Aug. 15, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
33:12
1976 How To Achieve Freedom' - Anarchast Ep. 3 With Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio
In this episode Jeff Berwick speaks with Stefan Molyneux of FreedomainRadio.com. Topics include: -How Stefan became an anarchist -Stefan's thoughts on Anarcho-Communism -Why Anarcho-Communists may have never grown out of the "family paradigm" -How our childhood experiences have an enormous impact on our open-ness to anarchic thought -Why we can't change people's minds if they've been raised under violence and punishments -How the riots in London and the UK have their roots in State programs affecting the family -How to bring freedom into our own lives -The Non-Aggression Principle begins in the home
Today we have Stefan Molyneux of Freedom Main Radio.
It's the largest philosophical discussion on the internet.
He's done over 1800 podcasts which makes our two podcasts look very unmasculine and impotent.
How are you doing Stefan? Great, Jeff.
Thanks so much for having me on. Oh, it's totally my pleasure, and this time I get to ask the questions, so it's all easy for me this time.
I get to just sit back and hear what you have to say, and I'm really interested to hear what you have to say.
In general, for example, I'm very curious.
I've never heard a podcast where you've talked much About your background, how you got into anarchism and these sort of things.
Could you tell us a little bit about your journey to anarchism?
Sure. I mean, I started out as a good old-fashioned Canadian socialist cub.
I grew up in England. I was born in Ireland.
I grew up in England. And then I came to Canada when I was about 11 with my family.
And yeah, I thought socialism was, you know, the usual taking care of people, being nice to people and helping the poor, the sick, the old and the disadvantaged and so on.
And that all seemed like a very good idea.
And then a friend of mine, who's now an economics professor, got into the band Rush.
And I was into sort of darker and gloomier stuff.
I was more of a Floyd fellow, but he was into Rush.
And Rush, the drummer, is very influenced by Ayn Rand.
And so he passed me over a copy of The Fountainhead, which I devoured, I'm pretty sure, in two days.
And I just found it like an electrical butterfly having an epileptic attack on my frontal lobes.
It just really woke up dormant parts of my brain.
And it's a very, very powerful and heady mixture.
I think I was 15 or 16 at the time, and through there I got into libertarianism and all of that kind of stuff, and I did that for an embarrassing amount of time, sort of in hindsight.
I'd never been exposed to any anarchic thinking at all.
I guess I'd read a few of the 19th century Russian anarchists, but they were mostly leftists or sort of anarcho-communists, and that didn't really hold much appeal to me.
And so I got into the Austrian School of Economics and I devoured more Rand and Hayek and Bastiat and all of these other great writers.
And then the strangest thing happened.
I was having a debate with someone at work.
I hadn't really been...
I was an entrepreneur for 15 years.
I didn't really do much with philosophy or politics.
And we were talking about the environment.
And this idea sort of came to me during the debate about how environmental issues could be solved without the state.
And I spent a lot of time in the environmental field as an entrepreneur.
I knew it fairly well. And it was just like one of these, you know, again, one of these sort of blow your space station brain patterns out of orbit of your head.
And from there, I sort of said, okay, well, it could work for that.
Because, you know, the magic answer is the government.
How do we deal with criminals?
The government! How do we deal with the environment?
The government! It's this magical answer.
And it doesn't actually solve anything.
It's the worst kind of answer, which is an answer where you think you have an answer, but you don't actually have an answer.
And so I started looking at ways in which voluntary insurance and free market associations could solve really difficult and complex social problems like air pollution and real nasty hardened criminality and so on and I just found that there really was no limit to this theory.
Now, as I later found out, I was reinventing the wheel in six different ways from Sunday because You know, great anarchic theorizers had paved the way, and I think I had a few extra things to add, but people like Murray Rothbard and so on had all gone this way before and done some fantastic work in it.
But it was all new to me, and so I began to take that approach.
It removed the fundamental challenge that the minarchist or the objectivist has, which is if the non-initiation of force is the moral absolute, and if property rights are the moral absolute, then you can't have a government.
I mean, you just can't. It's like being an atheist and saying you need God to move the solar system.
These two things don't work together.
So that was sort of my journey.
And as I sort of began podcasting and writing more and wrote a couple of books on anarchy and all of that and discussed it more and faced more critical questions from others and from myself, it just...
I was such a reluctant anarchist.
It was a label I never ever imagined I would apply to myself.
And it really was great kicking and screaming by the extreme demons of reason and evidence, if that makes any sense.
Yes, a lot of sense.
It's really interesting to hear your background.
So were you born in Canada or were you born somewhere else?
No, I was born in Ireland, and I grew up in England.
I spent a little bit of time in South Africa, and I've lived in Canada for most of my adult life.
Okay, because I was actually born in Canada, and I lived there until I was about 30 years old.
Then I decided that was enough of that and actually came from a completely different angle than you did.
I never felt right in this socialist country and people who haven't lived there don't really know how it's very socialist and there's a lot of Really wrong ideas in their whole culture and political structure and all that.
Not to say that I hate Canada or anything like that, but a lot of the people there are very socialist and they really believe a lot of what you just said about how the government needs to be involved.
And Canada believes that more than almost anywhere I've ever been, really.
And it really wasn't the place for me.
So it's interesting to hear that you came from a spot where you never thought you'd be an anarchist.
I came from a spot where I just knew that whatever I was seeing every day made no sense to me.
And I was just thrilled the day that I found the word anarchy or anarchist.
And I said, well, that's me.
And thank God there's a name for it because I thought I was the only one out here.
And so that's a really interesting story.
There's so many things I want to ask you just based on what you just said.
One of them is we posted our first anarchist video just the other day and we had all these anarcho-communists on our website making fun of us and saying we don't know what we're talking about.
I really want to ask you this question because you started with that left side anarchist and that's sort of your understanding of where it came from.
I never was there.
And when I went there, just because some people told me that that's where I should go, it made no sense to me.
I'm like, well, if there's anarcho-communists, why aren't there anarcho-fascists?
You can be anarcho-anything if there's an anarcho-communist, in my opinion, from what I understand, what anarchy is supposed to be, which is without a state or without a ruler.
Do you understand, or can you explain to me or to our audience, does anarcho-communism make any sense at all to you?
Well, no, of course not.
I shouldn't say of course not, like it's obvious, because there are some very, very intelligent anarcho-communists who have a lot to say about the theory.
But what I love about anarcho-capitalism is that you have property rights, you have the non-aggression principle, and these are completely optional.
They're voluntary. So if you and I and, I don't know, 50 other people want to don white robes and wave flashlights around for no particular reason and start some commune, In the foothills of Montana, We can do that because we can choose to not exercise our property rights.
So what I love about anarcho-capitalism is its inclusion, right?
So just because there are property rights doesn't mean that you have to exercise them.
You can go into a contract with people where you give up your property rights.
You can just decide not to exercise and hold everything and share everything in common and all that.
So what I don't like about anarcho-communism is it doesn't allow for anarcho-capitalism.
What I do like about anarcho-capitalism is it fully allows for anarcho-communism because What you want in society is a number of different ways of organizing society or competing For the best and most productive and that which makes people the happiest and it's the most sustainable and it's the best for children and brings pink rainbow unicorn dances to everybody who wants them.
That's what you want. You don't just want competition in terms of goods and services.
You want competition in terms of the structure of society and that kind of continual laboratory experiment is fully, fully acceptable and allowable and probably even encouraged within a society which respects property rights and the non-aggression principle.
But I don't like that the anarcho-communists say that, you know, the exercise of property rights is wrong or bad.
Because then what happens is somebody wants to exercise them and you're not allowed to do that.
Whereas if somebody doesn't want to exercise property rights in an anarcho-capitalist society, no, it's fine.
Nobody's going to stomp on your omelette if that's what you want to do.
Yeah, and that's exactly what I think as well.
It's so great to hear your perspective on it and that actually explains a lot to me about what they're trying to say.
I really didn't understand it.
I didn't even know how to answer in the comments section because to me it just is two contradictory terms.
You know, you might as well just pick two random terms and say that's what you are.
And, you know, there's no logic to it at all from what I can see.
So that's great. Well, sorry, let me just depend a little bit because I think when you are faced with a really challenging intellectual paradigm, like socialism or like anarcho-communism or communism itself, I think it's usually worthwhile saying, well, how could it be appealing to people given that it doesn't make a lot of sense?
Well, I think it's all pretty important to remember.
And I know you have kids.
I have a daughter.
I mean, it's a communist paradise for her, right?
And your kids are not working for their room and board.
And so we come, as children, within the family structure, we are not coming at it from a mature property rights system, right?
That's something that you grow into.
And so I've always sort of felt that people who look at, you know, a big central authority that's going to do all this good for people and so on, are people who've never surmounted or grown out of the family paradigm.
Because the family paradigm is very, very different from the adults.
There's no stock market in the family.
There's no investment between the kids.
There's no competition. You don't just throw a T-bone on the ground and see who gets fed.
I mean, it is really a very sort of managed socialist paradise for the kids.
I think if you don't outgrow that, if you don't recognize that that's for a certain phase in your life that you're really supposed to outgrow, then I think that these other ideals of The government as family, and really, I think that's what people are talking about, which is why they get so offended when you say, we can have a society without government.
There's two things they think you mean.
They think you mean you have a society without ethics, and you have a society without any order or any authority, and that's not true at all, right?
And so I think that if we look at the degree to which people Look at how society should be structured and have not outgrown the family paradigm I think that's a fundamental confusion that people make I think you can see this in the Venus project as well of the zeitgeist that you know they kind of want robot mommies to bring them their their bottles so to speak and I think that's people who still have not made had closure on a family system they grew up in That's really interesting.
You know that old saying that conservatives want the government to be your daddy, the liberals want the government to be your mummy, and libertarians or anarchists just want to be treated like adults.
And that's really interesting.
And I'm starting to understand now why you tie in a lot of things about childhood into your whole philosophy.
And after we come back from this break, I want to ask you about that.
We'll be right back. And we're back, still with Stéphane Molyneux of Freedom Main Radio, and it's a real pleasure to talk to Stéphane.
And Stéphane, I came across you about, probably not even a year ago, and you're one of the people who I saw, I think I forget the video exactly, but I think it was something along the lines of something about your enslavement.
Oh, the story of your enslavement.
That's my Bohemian Rhapsody and everything else I do seems to be outtakes from B-sides, but yeah, that's my big hit.
Yeah, I saw that and right from there I was like, oh, I need more of this and I started just Googling or YouTubing Stefan Molyny for a number of days, which is what I did actually when I first heard about the word anarchy, the first person I personally heard about, I never actually read an Ayn Rand book, I have to admit that.
I've been against paper books for a number of years.
I'm a computer nerd and I could never get it back in the old days in electronic form, so I refused to read it.
That's a little bit of a quirk about me, a bit of a computer nerd that way.
So the first way that I found out about anarchism was through a guy who you know named Doug Casey.
He actually had just written a really short article on the internet and it was just kind of a little tiny article.
It didn't really mean much, but it was saying don't be nice to customs border guard people.
And I had been traveling at the time and I really just totally agree with everything he said.
And from there I just Googled Doug Casey for about a month straight.
And so that's how I got into that side of things.
But when I saw your video I knew right away that you were definitely someone I had to pay attention to in this sphere.
And then I went to your website and I have to say at first I was a little confused.
The website is about childhood and about philosophy and it seemed to me a number of disparate items, religion and only just now when you just talked in the last segment about childhood did I see the connection you're getting at Between anarchy and family, you're basically saying that a lot of people just have never grown up from being children.
Is that generally how you've tied all this together?
What's your general framework for all of this?
Well, there's the old Poetic line, the child is the father of the man.
And I think that when we look at society as a whole, it's very easy to take it as you see it as a snapshot of people without a history, of adults walking around making rational decisions based on just being adults.
That's not what the science indicates.
The science indicates that childhood, our experiences within childhood, good, bad, and indifferent, have an enormous, enormous, enormous foundational impact on our thinking, on our capacity to reason, on our approach to relationships, on our big picture view of society.
This is enormously influenced by our childhood histories.
And unfortunately, it's most influenced by the stuff we can't even remember in the first couple of years of life.
And if we don't look at the degree to which people's interactions as adults are shaped by their early experiences as children, then the world remains a kind of baffling mystery.
Like, you know, taxation is theft is not a complicated algorithm to process.
I mean, you may agree with it in terms of it's good or it's bad, but the fact that taxation is the initiation of force is not really that hard to figure out.
And like most people, when you talk about this, You think that's going to be a pretty easy thing and you're going to talk about the pluses and minuses but what happens Jeff is that you say taxation is theft and people go You know, they just kind of like, you can see this spasm occur in their brain.
And it took me a long time to figure this out.
And I've done a lot of research in this.
I've talked to a lot of subject matter experts, psychologists, and all that on my show.
And I've done a whole series called The Bomb and the Brain, which people can get a hold of at fdurl.com forward slash bib.
And in it, I trace the sort of science with an interview with Dr.
Vince Valitti, who's the head of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study.
And it's very, very clear that people's capacity to reason is enormously diminished if they experience adverse childhood experiences.
What happens is then they have prejudices, which they're unconscious of.
And you can see this in brain scans.
This isn't just made-up stuff, right?
So someone comes across a new argument or new piece of information.
They experience anxiety right deep down in their amygdala, and then they make up a reason for that anxiety afterwards, that people experience anxiety or stress deep down in their brains, and then afterwards they make up a reason why.
So when you say to someone, taxation is theft, it sets off alarm bells in their head, which they're not conscious of, and then the reasoning ex post facto, after the fact reasoning shows up, which is why you can't ever change people's minds, because until you can address the core anxiety, you can't change people's minds, because fundamentally there's no mind to change yet.
And so my goal has been, look, let's think about what a society would look like if all children in the world were raised without aggression, without raised voices, without being hit, without being terrorized, without threats of hell or punishments aplenty.
And it's pretty clear what we would see.
What we would see is a massive reduction in things like drug addiction, promiscuity, cigarette addiction, alcoholism would be down...
Well, we'll get to your case in a moment.
But no, so there'd be much less criminality.
If you look at the childhoods of political leaders, they're almost always incredibly dysfunctional.
And so there'd be much less hunger for political power, much less criminality.
The two things that seem to hold the state together in people's minds, which is this surging criminality and the need to clamp down and control it, those two things would fade away.
If children were raised peacefully and happily and people would actually be able to accept rational and empirical arguments because they wouldn't have these bombs of anxiety going off in their head based on early childhood experiences.
So that's my approach.
I could be right, I could be wrong.
I don't believe that politics is how we're going to do it.
I think that it is an evolution in child-rearing that we really need.
And there's lots of evidence to show this, that countries which have banned childhood corporal punishment for children, and there have been a number of European countries in particular that have banned it, have much lower incidence of going to war.
And they tend to be more open to viewing people who say are addicted to drugs as people with a problem that needs to be solved rather than criminals who need to be locked up and have the key thrown away.
There's a lot of compassion that comes out of people who are raised peacefully, or at least without corporal punishment, and that seems to be, I think, the way to go.
Again, I could be wrong. Maybe, you know, Ron Paul will rescue us all, but I don't believe that's the case.
I think it's a multi-generational process of improving the way that we treat children, and from there, I think we will end up with a peaceful society where authority will be unsought by empty people who lust for power over others.
And will be viewed as unnecessary by people who face almost no threats to their persons and property from the criminal class that largely vanishes when children are treated well.
That's interesting because I have come from a slightly different angle on it, but I'm very interested in your views and it makes a lot of sense.
To me, it appears like most of the problems that we have today are because of the state, so we're coming from similar angles in that respect.
Just the fact that people are raised basically from day one in the state, put into indoctrination camps, the media is basically one and the same with the state in many cases.
They're told just the status angle from that pretty much the day they're born then they're given pensions from the government or they they are right now they won't be in the future but for me the angle that I've always taken is all of these problems that of these people who can't see what's going on is to me I just consider them brainwashed because they've been raised in this artificial non-free market system for most of their life so it's very interesting to hear That you think part of it isn't just that.
You believe that it's in how people raise their children also has a great effect on how people are more open to seeing what's really going on when they become adults.
Is that basically correct?
Yeah, that is true. And I really wanted to reinforce the point that you're making, Jeff, that I don't believe that it is a circular system, right?
So you're absolutely right that the indoctrination that children receive in government schools fuels their addiction and belief in government.
No question about that.
I completely agree with that.
And the fact that Rising tax rates have caused so many families around the world, and particularly in the West, to end up with two parents working.
And then you put your kid into a state daycare.
Where, at least according to the research I've read recently, at least here in Quebec and Canada, they have significant drops in language skills.
Because children should be raised by their parents, or at least one of their parents.
I mean, it seems weird to even have to say that.
Like, that's some sort of radical thing.
It's like saying, married couples should live together, you know?
The parents should raise their kids.
They ideally shouldn't put them in daycare unless there's some extreme necessity like illness or something.
Parents should raise their own kids.
Sorry, I just want to point out that yes, the state and the healthy family are, to me, exact opposites and they are at war.
The healthier the family gets, the less power the state is going to have.
And so it is in the state's interest to diminish and to undermine the family.
And certainly here in Canada, there have been billions and billions of dollars funded into some pretty radical feminist groups which have said, you know, women can't be fulfilled unless they go out to work and so on.
But that's really good for the state.
I mean, it turns a non-taxable income, like raising kids and being a housewife, into a taxable income called being an employee, and it also places kids earlier and earlier into the tender arms of the state, and that makes the state even more powerful.
So it is a cycle.
I mean, I think you're right.
We need to be aware of what's happening on the state side, but I think we also need to be aware of its origins within the family.
That's very interesting. We had a podcast just a few days ago with Oliver Westcott of anarchocapitalist.org, live from London, about the UK riots.
And this being anarchists, we were basically saying that those people rioting are anarchists.
And I know you know that.
But I did see you put out your own video and it was excellent.
I watched it and you took it from the, I guess both angles, the state and how it's affecting families and how it's making people have broken families in the UK. And you basically said that was the main, one of the main causes for what was the riots going on in London and the UK. Is that correct?
Yeah, I mean, in the UK as a whole, there's been a pretty enormous shattering of the family over the last generation or two.
And of course, in the black communities in particular, it's 50% of kids growing up without a father and a significant proportion of them growing up in households where they've never seen anyone work.
And then they go to these terrible state schools, they live in these terrible government ghettos and government housing.
It is all just wretched and then they can't find jobs because taxes and regulations are so high that I mean one of the things that happens is the middle class likes to use the government to keep the poor from competing with them and so it has these barriers to entry licensing and so on that keeps the young people from being entrepreneurs and undercutting the the older people I mean imagine if these kids were just allowed to go out and get jobs as plumbers if they were reasonable at it and people wanted them to do it rather than having to go through two or five or ten years or whatever it is of apprenticeship So yeah, I think it is really tragic.
I mean, and this was all well foreseen.
This is nothing... I'm not particularly smart in this area.
This was all predicted. Charles Taylor wrote about it many years ago that when you create a system where you can have families with a guaranteed income without the traditional underpinnings of the family, right?
So one person working and sort of some deferral of gratification in terms of having families later.
Then you're going to end up with this kind of mess where you can have kids as a job and the dad feels less obligation to stick around because the kids are going to be taken care of anyway, which means that the woman has to be less choosy about who she's having sex with or whether she's using protection and so on.
So, yeah, it is a complete mess.
Now, you know, not to say that these kids have no moral responsibility.
They do. But I think we have to look at the statistics of where these things are occurring.
Look at the degree to which family breakdown has had a significant impact on the way that these kids have developed and their relationship to their society as a whole.
Totally. I totally agree, as always.
I don't think I ever really disagree with you.
We're both basically seeing things the same way.
When we come back, I just want to ask you one more question.
I know you're a busy guy, and I just want to ask you how you see us moving towards a better world, what we can all do personally to get there.
So we'll be right back in part three after this.
And we're back with Stéphane Molyneux of Freedomain Radio.
And Stéphane has been just insightful as always.
I just want to basically ask you the question that I tend to ask a lot of anarchists to really see what's going on and see how much of the world has been destroyed by government and by the people who believe in government, unfortunately.
Again, it's the people who usually are the poorest and who are the least educated who actually believe that these governments can help them and it's really tragic but hopefully through things like Free Domain Radio and Anarchast and many others and it's all cropping up all over the internet now we can help the world get to a better place somehow because We both have families.
Not that that even matters. I don't like that statement that, oh, I've got a family.
I've got to worry about the world.
I still worry about the world.
I'm still here. And even if I wasn't here, we're here at the moment.
Let's try to make things better.
So tell me a little bit about how you think we might go forward in the next few years.
I heard one of your comments.
I think it was at one of the Liberty conferences you said we're probably looking at beyond our lifetimes to really see some of the big changes that we want to see.
I'm a little bit more optimistic but I want to hear your perspective on what can people do and is it possible to see any kind of real freedom and getting rid of the fallacy of the state from most people's mind any time in the near future?
Yeah, I think that there is.
I mean, there's a lot that we can do to bring freedom into our own lives.
I sort of like to live like there is no government.
I mean, I pay my taxes and I obey the laws because I like this side of the jail cell.
But, you know, I pay them their money and like to live like there is no government.
And that's as close as I can get.
What I strongly, strongly urge people is to recognize that the non-aggression principle begins in the home.
It begins in the home.
It begins with your children.
The non-aggression principle means no hitting.
It means don't raise your voice, don't intimidate, don't threaten.
Because if children experience a peaceful life, a life without aggression when they're younger, what happens is when they first encounter the state, It'll be like you encounter somebody speaking a language you don't speak.
Be like, I kind of get a sense of what they're talking about, but I have no idea of the content.
Whereas if you, you know, are aggressive with your kids and you hit them and you bully them and you control them and so on, then when they go to public school, they'll be like, hey, I already speak this language.
Hey, this is no huge change for me.
And so in a sense, the most adversive thing that you can do, the thing that would change the most is to be the future for your children today, to be a...
To create for them an environment where they experience the non-aggression principle as axiomatic, like gravity, where they experience property rights.
You know, don't force them to share.
Let them have their property. And that way, when they grow up, that will be the language they speak, the language of peace, the language of negotiation, the language of property.
And they will, of course, hear the language of statism, but it will sound like Klingon to the untrained ear or Klingon slash German choking on a steel wool hairball.
It'll sound unpleasant, is what I'm trying to say.
So, I think that's an important thing you can do.
Of course, in your relationships, the non-aggression principle is very important.
I think that's going to have an enormous impact on the way things work in the long run.
I think that we need to show the happiness that can come, the joy, the deep, powerful joy that can come out of living a free life where you don't aggress against people.
We can't aggress against the state.
That's just, you know, as a suicide, of course.
But you can show people how wonderful a life can be of non-aggression and property rights.
You can make predictions which hopefully will cement your validity or the validity of your ideas in people's minds as you are progressively more and more correct and hopefully being able to predict it makes your perspective more valuable and then people will start to listen a little bit.
If you know people who are being aggressive with their kids and you feel that it's safe and positive to do so, you can talk to them about this and tell them, look, you know, spanking increases aggression, spanking reduces IQ, spanking provokes bullying.
These are all very well demonstrated scientifically.
And so you can help out that way.
And I think through that process, we will build this inextrable rising tide.
That will lift the boats of even the people who kind of want to stay behind in a more aggressive world.
It will be irresistible, I think, as it moves forward.
We'll get fewer criminals, fewer people with political lust for power.
Children will experience better playtime with other children and less of a need to feel aggressive or defensive or guard their stuff and so on.
And so I think that in that kind of positivity and optimism, we will simply outgrow The state, you know, like a spaceship breaking orbit and heading off to the stars will simply outgrow this ancient tyranny through peace and happiness that begins in the areas that we can affect, which is our personal relationships, our family relationships, our friendships, our business relationships.
These are the relationships we can affect and it is through that scaffolding, I think, that we build this cathedral called the future.
That's really powerful stuff.
You've already made a difference with me.
I've paid attention.
I never had much interest, to be honest, in child rearing or anything along those lines.
I never had a kid until recently.
And recently, my wife basically uses a little bit of a spanking every now and then on On our son to get him in line.
And after reading your stuff, I had a talk with her one day and I said, you know, we shouldn't be using violence against these children to do anything.
We should negotiate. And she didn't really understand what I meant at first, as many people probably don't because many people grew up with this sort of paradigm of, well, you do something wrong, you get spanked as a kid.
But very quickly, I had to actually show her.
I just used a few of the techniques I had read about from what you had written or what you had said.
And she went to hit him and I said, stop for a second.
And I went up to him and I said, listen, you're crying.
You want something. And she wants you to stop crying.
Let's do this. I'll give you this if you give me that.
And it's perfect.
It's negotiation. And that's what anarchy is.
That's what free markets is.
That's what capitalism is.
And it works. It works like a charm.
And it's amazing. And she's already stopped doing anything like that.
And it's amazing what a great difference it can make.
And so, yeah, I know you're making a big difference.
And I really want to make sure that I can do whatever I can to get your word out there more.
Can you just let our audience know how they can get more from Stéphane Molyneux?
Sure. And thank you so much for sharing that story.
And without even the slightest hint of any kind of condescension, tell your wife that what I think she's doing is wonderful and beautiful.
And what you're doing, of course, when you're a parent, you're just bigger than your kids.
All you're teaching them is that size might makes right, so to speak, which is the exact opposite of what we want to teach as anarchists.
So I hugely applaud you and your wife.
Oh, that's great stuff. Yeah, I'm at freedomainradio.com.
You can go to youtube.com forward slash freedom made radio for videos.
And everything I do is pretty much free.
Books are all free. Videos are all free.
There's a message board with like 11,000 people chatting about freedom.
So anybody who wants to join in the conversation, I do a Sunday show, a call-in show, Sundays, 2 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time. Just go to the Freedom Aid Radio chat room to join in if you have questions or comments or criticisms.
Always love to be improved upon if I can be.
So that's how to contact me.
And thanks again for that story. That just made my day.
Oh, that's great. Well, thank you.
And I know I'm going to be seeing you in October at Libertopia in San Diego, October, I believe, 21st, 22nd.
Is that right? Do you know the dates offhand?
I know you're a busy guy.
I think so, yeah. And I'll be in New York September the 10th at Liberty Fest, too.
Okay, great. Yeah, and you're the Toastmaster or Master of Ceremonies or whatever they call them?
I hope I get a cape.
I want a cape and tights because that seems like a superhero to me, but we'll find out.
Well, I hope you don't do that.
I don't want to see that at all.
But it's been really great to have you on the show.
It's a real honor. And thank you very much, Stefan Molyneux, Free Domain Radio.
