going to take you into the sky.
	But if you're about to step off a cliff, you really want that big helium balloon.
	You will want to launch yourself into a collective identity if you feel that your personal identity is threatened or at risk or going to collapse.
	And so, to weaken the true self is to automatically raise the demand for these helium balloons.
	Why would you want to blend yourself into some collective if you had a strong, happy, satisfied and secure relationship with your own self?
	Yeah, so when folks are trying to do, engage in kind of one effort or another of replacing one helium balloon with another, say, the current Empire with the Republic or much of anything else, it's, oh, geez, it's, what's it called, the old shell game?
	It's almost like a shell game that way.
	In which case, what we're really looking at, we go back to the old tax farm thing.
	Oh, shoot. Yeah, which helium balloon do you want?
	Right? It's sort of like saying, which political master do you want?
	Well, the philosopher says, unless there's none of the above, I ain't checking the damn thing.
	Yeah, in which case, what would need to be done is that if it really is just a tax farm and nothing more than that, then the issue is how to deal with it one way or another.
	Okay, that makes sense. Alright, my next question is...
	Now, this is something I've noticed about...
	I've had various conversations with other FDR... I've noticed that several of the more anarchist ones actually are okay with monarchists.
	So my question is, why does there seem to be a level of comfort between anarchists and monarchists?
	Is this not a contradiction in terms, since monarchism is simply another flavor of statism?
	Right. Again, I'm not going to answer for other people, but I'll tell you what I think that comes from.
	That comes from an argument from Hans Hermann Hoppe.
	Such a lovely language.
	And his argument, I don't know if it originates with him, but I think it's in a book called Democracy, the God that Failed.
	And his argument is, look, democracy is ridiculous because there's no private ownership even of what is public because everybody's just passing through.
	Everyone that you voted in, they get voted out and they're just passing through.
	So there's no desire for anyone to maintain the value of public goods.
	Whereas in a monarchy, you're going to hand over the kingdom to your son.
	So you're not going to screw it up completely.
	So if you're just borrowing some car that's going to go back into the collective, you're not going to change the oil.
	But if you're keeping a car and you're going to will it to your son, you're going to change the oil.
	You're going to keep it maintained.
	So monarchy... It's the private ownership of the state, and because it's private and it's intended to last a long time, you tend to get less debt.
	You tend to have people in charge who wish to maintain the value of the state and its stuff.
	Now, look, I could be bastardizing.
	It's many, many years ago since I read his argument, but I think that's the general gist of it.
	Do I agree with it? You know, I think that...
	I mean, I think Hoppe is a brilliant guy and I think he's just got some fantastic stuff to say.
	I do not think that the future is going to look anything like the past and I think that saying that we like the founding fathers, saying we like monarchy, saying...
	To me, it's...
	You know, we can't do back to the future.
	We have to go forward to the future.
	And so I think that there is a golden age which is a great...
	Temptation for every thinker.
	A golden age. Say, okay, well, there's some age where I can look back and say, here's where it works.
	Let's just get back to there.
	And in order to maintain this illusion of a golden age, people will create the craziest stuff.
	Like believing that there was massive amounts of political freedom in 18th century America.
	And, okay, you could say in some ways there was relative to now, but it's only because the government wasn't that big.
	I think they had as much power as they could handle or as they could possibly achieve given the situation.
	I think the government always has the maximum amount of power that it can have.
	Anyway, so we have to really resist the idea of the golden age, of some place in the past where ideas were validated.
	Society doesn't go back.
	People don't go backwards.
	The people who yearn to go backwards don't tend to be the people who are building I think that there may be some truth in governments maintaining value if they're sort of privately owned through a monarchy.
	But to me, the problem is that the only significant wealth that gets created gets created outside the monarchy and tends to blow past the monarchy, which is why you have very few monarchies left in Europe anymore since the Industrial Revolution.
	So I think it's a clever idea, and there seems to be some significant evidence for it, but I still don't think we're going to win over anything in the future by saying that monarchy is better than democracy.
	All right. That makes sense.
	I mean, obviously, there's people trying to engage in all sorts of remedy for our current situation.
	But yeah, I mean, it's obvious that going into the future, things are going to be different.
	But obviously, the last thing anybody would want is like a technocratic, completely authoritarian state of any flavor.
	Ergo, it would kind of be important to examine whatever options are on the table.
	I did want to take this just quick opportunity, somebody asked me to mention this earlier, to give a shout out to Sebastian in Costa Rica.
	That is Sebastian in Costa Rica.
	And one other quick announcement I'd like to make, if that's alright with you, Steph, is that on the FDR forums, and I will post the link one more time, and the title is Texas Skype Group.
	That is Texas Skype Group.
	I am trying to...
	I'm in contact with any and all FDR folks who are in Texas and with the intention of meeting up with those that are actually in my local area.
	But even if you're not near me, if other folks in another portion of Texas come to see me and I'm like the central node, like the switchboard, then I can kind of direct you.
	For example, two or three guys mentioned, hey, I'm from San Antonio.
	And I can say, well, I'm not from there, but how about you go talk to these other folks and then you can decide if you're going to meet up or not.
	Because I think it's a good thing that's been kind of an addition to the site with the meetups groups.
	But I think using Skype was another route to go that I don't think hasn't really been tried yet.
	So yeah, for those folks that are in Texas, Who would like to actually meet each other in person or at least would want to progress towards that?
	Just look at my post on the boards called Texas Skype Group and just follow the instructions on the first post.
	And Stefan, thank you very much for having me on.
	I do appreciate it and I would like to be back on in the future if you'll have me.
	Of course, my friend.
	It's always a pleasure to chat.
	And look, I absolutely second what you're saying.
	Please, people. Meet up.
	Meet up. Meet up. I am a terrible, terrible leader and I'm never going to take the reins in any way, shape or form.
	It's not my goal.
	It's not my interest. I love having the barbecues and I love meeting the people who are coming through town.
	But I am not going to take any leadership role in this community in any fundamental way.
	And that means that there's lots of room for leaders, lots of room for people to take initiative.
	And I hope that you will.
	I think that's very, very important.
	Nothing happens in life to people who wait for something to happen in life.
	You have to act. You have to make choices.
	There is no inexorable historical movement that is going to move philosophy forward.
	The world does not get more rational when The way that mountains erode, the world gets more rational because people take the steps that are necessary to connect, to meet up, to get things done.
	And I hope that people will take that initiative.
	Great, and thank you for the support and all that.
	But yes, folks, that is on the FDR forums.
	It's called Texas Skype Group.
	Look at the first post, follow the instructions from there if you are in Texas.
	And again, Stefan, thank you very much for having me on.
	You're welcome. And perhaps you can call it the Texas Brainshaw Massacre.
	Anyway, we'll work on what we see.
	I'm also not that good of a marketer.
	So, did we have another question or comment?
	Yeah. If you want to go next, Sergio?
	Hello. Hi.
	Can you hear me? I can.
	Okay, so earlier this year, I did the landmark forum.
	Since then, most of the people I hang out with have done it at some point in the last six months.
	A bunch of people have also been going ahead in other programs.
	I feel like I can't really talk to them anymore, at least a lot of them.
	I'm wondering if I'm making a mistake with this whole thing.
	Which whole thing? The whole landmark thing.
	Tell me about your experiences with it.
	What do you like, what do you not like, if there's anything?
	I really like the structure around integrity and building good habits, keeping you on track, that kind of thing.
	Because that's something that I don't really have in my life in terms of the structure.
	And I also found that it kind of gave me a sense of just hope and inspiration every week to go to any of their sessions.
	But on the downside, I found that there's a lot of, it feels like forced happiness in the people who I've seen who've done any of these programs.
	I've seen it in Christians too, this kind of, we have to make a happy, we have to present ourselves as happy and say everything is awesome, everything is amazing.
	And yeah, it's kind of fake, I've gotten the sense of that.
	And yeah, I'm just wondering, does that reflect your experience of it at all?
	Well, it's been...
	Many, many years since I did Landmark.
	And I'll tell you what I liked about it.
	I liked the fact that they actually talked about ideas.
	And I thought about this early on in FDR, the degree to which there seemed to be real hunger in the room that I was in to talk about ideas.
	And, I mean, they do talk a lot of philosophy.
	I have some agreements with the philosophy.
	I have some disagreements with the philosophy.
	That's not particularly relevant, but...
	I did like the deconstruction of myth-based identity or what they call stories.
	You know, we have these stories about what happens to us in life and so on.
	And I think there's some value in that.
	I think there's some limitations in that.
	I think the Bomb of the Brain stuff that I've done...
	Sorry, I shouldn't say I haven't done it.
	I mean, the information that I've tried to gather together for the Bomb of the Brain series, fdrurl.com forward slash b-i-b.
	I think it indicates that our early childhood experiences produce more than narrative within us.
	They produce differing brain structures.
	So I think that there's some limitation in that postmodern sort of existential, the story is the identity kind of thing.
	I think there are genuine physical differences that seem to emerge out of childhood trauma.
	And I think that's It's underappreciated.
	And again, back in the day when I went, I'm not sure how available this information was.
	So maybe they've updated it more recently and so on.
	But I liked it.
	I thought it was very interesting.
	There is a kind of relief and euphoria, I think, that certainly came over me in thinking about the degree to which I had control over the way things affected me based upon how I framed them.
	I have since come to not believe that as strongly as I used to because I think that brain changes based on trauma do have an effect on narrative and the narrative is not just the only thing.
	You get rid of the narrative, you still have changes in brain structure.
	So I liked the fact that people were really interested in philosophy and...
	I also liked the fact that you actually got to know something about people in those meetings.
	And I thought that was really cool.
	I mean, a lot of times you go to dinner parties or whatever and you may have entertaining time, you may have a fun time, but you don't really get to know anything about anyone.
	But you had people talking about real issues in their lives in a pretty public forum.
	So to speak. And I thought that was interesting.
	I thought that was very interesting. And what it helped to remind me of was that, you know, people who may be very attractive or be very successful or whatever, that they still have their crosses to bear, their demons to carry around, the monkeys on their backs.
	And that helped just in terms of sharing a common burden.
	And I mean, I try to, you know, talk about that as well, that in this show, to constantly remind people that I struggle with these issues sometimes.
	Probably at least as much as everyone else.
	And so, yeah, I thought there was some really good and really valuable stuff in it.
	I didn't feel that a reframing of narrative was enough to change the personality.
	And I'm doing this from a long memory a long time ago, so I apologize if I'm getting any of this wrong.
	So I thought there were some real pluses.
	I got some real value out of it, and I thought there was some...
	I think that they do focus a little bit on, you know, change your mind, change yourself.
	And I think that's a bit too quick of a fix.
	And I think that euphoria comes a lot of times from a relief that deeper or more difficult issues don't have to be delved in with.
	And that's why, you know, I suggest more long-term therapy than something like The Forum.
	I think that those quick fixes...
	Don't particularly last.
	And so that's my two cents worth.
	I'm certainly happy that I did it.
	I certainly would not say to people, don't do it.
	I'd say go, keep your wits about you, and get what value you can out of the situation if you find it interesting.
	Okay, sure. Thanks for that.
	But just something more specific that I had noticed was this...
	Okay, so one thing that really made a difference to me was...
	The difference between facts and my experience, what I made them mean.
	For instance, when I was younger, there are lots of things that happened, some significant and some not, but what seems to be more important is what I made it mean in my head at the time and built upon that over the years.
	So yeah, I just thought that was relevant somehow.
	I think you've gone into that as well, to some degree as well.
	Yeah, so if somebody keeps telling you that you're worthless, then it's likely at some point you're going to internalize that as a way of dealing with a very difficult situation.
	So yeah, I think to say that the stimulus and the response are two separate things, and you have some control as an adult over what you do in terms of your response and the narrative that you have that came out of Involuntary situations in your history, I think that's good stuff to remember.
	And would you say that parents are responsible for the interpretations that their children make for things that, like, okay, for instance, I can think of occasions where my mom said things without realizing some of the impact that she was having.
	Just whereas I was creating something in my head that now in hindsight I can see she probably didn't mean it in this way or that way.
	But back then, I thought she did.
	Would you say that there's some degree of responsibility for that or that's something that I can forgive, I guess?
	Well, I mean, responsibility and forgiveness don't have to be opposites, right?
	But I would say that If your mom said stuff that you misinterpreted, was there any way that she could have known that you had misinterpreted it?
	Right? So, for instance, if I'm playing with my daughter, and I'm making a joke, and then she bursts into tears, I can be fairly sure, I can't think of a time when this has happened, but I can be fairly sure that she is not experiencing this as a joke, right?
	Hmm. Well, I know that from a fairly young age, I made a point of trying not to be demanding.
	I'd seen this in movies and stuff where kids were needy or demanding in a normal way, but I didn't like the way it looked, and I thought that I'd be superior to them in some way if I just...
	Not superior to them, but just better, like the good child, if I didn't cause a fuss or show anything like that.
	I would say that if you change your behavior in some way that, you know, it's fairly significant, right?
	Then it's probably worthwhile for a parent.
	And this is not specific to parents, but I think this is, you know, Any relationship.
	If whoever you're in a relationship with, if that person changes their behavior in some significant way, it's a good question to ask why.
	It's bad, but hey, I noticed that you used to do this.
	Now you're doing this. What's happened?
	What's going on? Okay.
	Sure.
	All right.
	Thanks for that.
	All right.
	Was there anything else that you had to...
	Oh, sorry. Thank you, Steph.
	I know. It's a shockingly concise answer.
	I apologize. I should shoot off flares and have sirens and release the bats into the wild or something to let people know about that.
	No, that was good. That was very helpful.
	Thank you. We have a caller on the line on the phone if you want to go ahead.
	Sure. Hello?
	Oh, sorry. He was there.
	He's no longer there. Paul, if you want to go ahead.
	Sorry, I just want to answer one thing here.
	Say, Steph, somebody's asked, how do you think the future of the USA will be in terms of immigration?
	Will moving to the States be more difficult?
	Or will it be easier?
	I mean, I'm not going to pretend to have any clairvoyance in predicting the future, but I will say that if the U.S., As in most Western countries, although the U.S. I think is the least affected by this, if the U.S. continues to experience low birth rates, then I think it's going to open the door more towards immigration.
	So I hope that will help. I'm sorry, we had somebody on the phone?
	Yeah, can you hear me?
	I sure can. Step on and fall in with absolute pleasure.
	Are you there? I sure am.
	Thank you. I appreciate that.
	What can I do for you? Well, you might be a terrible leader, but, you know, you are a beacon of hope.
	Well, I appreciate that. Thank you.
	So nothing too profound, but one of the things that I talk about with a lot of people is this whole classification between Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative.
	And it amazes me how often people don't realize what those definitions mean and how they are more liberal or more conservative, depending on what it is that they're talking about.
	Is that something that you come across?
	Can you give me some examples of what you mean?
	Well, like conservative and Like we talked about as libertarians, you know, having the freedom to, like, say, legalization of drugs.
	Well, typical conservatives don't want legalization of drugs, but if they are conservative or what they call conservative, then they have the government out of their way.
	That's a contradiction.
	Yeah, it certainly is true.
	Conservatives and the War on Drugs is funny because, of course, the War on Drugs came in strong ways in the late 1960s, early 1970s, sort of around the same time as other massive expansions of government power like the New Society, Johnson's New Society and the EPA and all that sort of OSHA. And so conservatives are like, well, you know, we need to go back in time to when the government was smaller, except for the war on drugs, which came in around the same time as all these other socialist programs.
	Because the war on drugs is just another socialist program, right?
	Designed to manipulate human behavior through the threat of force.
	And it works as well as any other threats of force do in the long run.
	So yeah, I just wanted to point out that to me, it's kind of funny.
	Well, that welfare that came in the 60s was just terrible.
	But the drug stuff is...
	And we want to keep that because that's important.
	And I think there's some relationship between...
	People who are religious, who are traditionally religious, and perhaps even fundamentalists, have a bit of a problem with drug use.
	I mean, there is sort of polluting the purity of the body that God gave you and so on, but I think that if you experience psychedelics, my understanding is that you go through some pretty profound religious, sometimes quasi-religious experiences, and that may shake people's faith a little bit to realize that there's some chemistry involved as well.
	But anyway, sorry, let's go on with your point.
	No, just it's the point of when you do have these conversations, anytime you start getting into a political discussion with anybody, the very first thing, of course, is that black and white, are you a Republican or Democrat?
	Are you conservative or liberal?
	And it's breaking down those walls, I think, Perhaps is a very important thing for libertarians to constantly be doing.
	Now, I don't know if that's, you know, I don't know if that's something that you find yourself constantly doing or you're thinking on a totally different plane.
	But for me, people don't generally ask me whether I'm Republican or Democrat or even up here in Canada, the sort of conservative or NDP or liberal.
	I don't. Generally get into political conversations with anybody in my sort of fleshly life, so to speak, other than people I have as friends.
	So I don't really have that too much.
	I can't remember the last time I got...
	Oh, no, I do. Occasionally I'll respond to people because, you know, I've been called everything from a neocon to a Marxist and, you know, everything in between.
	So I will occasionally clarify my position in those situations, but I don't get into a lot of those.
	Maybe I'm not talking about you personally, but I think if you see my point, I think if maybe other people would agree that just our regular lives down here in America, when we do have these conversations, it comes up quite a bit.
	It's actually a fascinating discussion when you start breaking it down and talking about what you mean liberal, what do you mean conservative, you know what I mean?
	And you've come from the conservative side, as you indicated in the past, and you finally find yourself to this libertarian standpoint.
	But for me, it's just a very interesting and fascinating conversation when you start to break these things, these walls down, where you start to try to work out.
	And I don't have all the answers with it, but I thought maybe you might have more insight on how to discuss this with people.
	But, you know, basically, both sides...
	Yeah, look, I mean, if I am asked about this, I'm trying to think back.
	It's maybe come up at a couple of conferences.
	I mean, if I'm feeling a bit punchy, I'll say I don't like to let pamphlets and pundits do my thinking for me.
	I try to work from first principles.
	And my first principle is that I do not believe that the initiation of force will solve any problem ever.
	The problem I have with the liberals and the problems I have with the conservatives are that same shit, different pile, right?
	The conservatives want to keep making the same old mistakes and liberals want to have brand new mistakes to make.
	I just prefer that we stop making these stupid mistakes of trying to use force to achieve virtue in the world.
	I have criticisms of both and to me they're both fundamentally irrelevant.
	You know, the conservatives tend to be more about empathy at home and aggression overseas, and the liberals tend to be more about empathy overseas and aggression at home in terms of raising taxes and having all that kind of stuff.
	But both platforms, well, first of all, they're, of course, entirely state-created because there should be many more than two parties.
	The bichromatic rainbow, as John Stewart put it, of the American landscape is just another state farm.
	Because there's so many barriers to entry for a third party that it doesn't represent the population at all.
	And so, you know, I just – I think we just have to give up using – the idea of using aggression.
	And since both parties advocate aggression, I'm not a fan.
	And both of them are completely impervious, it seems, to empirical evidence, right?
	So the fact that social programs don't work seems to be entirely lost on the liberals, and the fact that the war on drugs and imperialism doesn't work seems to be entirely lost on the conservatives.
	So I just assumed it's a self-sealing biosphere cyst of irrational bigotry that can't be reached through reason.
	So that's sort of my approach.
	Yeah. I think what I try to do or what I've been trying to do is being able to take that step from even beginning to even discuss a stateless society with somebody who would just completely, you know, just put their mind, they can't even begin to think that way, and you start going towards that non-aggression principle.
	But just getting to that is such a difficult Conversation.
	Just to get there. And so, you know, you start talking like what I do or I'll start discussing things about like what the conservatives say.
	You don't believe in welfare.
	You don't believe in, I'd say, and then make, and please, you tell me if you agree or disagree with this.
	But then we start talking about, well, what about military welfare?
	And they say, well, what do you mean military welfare?
	That's our defense. We're, you know, we've got to defend ourselves.
	That's the terror. And so I say, but that's all your tax money going to God knows what.
	Weapon systems that may or may not ever be used and just billions and billions and billions of dollars down the drain, that's military welfare.
	And they're like, oh, okay, interesting.
	Is that something that you see that the same way in terms of the military has its welfare or corporations have bailout welfare versus healthcare?
	Sure, yeah. I mean, certainly corporate welfare is a blind spot to many of the Republicans, though I think it's becoming less so since the government became the majority stockholder in, say, GM. And it's bailed out all the banks.
	I don't think there are a lot of Republicans who are real proud of that bank bailout initiated under George Bush and executed truly in the sense of the word by Obama.
	So I don't think there's a lot of them who are fans about that.
	But my argument about defense is defense?
	What defense? America has two enormous oceans on either side.
	It has friendly neighbors to the north and south.
	Switzerland has been right in the middle of Europe.
	Well, not quite right in the middle, but close to the middle of Europe for two world wars and managed to remain neutral and come out unscathed through two world wars when they had wars and genocides raging all around.
	And they managed to come out of it.
	America is not in the middle of Europe.
	America is in one of the most secure environments or locations the world has ever experienced.
	Come up with. Until they can move America to the dark side of the moon, it's never going to be safer in this world.
	And so, what on earth does 700 military bases around the world have to do with defending America?
	Because America is not being threatened by any of the countries in which it has military bases.
	And so, essentially, they were spending tons and tons and tons of taxes on something that is completely unnecessary.
	I mean, the ability to defend the border is just so completely dwarfed in terms of what we actually spend.
	But, you know, it just makes way too much sense for people to begin to start actually...
	Yeah, I mean, people say national defense.
	It's like, okay, well, who are you defending against?
	You say, ah, the Russians. Well, okay, but the Russians were only defended against through mutually assured destruction, and that was, you know, 50 nukes rather than the, what, thousands and thousands that they actually ended up with.
	And so, you know, there was no need for forward bases in Turkey.
	There was no need for bases all over the Middle East.
	Why has America still got massive military presence in Okinawa and in Japan more than 60 years after the end?
	Is that because they're afraid that Japan is going to send bad sushi?
	Over to cramp up the stomachs of American generals?
	No. So I just, you know, just using the word defense does not make it defense.
	They say, ah, well, it's defending America's interests.
	It's like, well, first of all, America has no interests because America is just a concept.
	There are individuals who have interests.
	And so if you say that the average person should have money taken from them by force to help the interests of someone, anyway, you get it.
	Yeah, I do. Water, perhaps.
	But no, the thing with that, the whole, you know, scaring crap out of the public, To the couple of thousand people on 9-11 that died, that fear, however that whole thing went down, whatever, it makes no difference.
	It was a decade-long fear-mongering campaign to prevent these quote-unquote terrorists from invading our country and taking it over.
	It's hard to reconcile how people actually continue to just totally fall for that as if they're, quote-unquote, keeping us safe.
	When the borders are open, people can come in any time that we need to be strip-searched at the airport.
	I mean, there's no logic there whatsoever.
	Well, yeah, there's no logic.
	Fundamentally, what is lacking is empathy.
	And this is one of the horrifying, horrifying things that nationalism does, is it turns foreigners into...
	Inhuman entities.
	Because anybody with any sense of empathy would have looked at the unbelievable carnage that occurred on 9-11 and would have said, I am so shocked.
	I am so hurt.
	I am so angry that I just want to get whoever did this and wreak terrible vengeance upon them.
	And that, of course, is the clue as to why 9-11 happened in the first place, because you go around killing hundreds of thousands of Muslims and allying with Israel to oppress more, and there is a blowback.
	And so that sense of anger would have said, okay, so if I'm this angry about being attacked by my sort of fellow citizens being attacked, which I think you have every reason to be angry, shocked, appalled, outraged, say, okay, well, so...
	Maybe this is a clue as to, right, so maybe let's find out if we've been attacking them for the last, say, 40 or 50 years.
	Yeah, there's no way to even, it's not even, people can't look at it like we're attacking them because we're told.
	No, because people think that if you diagnose a cause, that you're excusing it.
	Like if you say smoking causes cancer, you're somehow pro-cancer.
	It's unbelievable.
	Yeah. Of course, you know, people aren't taught to think that way.
	Like, I mean, it's just sad.
	It's awful. It's awful. One of the most heartbreaking things about what I do, my friend, is seeing the comments that come in, what people think is thinking, right?
	So, you know, I was pointing out the statistics about these British rioters about the awful demographics, single-parent households, poverty, and so on.
	And, you know, of course, I get the inevitable flood of emails of people saying, well, I came from a single-parent, poor household.
	And I turned out all right.
	And it's like, well, yeah, so did I. I get it.
	I understand. But that's not, you know, the fact that you got to be an adult who could write an email without learning the first thing about statistics is shocking.
	You know, like, oh, I smoked and I didn't get cancer.
	Yes, it's not 100%.
	Of course not. But that doesn't mean that it's not dangerous.
	Anyway, so I just sort of, it's just awful to see the degree to which people can't even do basic thinking.
	And that, I mean, that doesn't bode well for where we're going, but it's a fact that everybody who reasons in public has to accept.
	Well, the thinking, though, is, of course, as you pointed out, I mean, we're trained that way from birth, through, you know, I pledge allegiance, you know, to the flag, and we're doing good, and, you know, we spread freedom because they don't want us to be free.
	I mean, these just...
	It's unbelievably pounded into our brains.
	Nationalist slogans cause us to think, but they cause us to think completely irrationally.
	Yeah, and just ask those basic questions like, you know, they have very low taxes in Singapore and economically it's much freer than the United States.
	Does that make you want to fly an airplane into the towers of the Singapore skyline?
	Of course not. It's not.
	Anyway. Yeah.
	Well, anyway. I appreciate that.
	It's excellent talking to you, and I will definitely be calling in in the future.
	I just have that thought in my mind.
	I mean, I guess you don't really have that discussion a lot, as you indicated, the whole conservative-liberal thing, but I find it fascinating to start breaking that down.
	It's really, to me, something that's critical to start showing people that it's more about freedom It's more about real freedom, not freedom that we're quote unquote told, than being a Republican or a Democrat, being a liberal or a conservative.
	I mean, it's just constant with the people in my life that I'm on Facebook with, all the people that I grew up with here in Southern California.
	Even in this liberal area, there are tons of conservatives and the battle is never ending.
	It's this constant refrain.
	I mean, as soon as the stock market tanked last week, it was, you know, a flurry of, you know, Is it Obama's fault or is it George Bush's fault?
	How about we live in a system where we don't give a shit about that because it's not even an issue?
	Yeah. Well, just getting to that.
	I mean, I don't know if you've done something about that.
	You yourself have talked about that at all in terms of getting people, average people, perhaps average Americans, just going, just simply going from that hardcore I think it's a good idea.
	I mean, my general strategy is to try and tack with the wind, sail with the wind rather than try and tack against it.
	If I'm coming across somebody who's anti-welfare, I will say, I agree with you.
	I'm anti-welfare too.
	And I think that there are two major kinds of welfare that occur in society.
	There is the welfare for the underprivileged and there is the welfare for the overprivileged.
	And in the former category, I put people who are sick, people who grew up really poor and old and people who genuinely need charitable resources.
	And on the other hand, there are people pulling 80 percent salary after 20 years of service in the military or in the public sector who have fully indexed pensions and free health care for the rest of their lives.
	And there are monstrous corporations who make the majority of their money from the redistribution of money through the coercive power of the state.
	So, to me, welfare is not just about some, you know, poor kid in Brooklyn or Jersey.
	It is a much larger category.
	And see if we can at least get them to agree that the category is not just the one that they may be thinking about.
	And there's ways to sort of expand the conversation from there.
	Yeah. Excellent.
	Thank you very much. I will just give...
	Economics Junkie is a great writer and thinker.
	EconomicsJunkie.com forward slash the roots of left vs.
	right ideologies, dash between each of the words.
	Okay. I did a podcast about the left vs.
	right ideology and there's lots of different theories about it, right?
	So in the right paradigm, the state is like a stern dad and the In the left paradigm, the state is like an enabling mommy.
	And there seems to be some pretty good statistical evidence to support that kind of notion.
	But I think that it is a challenge because you have to not just get people to start thinking.
	You have to get them to stop not thinking.
	And that is a real challenge.
	It is a real challenge. All right.
	Well, thanks, man. And please call back anytime.
	It was a real pleasure. And I just wanted to compliment you on your...
	Your dedication to what it is you're doing and the challenge that you're taking on is really great.
	So thank you. It is.
	Thank you. Not that it's for me to thank you, but I know what you mean.
	I hope you know it. As I said, you may not think of yourself as a leader, but you must be very fully aware that you are a beacon of hope.
	You do bring people to me, correct?
	Well, you are. There are a lot of people.
	Yeah, I could say maybe I'm a thought leader in some ways, but I'm certainly not a community organizer.
	I think that's definitely not my bag.
	Yeah, yeah. I know you're not the hugest fan of Chomsky, but I think of people like great, incredible thinkers who are not very good at necessarily organizing any kind of Yeah, I mean, I think I certainly could.
	I mean, I ran at least the technical side of a reasonable-sized company.
	I can certainly get that kind of organization done.
	I just don't think that it's, you know, philosophy is a virus designed to replicate in everyone's mind.
	There's no point me doing it.
	I think that people need to find that initiative themselves, in my opinion.
	I think it's just going to work better and be more in perpetuity that way.
	Yeah, gotcha.
	Okay. All right. We have time for one more teeny tiny tickly question if anybody wants to join in.
	Hello, Steph? Hello.
	Can you hear me? I can.
	Am I coming out well? Yes.
	All right. This is Jaisam Heder.
	I just wanted to say I think that I've come up with an idea of falsifying Hans Hermann's Hoppe idea that they're, you know, to support Kant's pure reason or basically the von Mises idea that some arguments are just inherently or tautologically true.
	And I think that one way of disproving that and proving that down to the very level of just pure abstractions Epistemology is objectivist or is empirical.
	So I think this would be a good way and let me know what you think.
	If you have a person who speaks a different language from you and you both have a different word for yellow, then ultimately reality is the ultimate arbitrator because you would have to point to something outside of yourself Which would be the wavelength of the reflection of light on top of things that are yellow.
	So I thought I'd just share that and let me know what you think.
	Okay, can you just run through that with a concrete example, make sure I get from the abstract to the empirical clearly?
	So Hoppe says that some things are...
	Are true by definition.
	That they're not necessarily empirical, but that the very definition that it is a pure reason approach, sort of like Kant's pure reason.
	And I think this is a very Germanic thing to do.
	And I disagree with that, and I think that a way to falsify that is that if you have two persons that have different languages, if you want to translate the word yellow from one to the other, you have to point to external reality.
	It is not a pure reason process because you're referring to something that is ultimately empirically I thought of a way to falsify the idea that things can be tautologically true.
	My understanding of the Hoppian approach as a sort of praxeological approach in the realm of economics is to say, for instance, if two people are not coerced and they exchange goods, they both expect to be better off as a result of exchanging goods.
	because they're doing it voluntarily.
	That's sort of – you don't have to go around and examine every transaction and ask people.
	It's simply by the fact that they're doing it voluntarily means that they think they must in some way be better off after the transaction than before.
	Or all other things being constant, if you inflate the supply of money, you will drive inflation in prices.
	You don't have to go and empirically test this.
	That has to be true. If the same number of goods, double the money, you're going to get inflation at some varying levels.
	And so these are things that are just true.
	Or I think another one is something like human beings are self-motivated actors.
	And you can't really argue against that because then you're taking a self-motivated stance against people being self-motivated actresses.
	Is that sort of close to what it is we're talking about?
	Yeah, I think that the example you just gave about people showing preferences for a certain transaction, I think that even that could be said to be empirical because there's always the possibility that someone says they have a preference, like I prefer vanilla ice cream, but ultimately it is reality, it is they're taking the action to buy vanilla ice cream that will determine that.
	Would you always talk about actions being louder than words?
	Well, sure. And somebody may say, I prefer vanilla ice cream, but I'm allergic to vanilla, so I have to buy chocolate ice cream or something like that.
	But certainly, it's not necessarily that person's individual preference.
	It's just that if somebody pays $2 for an ice cream, They objectively, by definition, by reality, tautologically, the person who's spending $2 to buy an ice cream values the ice cream more than he values the $2 and the person who's giving up the ice cream for $2 values the $2 more than he values the ice cream.
	And that's not something you would then ask them about because you know that that's the case because they voluntarily agreed to the transaction.
	Right. Well, that was my question.
	Thank you so much. You're very welcome.
	I'm glad that it was – I hope it was helpful.
	Let me just...
	Yeah, axiomatically, sorry.
	Yeah, not tautologically. I spilt my syllables.
	It's just a bug in the programming.
	It's just a bug in the programming.
	Reboot the matrix. I think that was one other question I wanted to see.
	How does UPB apply to things which you think people will forgive you for in the future?
	For example, forcing a child to take medicine that he or she doesn't like.
	Well, I would argue this.
	There's a couple of ways that I would approach this.
	First of all, when...
	If Izzy had to take some medicine, she had an injection when she was a baby, we just gave her the injection.
	And so she doesn't remember it, so there's not really much to forgive there, I think.
	An example now, which is obviously not medically based, she doesn't like getting her hair cut.
	And so we find ways to make it fun for her to get a haircut, or as much fun as possible.
	So, you know, we're not holding her down while she's biting and getting her hair cut.
	And so, that's sort of one thing.
	So, I don't force her to get a haircut.
	I sort of sit down. And I say, you know, isn't it annoying that you have to keep brushing your hair out of your eyes?
	And I also say, you know, your hair gets dirt and oil in it, which shouldn't go in your eyes.
	It's not good for your eyes and so on.
	And we'll sort of talk about it. And it'll take a couple of days to really have that sort of sink in.
	And she'll try things like, you know, I want to wear a hairband.
	I don't want to get a haircut and so on.
	So we'll try that, right? And then I'll say, hey, you know, you wore that hairband for a grand total of seven minutes before pulling it out.
	Oh, no, I'll put it back in and so on.
	We'll try that. And then evidence will accumulate to the point where Nobody believes the hair bed solution is going to be valid or the hair clip or whatever.
	And so then I'll say, you know, we're going to go to get a haircut tomorrow so I'm not sort of springing it on her and we'll go to the mall and say we're going to go to get a haircut and she'll say I don't want to and say, well, remember your hair and the hair clip thing didn't work and we need to keep your eyes safe and all that and, you know, then we'll go to a place where she can sit at a fun toy and so on and maybe I'll give her a lollipop to lick while she's getting a haircut and maybe she'll cry a little bit but I'm not forcing her to do it.
	And so... She may sort of submit, not submit, but she may do it reluctantly, but that's not, I don't force her to do it, and I can't think of what I would force her to do.
	Like, so for instance, when we took her to the doctor, she didn't want to go on the scale, and so I, you know, we weighed me, and then we weighed me with Isabella so we could figure out her weight.
	There's usually solutions that you can figure out around these kinds of things.
	So that's, you know, and she's two and a half, right?
	So there's lots of reasoning and negotiation and preparation that you could do for things that are unwanted or unliked.
	And so I don't think that I have forced her in, I mean, I can't think of any time.
	I mean, I haven't even disciplined her in months and months, so to speak.
	I mean, in terms of like, I don't know, putting her in a crib for two minutes or whatever.
	I mean, I haven't done that in I can't remember the last time I did it, but it's been a heck of a long time.
	And so that's sort of one aspect.
	Now, if she did have to go and get, you know, heaven forbid she got a cut and needed stitches or whatever, then maybe that would need to be the case.
	So my goal is that, and I do explain this to her, right?
	I mean, I sort of explained that I'm responsible for keeping parts of her safe and she doesn't know, she didn't know that she needs to clean her teeth and now she's fine with getting her teeth brushed and so on and, you know, she doesn't Know that she doesn't like particularly getting her hair washed, but we explain to her sort of cradle cap and stuff like that and so on.
	And so it's just a matter of, you know, it's just a patient explanation so that she understands why things are necessary.
	And then she's not submitting to us.
	She's submitting to that which is necessary.
	And hair is bad for the eyes.
	Somebody says bullshit. Oh, is that not the case?
	I thought the hair could get like Oil and crap and all that in it, and that would go in your eyes.
	That wouldn't be bad. I'm sorry.
	I just sort of thought that was the case.
	Oh, why did I put Izzy in a crib for two minutes?
	Because she threw something dangerous after I asked her a couple of times not to.
	I've done it to her, I think, once in her whole life.
	I think that was just because I needed her not to do that, and I'd already reasoned with her a whole bunch of times, and she's never done it since, so...
	And, of course, I explained why and talked about it with her afterwards and so on, and so that was the only time that that has occurred, just because, I mean, it's dangerous, right?
	I mean, she's strong.
	She can throw, you know, she can pick up a toy car and throw it to the point where it could break her nose.
	So, anyway, so that was that situation.
	And she was fine. I mean, she wasn't crying even, right?
	Let's see. If a therapist is a statist, do you think that it would affect their ability to be a truly effective therapist, or does it depend upon the therapist?
	If so, do you have any suggestions as to how to approach a therapist's statist leanings?
	Well, I mean, the closer your values are, I'm sure the better it is, but I certainly wouldn't give up a therapist who was good at emotional work for the sake of political leanings.
	I think that a therapist can help you a great deal with self-empathy, with self-understanding, with all of these kinds of good things, and be...
	I don't know, a complete fan of, maybe not Stalin, but Barack Obama.
	Yeah, a dentist can be a great dentist without being an anarchist, and I think in terms of emotional work, I think a therapist can be a good therapist, if not a great therapist, and still have differences of opinion politically.
	I think that religiosity may be an issue because of all the ethics associated with that, and so on.
	Steph, do you cut your own hair?
	No, I don't. I really...
	I mean, how the hell can I cut my own hair?
	I can't even see it. That's really not the case.
	Once. Did I once cut my own hair?
	You did once. Oh, yeah, yeah.
	That's right. That's right. That's right.
	Because I am the cheapest bastard in the known universe.
	And the effect is clear.
	The only thing I spend money on is my family and FDR. Well, I guess we're done for the week.
	I think so.
	Let's see. Yes.
	Okay. So somebody mentioned that I'm up against Tom of the Woods.
	You can go to LibertyPols.com to vote for me.
	Or vote for Tom Woods if you think he's better at it.
	Tom Woods. Meltdown was good, of course, but Rollback, I thought, was even better.
	He's got a great conversational and fun and peppy and funny and energetic and passionate writing style that I can only envy.
	I would highly recommend his books.
	He's very clear and he's got a very wry sense of subtle humor that I found really enjoyable.
	I would really I encourage you to get his books.
	And you can go to TomWoods.com.
	Also, I think he does some online work as well in terms of courses and stuff.
	Somebody's asked, what can I do for my children to partially make up for not giving them the best childhood besides beginning to do what's right?
	They're currently six and three years old.
	Well, I would say even with a three-year-old, this may be possible.
	But sit down one-on-one and apologize for mistakes that you've made.
	It's so important for parents to have the ability to apologize for mistakes that they make.
	I mean, I do this. Sometimes I'll sort of joke a little bit with Izzy, like, hey, hey, no, no, no, no.
	And I mean, most times she gets it as a joke, but if she's feeling a particular sensitive way, then I think once or twice she got upset.
	I'm like, oh, I'm just kidding.
	I'm so sorry, blah, blah, blah, to be apologetic.
	Or if I'm singing and she doesn't like that, that's not very good singing, which unfortunately tends to be most of the times that I'm singing.
	Just apologize. The important thing with kids is not to give them the weasel apologies.
	I'm not saying that you would, but I just want to caution you against it.
	I was doing the best I could with the knowledge that I had.
	That's not something that I think children can really believe.
	Parenthood is like a kind of test.
	And you have at least nine months to study for it, assuming that it's not immaculate conception, in which case you shouldn't need to study because God will guide everything.
	But you have at least nine months to study for the test called parenthood.
	And nine months is quite a long time to study and to pick up, you know, say five books or ten books on parenting to figure out how to do it best.
	And so if you don't study for the most important test in your life called parenting, then you have to take responsibility, I think, for not studying, right?
	So, you know, if you're in university and they tell you at the beginning of the course that there's going to be a test or there's going to be an exam in four months, well, you have four months, in a sense, to study for that exam.
	And if you show up without having studied anything and you flunk the exam, I don't think anybody would accept as an excuse That you did the best you could with the knowledge that you had.
	Because people would say, well, you had four months to study.
	If you chose not to study, you're kind of responsible for not studying.
	And so with parenthood, you have at least nine months to study.
	And of course, arguably, you could say that you've got to plan to have kids.
	You've got to marry the right person. You've got to anticipate having kids.
	It's usually a couple of years that you have to study to become a parent.
	And so I don't think that you can reasonably say to your children, I did the best I could with the knowledge that I had.
	Because you had every opportunity to acquire knowledge before you became a parent.
	And if you chose not to do that, then that's something that you are responsible for.
	And so, you know, I messed up.
	I didn't prepare enough. I didn't, you know, blah, blah, blah.
	And just, you know, don't try and give yourselves those outie excuses, so to speak.
	Because I think kids will sense that.
	And... If, in a sense, you're using the, I forgot, I forgot to remember to forget.
	And if you say sort of, well, I forgot to get the information that I needed to become a good parent, then what you're doing is you're setting up a UPB paradigm where the kids can say, I forgot, and you can't really get upset with them, or you can't correct them on that.
	So I think that's important to remember.
	But yeah, just sit down and say, you know, I messed up.
	I did wrong. I yelled at you.
	I spanked you.
	I did wrong.
	I'm here to commit to you that I'm studying to do better.
	I am not going to yell at you.
	I am not going to hit you ever again.
	I will always be here for you.
	So that you can tell me how you feel or if you're ever scared of me, please tell me.
	And you have to watch them to see if at times where in the past it may have escalated to something unpleasant to be aware of that and to help keep them calm and help talk them down and so on.
	But it's just about taking responsibility and apologizing for that that you have done that was wrong.
	I mean, this is true of every relationship that you're in and any relationship that you're in.
	And I think...
	I think kids will respect that.
	I think that they will internalize that as behavior.
	I mean, you want to behave towards your kids as you want them to behave in the future, right?
	There's no, you know, I pull the standard out of me, I turn it around and I put it in you, right?
	I mean, the only way to get your children to behave in the way that you want is to show them how it looks from the outside.
	And so I think that's important.
	And don't talk to them about change until you're really ready.
	Because if you do a false start change, I think it gets much, much harder the next time, right?
	So if you say, well, I'm not going to yell at you, and then two days later you're yelling at them, that's going to be really, really hard for them.
	So, you know, really get yourself ready to make a change.
	Make that commitment. Talk it over with your co-parent.
	And when you are making the change, maybe make the change for a little while before talking to them so they can see the effects of it and so on.
	But hopefully that helps.
	And thank you. I'm so sorry.
	What else I wanted to say was thank you so much for asking the question.
	I think that is a very noble and honorable question to ask.
	And I really, really wanted to thank you for it and just tell you how much I admire that kind of commitment and that kind of change.
	Sorry, somebody just has one more question before we're going to stop.
	Oh, and don't forget to donate.
	Things have been a little bit lean this week, summer, and I guess some people were traveling for the barbecue and stuff, and obviously you got to eat, so I'm not saying don't eat, but if you do have anything to donate or to subscribe,
	it is at freedomainradio.com forward slash donate, and for those who feel truly flushed, I will send you a kitten.
	Okay, so somebody says, well, I've been a freelance artist for some time, but in recent years, I'm not making much money at all.
	I had a friend get me a job at a college teaching 3D art, mostly for games.
	So at first I figured, that's okay, college is mostly free, but it's really state-controlled.
	It is not evil to work for a college like that.
	It is not evil to work for a college like that.
	It is not evil to be a university-paid socialist professor.
	This is not... The initiation of force.
	So I think that that's an important thing to remember.
	If you like teaching, and I'm sure if you're interested in philosophy, I'm sure that you have a lot of skills as a teacher already because you have a lot of knowledge and passion about knowledge.
	So I would enjoy your job and...
	I don't see Food that is grown under government-controlled mandates and subsidies,
	then you see, you're bound up in the state no matter which way you turn, and there's no clear demarcation between this is the state and this is not the state.
	And so, yeah, if it's state-controlled, it's state-controlled.
	You know, the internet was in part developed by the Department of Defense.
	Does that mean that I have to never use it?
	No, of course not.
	No, I wouldn't worry about it.
	I would hold your head high, and I would be proud and be happy that you've got a job teaching.
	I think it's fantastic.
	There is no place in the world outside of the Mariana Trench that is not under statism, and that's seven miles deep, so I wouldn't do that.
	If the only way to get a job as a chef that you love is to work in a statist cafeteria, then go and be a chef.
	That's the way to live like there's no state.
	So I hope that you won't...
	That's a trap, right?
	That is a trap that people will say, you can't be against the state if you gain any benefit from the state.
	And then they create a situation where everybody gains some benefit from the state.
	I can't ever talk about geography because I learned about geography in government-run schools.
	Well, clearly that's crazy, right?
	I can't go to a doctor because we live in the socialist medicine paradise, right?
	So, no, just let it go.
	The morality of your decisions is not defined by people who initiate the use of force.
	Don't fall into that trap of thinking that the moral quality of your decisions is determined by the good or bad actions of others.
	If the state decides to subsidize your school, that's their decision.
	That's their use of force.
	You working there is not that.
	Do not let the clarity and independence and sovereignty of your moral decisions to be affected and the quality of them undermined or the satisfaction you have in them undermined by the immoral actions of others.
	You don't get cancer if someone down the street smokes a cigarette.
	And you do not gain a moral stain because other people are sanctioning or enacting the initiation of force.
	So I hope that helps.
	Anyway, listen, I'm so sorry. I know we've got lots and lots more questions.
	I really do apologize, but we've been going a little over two, almost two hours, 20 minutes, so...
	I hope that it's been enough and I apologize for that.
	Yeah, that's right. You can't ever take an umbrella or not because the weather satellites are launched by NASA. So anyway, have yourselves a great, great week for everybody.
	Thank you so much for your support.
	I really, really do appreciate it.
	And thank you for your patience as I'm working on some new material.

▲