Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Dec. 18, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:53:38

20111218_Sun

What to do if you come into a lot of money, the comic social responsibilities of a good education, and the axiom errors of Ayn Rand.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right. Hello, everybody.
	It is the last show before Santa comes with his red-drenched communist redistribution scheme from the helpless proletariat worker elves to the children of upper-middle-class people whose chimneys he can barely fit down.
	So I hope you're doing very well.
	I hope you're having a wonderful week.
	I hope you are preparing for a truly magical Christmas.
	And I'm not going to do much.
	Somebody asked me in the AA's passage.
	I just did a video on that. Which you can check out.
	Somebody's mentioned freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
	Always welcome. Always welcome.
	Throw a few pieces of hard rock fiat currency candy down my Christmas tree and I will do the dance of people who have food.
	Which is a good dance because the dance of people who don't have food tends to be a little bit more limited.
	Anyway, we do have a couple of people on the deck.
	For the call today, which I'm looking forward to.
	And if you would like James to hit the eject button to propel the first person up into the stratosphere of philosophical, hopefully somewhat to do with wisdom, I would appreciate that.
	Life is good. I'm actually calling about money advice.
	I just kind of came up on a bunch of money.
	My stock went...
	My company went public and I have a bunch of stock options.
	So now what am I going to do with all this cash?
	Wait, wait, wait. So what you're doing is you're calling in a donation-based show, dangling a massive amount of money you don't know what to do with.
	I wonder where I'm going to steal you.
	That's an interesting case.
	Well, listen, first of all, congratulations on going public.
	I have gone through that in a minor way.
	Right. Myself, and it is a very exciting time, so I really wanted to extend my congratulations.
	It is a damn hard thing to do.
	Yes. It's a hard thing to build a company up that way.
	It's a challenge to go public.
	There's lots of paperwork, lots of legalese, and I just wanted to extend my congratulations on that huge and achievable feat.
	So, good for you. Thanks.
	Thanks. Now, as far as what you want to do, you sound like a relatively young man, unless you're putting your voice through the Justin Bieber filter.
	No. No.
	I'm a young guy, yeah. Okay, good, good.
	So, what do you want to do, right?
	Because money is a means to an end, and the end can be anything that you want, and until there's some sort of sense of a means to an end, then there's not really much point talking about how to get there, right?
	So, what is it that you'd want to do with the money, or what is it you want to do with your life?
	I mean, do you want to keep working where you're working?
	Did you want to take a break?
	I mean, what's your pleasure?
	Wow.
	Oh, yeah.
	Somebody has suggested to buy a new microphone.
	Hopefully that won't take most of your time.
	It's just my laptop.
	Actually, they have made laptops since about 1991, which you might want to look into.
	It sounds like you've got basically a yogurt cup, a piece of string.
	That you're in an aqueduct of some kind.
	That's all right. I won't mock your tech anymore.
	I can't wait to hear this. So what is it that you want to do?
	I mean, if you've come into some money, fantastic.
	Congratulations. And what is it you want to do with it?
	Save it. I think that's a pretty easy thing to do.
	Just be safe with it and just try to protect it.
	I was talking earlier with somebody in the chat about how to be careful with my money.
	Yes, I think there is...
	As you know, as I'm sure you know, there's this issue floating around the West as a whole, which is massive unfunded obligations to an increasingly dependent population, and entitled and whiny and aggressive population.
	And since the government can't pay its bills, it takes one of two forks in the road, and they're both kind of related, but the two forks in the road are it's either going to print its way out, which is a soft default, Or it's going to get involved in a war.
	And getting involved in a war creates sort of an artificial unity in the population and it also creates a sense of danger that will cause the population to be more willing to accept Austerity measures, you know, reductions in the standard of living, price controls as a way to combat the inflation of overprinting money, and it allows people to accept things like rationing, coupons, and all that kind of stuff.
	And so if you can stimulate people's amygdala flight response, then they will accept a significantly lowered standard of living.
	My concern, you know, if I were sitting on a big chunk of money right now, my concern would be, in what way are these two possibilities going to affect whatever it is that I save?
	And there's a couple of ways, and look, you understand, I am not in any way, shape, or form a financial expert, so please don't take any of this as any kind of gospel.
	These are just my thoughts on the matter.
	I just want to be cheering up about that.
	Harry Brown's, you know, got, I think his investing show is still...
	I like trading paper currency for stuff.
	I kind of like that.
	It's like Monopoly. You can get the little plastic houses and you get rid of the paper money.
	I think that real estate It can be a good investment depending on where you're living.
	Because at least then, there's stuff.
	And if you're a young man, then you're looking at the long term, right?
	If you were five years from retirement, then real estate would be more dicey.
	But real estate in the long run in the West, I think in general, is just going to go up.
	Because the West is a desirable place to live.
	For most people, there's going to be lots of immigration, immigrants getting money, drives the price of housing up.
	So I think real estate is not a bad place to put that.
	And you can either do real estate like a speculation, Or a long-term investment like you buy stuff and you rent it out or you buy stuff and buy stuff and rent it out.
	We're not talking about that much money.
	It would just be for me.
	Okay. Yeah, so then what you can do is you can buy a place that's maybe a little bigger or with more land.
	In general, I think buying a little bit outside a city is a good idea because you'll generally get more land.
	And what happens, of course, is cities always expand.
	So what is outside the city will become the suburbs over time.
	And so buy a little bit outside the city, a little bit larger maybe than you need so that you can either, if you have a family at some point in the future, assuming you don't, you'll have room for them or you can We're good to go.
	Yeah, a good time to buy, exactly.
	It's that dollar cost averaging, right?
	So, yeah, you can buy some gold and buy some real estate.
	You know, if anybody else has ideas in the, yeah, gold, silver, platinum or palladium, which I believe is the money that is used by the really good characters in Dungeons& Dragons.
	I could be wrong. But, yeah, so you could do that.
	Now, you can also, of course, in stocks and bonds, you can do that kind of stuff.
	But I think that, you know, government-issued stuff is kind of dicey.
	You, of course, can buy more shares in your company, which is a lot more about that than anybody else about the value of it.
	So that's another thing that you can do.
	And also, of course, you can...
	You can buy things like mining stocks.
	I'm a big fan of the Casey Newsletters, Casey Research Newsletters.
	I think they're worth signing up for.
	Jeff Berwick's Dollar Vigilante has also got stuff.
	And Casey's stuff is good because it's got really specific buy recommendations and the reasoning and rationale behind it.
	I was an MC down at their When Money Dies conference in Phoenix recently, and the amount of detail that they went into as to sort of buy and sell recommendations was really impressive to me.
	Again, as an outsider and an amateur, it looked like a very thorough analysis.
	So, you know, I think mining stocks is pretty good.
	I think it's indisputable that mining stocks are going to do well simply because obviously the more valuable gold becomes, the more marginal Mining areas become economically productive, and so there'll be expansions in that area.
	But of course, you know, we generally think of mining as like gold and silver and all that, but when you think of mining in terms of like copper and iron and all the other things that the developing economies in China and India really need, I think it's pretty inescapable to expect that mining stocks, all other things being equal, are going to do quite well.
	So, and again, I could sort of ramble on and on, but those are just sort of my thoughts.
	Yeah, definitely don't. I would not be a big fan of take a bunch of cash and put it in a bank.
	Exactly. I really like the idea of turning it into real stuff.
	That's cool. I'm sorry?
	Taking the money and turning it into real things.
	I like that idea. Yes, that's right.
	Somebody has suggested you can buy a porn site, 1000% return on investment.
	I don't know.
	He sounds like he's speaking with some authority and...
	And his name actually includes 99, which has got to be the worst 69 that I could conceivably imagine.
	So I'm not sure where that comes from.
	And of course, it's worth diversifying looking into stuff that's overseas.
	Again, I'm never really sure to what degree you want to become an expert in investing.
	Who knows? Yeah.
	I think there's lots of good things to do with it.
	If you just want to keep things simple, you can read Harry Brown's investment books and stuff like that.
	Good for you! Congratulations!
	That can be a very heady, exciting and wonderful thing to do.
	Good for you. I think it's great.
	I think it's great. I know you've gone through some of the same stuff too with the stock market.
	Oh, yeah. No, and, you know, it really depends.
	I actually don't have much interest in money.
	I mean, to me, money is just a means to an end.
	But some people really love it, you know, in terms of, like, they're really excited.
	I know some listeners who are, you know, traders and all that kind of stuff.
	And, you know, I think that I can't get that interested in money.
	You know, I sort of roof over my head and a microphone to yell at.
	And I'm, you know, food in my belly and I'm good to go.
	But a lot of people are much more into it.
	And if you are, I think there's actually an investment group Somebody maybe can give me the link in the chat window.
	There is an investment group that runs a weekly call, and I think it's European, and you can maybe get involved with them.
	There are people who've been doing some fake and some real...
	Sorry, somebody's just chatting.
	They've been doing some fake and some real investments, and so you may want to sort of see what their returns have been and what their level of expertise is, but I think it's...
	Yeah, I think it's good. I mean, I think that general company stocks, particularly in the US market, may not do well in the long run.
	Again, sort of my personal opinion.
	And so I would be careful about that.
	You know, I think Canada is a very interesting place to look at in terms of investment.
	I mean, obviously, highly educated workforce and lots of expertise, huge amounts of natural resources, you know, a big market in the US, and a pretty stable economy.
	I mean, I mean, we're still running a deficit, though it's been better for the last little while.
	The deficit was sort of caused or was not caused by, but was triggered by the recession slash depression.
	But we have some semi-serious conservatives in power at the federal level.
	And the nice thing about Canadian conservatism is you get some fiscal conservatism, like some free market stuff and some controls over government spending.
	And a lack of interest in stimulus spending, which is the reason why Canada's economy bounced back so quickly after the recession.
	But what's great about the Canadian conservatives is you get fiscal conservatism without having to hold your nose for neoconservative aggressive foreign policy and significant amounts of religiosity.
	So as far as conservatives go in the world, they're not too bad at all.
	And so from that standpoint, I think that Canada, despite the fact that we're sort of tethered at the neck to the Albatross called it the American economy, I think is going to have some real potential.
	And of course, Canada is doing a lot of trade with China and India and so on and is recognizing, as most intelligent people do, that the American economy is not necessarily the drainpipe you want to get your toe stuck in.
	And so, you know, you might want to look into investing into some Canadian companies as well.
	Again, this is just all my idiot amateur opinion and, you know, don't take any of this as any kind of gospel, but that's Something to consider.
	Great. Thank you. You're very welcome.
	Congratulations again. All right.
	And that's it, right? Okay, so if we want to move on to the caller the next.
	Yes. Next up we have Alex.
	Go ahead. Hey, you guys can hear me all right?
	Sure can. Great.
	I called in a few weeks back and had some questions sort of on You know, ethics versus aesthetics and sort of press Steph a little further on kind of his thoughts on sports because I've always sort of been naturally inclined to not really get into it for a lot of reasons that it's just completely, you know, pretty arbitrary where you're born and having this sort of allegiancy to the local team.
	It never really made a lot of sense to me, but, you know, even if As I'm kind of trying to, you know, go through these podcasts and kind of make changes to my life to live a little more rationally and a little more truthfully, I'm always kind of on a lookout to know, you know, confusing these sort of things I'm naturally leaning toward to trying to say that as, you know, this is something that, like, actually is Untrue or false about the world that's forced on our throat.
	So anyway, let me just run this bike here, run one more thing that's sort of on my mind.
	Let's see if I can formulate it into a question.
	But I had this brilliant friend who, you know, full ride to Harvard grad school and writes for a bunch of different magazines, freelance writing and so on and so forth.
	And I always find myself in these conversations with him where I'm just wondering the kinds of stuff he likes to focus on.
	And I'll just come up with an example in a second.
	The kind of stuff he likes to focus on are just kind of the struggles of a particular group and their struggle with their identity.
	So let me flesh this out a little bit more to see where I'm coming from.
	There's sort of a recent article he did where he had the opportunity to go to China and follow these rock bands around, these punk bands in China, which is obviously a great opportunity.
	It was all fully paid for.
	Is there something to be salvaged, something enjoyable as somebody who does live a pretty rational lifestyle?
	Is there something to enjoy at all?
	I have a lot of skepticism for myself, like I said, ethics versus aesthetics.
	I don't know if this is just me being closed-minded to some different viewpoints that might actually derive some value, or perhaps this is just a big waste of time in collectivist land trying to really Understand what's going on and the nuances and the struggles.
	I mean, I can let you come in and say a word here.
	Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
	No, I think it's very interesting what you're talking about.
	I mean, my mind is churning six different ways from Sunday, but I want to make sure that I keep listening.
	So I'm happy if you want to explain more.
	I certainly have some thoughts so far, but I don't want to interrupt you.
	Let me just say one last little thing to kind of, you know, consolidate something that you can work with, because it's a lot of different stuff.
	It's more just... It's kind of widespread, you know, for so much of the art and the movies and everything that's produced, there's this kind of, you know, you have to kind of focus in on the characters' struggles and, you know, in my mind, often they'll get it wrong.
	Like, maybe they'll work through their family problems and find out, like, oh, I found a way to deal with my mom and now we can, you know, all sorts of stuff, which I'm sure you have much opinions on.
	But I just wonder... With this kind of mindset, when you're trying to live this rational life, does that just cut out a huge chunk of what so many of these movies, and in this case, my friend, what he's trying to talk about, and talking about the struggles of trying to be taken seriously as this Chinese punk band, and so on and so forth.
	I just wonder, is there anything to be salvaged from that, or is it just...
	Is it, as I suspect, just, you know, this fascination with, you know, what people consider identity when it's really just kind of this culturalist, collectivist?
	So let me just make sure I understand.
	So this guy is, you know, obviously very intelligent and Harvard-educated and so on, and he writes for a bunch of places, and he goes to China and becomes fascinated by the struggles of Chinese punk bands to gain hardcore Western spiky-haired legitimacy, and how tough it is for them?
	Yeah, you know, to do this thing that you really love as a band, but then, you know, no one's ever going to take you seriously or you're never going to make it big because like, oh, like the gimmick is that, oh, like if they were to come here or tour or something like that, it's so easy to just write them off as like, oh, a foreign band.
	That's what makes them special.
	It's like, that's their gimmick.
	And, you know, I mean, I am in a band and I... But sorry, I get a sense of it's relentlessly trivial, isn't it?
	Well, that's kind of where my brain's leading.
	Yeah, I mean, of all the problems that we're facing in the world, the struggles of Chinese punks to be taken seriously in the West would seem not particularly high on the list of urgent things to deal with in the world, right?
	I would absolutely agree.
	Self-indulgence is the phrase that comes to mind.
	And also, there's a kind of...
	I get a sense of it, you know, it's just my thoughts, right?
	But I guess sort of snobby elitism, like, it would almost be beneath him to deal with some of the more mundane aspects of things like human rights and peaceful parenting and anti-spanking.
	I mean, these are my things, right?
	Whatever it would be to actually do something that had some depth and power and virtue in the world, would that be considered, like, dirtying his hands?
	Like, it seems kind of aesthetic.
	It seems sort of like I get the sort of image of a...
	One thing is that... Sorry, go ahead. I don't think he's trying to find the most pertinent world's problems.
	Not even that he's trying to find the ones that people are already dealing with, so he's going to root out this more subtle thing.
	To some extent, you can just write about this stuff and not have it be trying to improve the world.
	I don't really think it's his focus.
	I'm more just thinking along the lines of, even if we live in this imperfect world, we all need to enjoy this world where we're living on it.
	And I think that's kind of what he's trying to get out of it.
	Like, just kind of, you know, not trying to save the world so much.
	It's kind of, well, it's both, you know.
	He would like... I don't even really know what the goal is.
	Like, what are you going to accomplish there?
	Just, like, tell him...
	I don't know. Well, it seems to me it's almost like a projection, right?
	Which is sort of like...
	These wannabe rock stars have a very tough time being...
	taken seriously because they did not invent the genre and and so on right or whatever it is whatever I don't care what the reasons are right but I would have a tough time taking anyone seriously who found that particular topic to be a useful you know in the in the world that we live in in the times that we live in you know when America has simply just passed a law allowing for the indefinite detention at will of American citizens without trial to focus on the trials of Chinese punk rockers It seems insane.
	Yes. And it seems like, how could you take a thinker like that seriously?
	So he's really concerned about how the punk rockers get taken seriously, but how can you take somebody who's concerned about the punk rockers being taken seriously seriously?
	Well, of course, but the one thing to say about that is that, you know, whether or not There are bigger things to write about, but the purpose of writing about this stuff isn't just to solve problems.
	It's more you can read this, and I guess for him, it's like having this elevated perspective.
	Yeah, I mean, what I'm talking about, of course it sounds ridiculous.
	Hey, sorry, sorry. You're really confusing me here.
	I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
	And, you know, this could just be me missing it, right?
	Is it not a trivial topic?
	Let's at least lay some groundwork that we can agree on, right?
	Is it not a relentlessly unimportant and trivial topic?
	Which is fine.
	And I want to be clear, there's nothing wrong with relentlessly unimportant and trivial topics, right?
	That's fine. But at least we have to admit that they're relentlessly unimportant and trivial.
	I would absolutely agree.
	And would he? No.
	He's very... Okay, so there's a disconnect, right?
	Sorry, so I just want to understand, right?
	And again, you know, I mean, if he wants to do it, it's great.
	You know, it can be a hobby.
	You know, it can be a hobby.
	But the idea that it's some sort of vocation or calling or some important addition to the world...
	I mean, talk about fiddling while Rome burns, right?
	I mean, what nationality is this guy?
	He's an American dude. Right.
	So a highly educated American dude...
	Is focusing on musicians in a foreign country while his country is falling into the flames of fascism?
	I mean, do you not just think that that's just relentlessly irresponsible?
	Certainly, but at the same time, it's like, again, let's treat it like a hobby, and perhaps that's, well, it is and it isn't.
	No, because look, first of all, I mean, even if he's gone to Harvard, I know Harvard is expensive, I don't know if he paid the whole thing himself, but Harvard still gets a huge amount of government money, right?
	Now, I believe, I believe that if you take a lot of money from taxpayers, you should damn well give them a little bit back in return.
	You know, you don't have to dedicate your whole life to, you know, shaving the calluses off their feet with an emery board, but you do have to give a little bit back to the society that has paid to educate you, especially if that payment was involuntary.
	So, like, for instance, I'm aware that I paid for not very much of my own education and, you know, I use the word education rather loosely, but I did not pay much, so I got a lot of money from taxpayers.
	And I think that if you are going to accept the forced tributes of others, at least give them something back that is of value to them.
	It doesn't make you their slave, but you've certainly made them your slave by going to school.
	So give them something back that's helpful.
	Now, I think that people as a whole would say, okay, so I don't like the fact that I'm forced to pay for these people's higher education, but at least when they come out, they're going to do some goddamn thing to fight for my freedoms and to fight to resist tyranny in a way that I can't because I'm busy.
	And because I don't have that education or those credentials that mean something that have that impressive Harvard ring, you know, give something back to the people that you've taken from.
	Stand up on the wall against fascism for the people who can't defend themselves.
	Do something of value to help people who are falling into totalitarianism.
	Don't whack around, you know, yanking your crank over foreign-born musicians and their struggles for credibility.
	That is not giving back much of a payment to the people Who've paid to have you educated for many years at great expense.
	If you're going to force villagers to train you to become a doctor, at least go back and set a few broken legs.
	That's all I'm saying. That's all I'm saying.
	Do something that is useful to the people whose money you've taken.
	Even if they don't understand that it's useful, even if they don't know why it's useful, still, give a little something back.
	Don't just make it all about you and your particular local preferences and hobbies and whimsical preferences.
	Take something seriously, get involved in something that is important, and do something to help the world.
	Don't just follow your own particular pursuits off this foggy cliff towards masturbatory self-indulgence.
	That's my particular perspective, and it may be wrong, but that's where I'm coming from.
	Great. Well, definitely good stuff to think about.
	Your ability to take an extremely sort of abstract objection on my part and turn it into something a little more concrete is pretty commendable.
	But I'll give it up to somebody else and thank you for your time.
	And, you know, sorry, I'm not saying that, you know, if you don't mind for a second, I'm not saying you corner this guy and yell at him or anything like that.
	But, you know, I mean, if he wants to call into the show, I'd love to talk.
	Like, how is this helping the world?
	I mean, you're in a very privileged position.
	You know, I assume he was born to a relatively decent family, relatively well-off family.
	He's in the West. He's been educated.
	He's got a Harvard...
	What degree does he have?
	I think he's at least studying for some really economic history of China or something.
	But, I mean, maybe journalism was what his undergrad was.
	I don't really remember. But, you know, he's got some serious kudos and credos.
	Oh, certainly. And, you know, God, how are you going to use that to do good?
	You know, I mean, credibility is a kind of superpower.
	You know, we all know those comic books, right?
	You get the superpower, and how are you going to use it?
	I mean, I think when I kind of came into this conversation, a lot of this was a lot of my own skepticism toward what I think was him glorifying or just, I don't know, capitalizing and expounding upon the The struggles of the group.
	And of course, you know, I was on my guard against the sort of collectivist argument.
	I'm like, no, this is a struggle of this group.
	And wow, you get even more nuanced.
	I don't know. I mean, that's kind of where my brain was leading.
	It's a little less concrete than I would like.
	Well, look, I mean, just imagine, right?
	So imagine there's a, you know, I come to you, imagine you're a movie executive, right?
	And I come to you and I've got a screenplay.
	I got a screenplay, right?
	And I say, hey, you know, okay, so this guy, he lives on this planet called Krypton, really, really far away, where gravity is different, and there's this amazing sun that, you know, they're just normal over there.
	But his whole planet blows up, and his mom and his dad send him to Earth, where he has these amazing superpowers.
	He can run faster than a speeding train.
	He is more powerful than a locomotive.
	He can fly. Bullets bounce off his chest.
	He's got all of these amazing superpowers.
	He's like, wow, that's really cool.
	I sense an epic battle of good and evil.
	No, no, no! See, this guy who's got these amazing superpowers, who can do just about anything that he wants in the world, who can fight crime and demolish evil and make the world a better place, and he can even fly backwards around the world and make market kids get younger and all of these amazing things.
	And you're on the edge of your seat and you say, oh, well, what happens next?
	Well, next, you see, he takes all of these amazing superpowers, he flies over to China, And he studies how punk rockers in China have a tough time getting credibility.
	What do you think? Do you want to give me some money for this movie?
	No, it's going to be in 3D! I mean, it's going to be 3D discontented Chinese punks who are frustrated about not being able to gain musical legitimacy in the West.
	And he's going to study them.
	And do you know what else he's going to do?
	He's going to, like, write articles about them.
	And there'll be shots of him, like, with a red cape and a blue torso.
	And, okay, he's not very muscular because he's spending a lot of time typing.
	But he's, like, he's doing this typing.
	And sometimes he, like, he frowns.
	And other times he, like, talks to people in ways that are...
	I mean, kind of hard to understand.
	But, you know, obviously he's got superpowers.
	One of those superpowers is postmodern obfuscation.
	And he's going to be...
	Talking about these alienated punk rockers, and that's the film.
	Tell me what you think. Sounds like the greatest film of all time.
	I think that's what you're trying to convey, right?
	That's right. That's right.
	That's right. Okay.
	So I guess it's probably time to use it for that.
	Sorry? Sorry? Well, wouldn't it be laughable to have these superpowers and then use it for that purpose?
	I'm actually kind of inspired to maybe make this movie at least...
	I mean, this would be bad comedy, right?
	He uses his superpowers to deconstruct post-modernist critiques of Derrida.
	Why does he need to be able to leap tall buildings with a symbol bound?
	Well, sometimes the elevator in the library is out of order and...
	All right, well, I think I'm going to go write a screenplay and give it up for the next one.
	Just don't make it too long because, you know, I just think, you know, if you have intelligence, you have the community, I mean, you have a kind of superpower and you should put that damn cape on and use it to stop a few trains from crashing into orphanages and, you know, not just sit around picking your nose in a library writing shit that nobody cares about.
	But what about the Chinese punks?
	But yeah, I agree right there with you.
	All right. Well, I really don't want to hog up too much more time, but I really appreciate it.
	But the Chinese punks, right?
	I mean, here's the other scenario, right?
	I got an episode of NYPD Blue.
	I'm going to make a pitch to you.
	Here's another episode when you say, what about the Chinese punks?
	So NYPD Blue. Here's how it's going to go down.
	See, right? There are these guys.
	They've got these masks of the presidents of the United States.
	And they're going to go in and they're going to have this bank robber.
	And this guy, he's a heavy drinker.
	He's divorced. And he's almost about to get his badge taken away because he's been insubordinate to his sergeant.
	And what he does, you see, is he sees this thing going down.
	He's actually off duty.
	He hears about it on the radio.
	He jumps into his car. He doesn't even have a uniform on.
	And he goes to where these guys are holding all these hostages with all these guns.
	They're going to blow up the bank and they want to have all these crazy demands and they're going to do all these terrible things.
	They might even have weapons of mass destruction.
	And you know what he does?
	He goes and makes a citizen's arrest of a jaywalker two blocks away and then goes home.
	Yes.
	Again, I mean, OK, just one one final point.
	It's just, if this, to some extent, he can also just use his incredible abilities to just enjoy his life, enjoy his time on his planet, and not even really think about this, you know, talking about this Chinese...
	I don't want to come back to this thing.
	I really want to give it to some other people.
	There's like four people in line, a bunch of questions in the chat room, so...
	Okay, let me give you another one.
	Okay, you can go and have fun.
	Okay, so here's my... Here's my Jackie Chan movie.
	I'll give you another one. I keep doing this all day.
	I'm having fun. No, this is a bad idea.
	Okay, so here's my Jackie Chan movie, right?
	Okay, so this guy, he tumbles like Errol Flynn out of his mother's womb, and he's doing somersaults and tubers by the time he's six months old.
	He can climb up walls.
	His parents say, man, this kid's so incredible.
	We're going to put him in the circus and he's going to learn how to do all of these acrobatic moves and we're also going to have him learn Jiu Jitsu and Kung Fu and Karate and Judo and Tai Chi and all of these great things, you know, for those really slow moving Jabba the Hutt criminals.
	And he's going to get all of these.
	He's going to be like whip smart.
	He's going to be a ninja. He's going to be able to do that crouching tiger, hidden dragon stuff, dance through trees.
	He can do all these amazing things.
	And then, so that's the build up of the movie.
	He's got all this rocky stuff going and he's this amazing guy.
	He can do all of this powerful, incredible, unbelievable physical stuff.
	And then, for the second half of the movie, he rides the bus.
	Because he wants to go To a comic book store.
	See, it's the preparation relative to the execution that counts.
	If you just want to fart around doing inconsequential stuff, great!
	Then what the hell is the point of getting a degree at Harvard?
	What's the point of going through all this training?
	What's the point of, you know, learning all this stuff and spending 20 years sharpening your intellect to then do nothing with it?
	Less than nothing. I mean, it's an insult to the important things in the world for somebody of such intelligence to waste his time on this annoying crap.
	Yes, I absolutely agree.
	Man studies to become a doctor overcoming all of these great odds.
	You know, he got a brain injury and he learns to reshape his brain through the effort of its will and he becomes a neurosurgeon and then a waiter.
	All right, I got it.
	He brings food to people's table.
	What about when someone has the Heimlich maneuver?
	No, because he's got to go get a creme brulee.
	He can't help them. I mean, you understand, this is all just bad comedy, right?
	Yes. Yeah, I know.
	I'm almost feeling bad at this point.
	No, no. Come on. Let's do another one.
	No, I'm kidding. No, we can't do it.
	Sorry. I've got to get you off the infinite loop.
	I've got to give it to somebody else. Help me.
	Save me from myself.
	Yeah. What's that line from Hamilton and Kumar?
	There's a great line from Harold and Kumar film where the guy says, he's like, oh, you're such a smart guy.
	Why don't you become a doctor? He's like, hey, just because you have a big dick.
	Anyway. I think the phone's trying to...
	Yeah, yeah, okay, okay. Anyway, I literally could do this for the next 12 hours, so please stop me and get me.
	Dave, save me from this.
	I'm officially stopped.
	I appreciate everything, and I'm giving it up to somebody else.
	But thank you so much, and I'll talk to you hopefully soon.
	Thanks, man. Sorry about that.
	Just trying to bring another caller in.
	Please leave your message for 732.
	I'll try that again later. Next up, we have Kevin.
	It's a guy from Hollywood.
	He wants my movie idea. Hey, Stefan, can you hear me?
	I sure can. Great.
	So, I'm a big fan of, you know, science and chemistry and mathematics and logic and all that good stuff.
	Wait, is that a... Sorry, go on.
	I'm just trying to get back to my last call, but please don't let me.
	Sorry, go on. Right. So I tend to approach things from an evolutionary standpoint that, I mean, I just agree that evolution is true when that happens and that there's not, you know, some omnipotent creature that created everything.
	So when I try to fit non-aggression principle with evolution, I come to some sort of You know, dead ends, and I can't quite...
	I'm sorry, what principle with evolution?
	The non-aggression principle.
	Right. So I think...
	So the question I have is, when I look at nature, I try to find an analog to non-aggression principle.
	And kind of the three conclusions that I come to are either one out of the billions and billions of genetic sequences that have been tried, That NAP has never, those principles or those behaviors have never popped up, which I think is unlikely. And the second conclusion is that there are plenty of examples, and I just can't think of good ones, that NAP exists in nature somehow.
	And the third conclusion is NAP has popped up a whole bunch, and nature has always selected against it and kills it every single time.
	And I'm wondering what your thoughts on that, because if it's the third one, it's kind of, well, if I start exhibiting these behaviors, is nature going to select against me?
	Right. No, this is a great point and a great question, and I'm going to work it into another movie pitch.
	No, I won't. Okay, so Richard Attenborough comes to you with a movie about...
	Look, the free market and evolution are opposites.
	And so, once you look at the idea of voluntary, peaceful, property-based, non-violent trade, you are looking at the exact opposite of evolution.
	I mean, almost diametrically opposite.
	So, for instance, evolution tends to be win-lose, right?
	Okay. I mean, there's a lot of cooperation in evolution, in organisms.
	Like, all of the legs of the lion chasing the gazelle have to cooperate so that he'll catch the gazelle, but as far as the lion and the gazelle goes, it's win-lose, right?
	I mean, if the lion is starving, he catches the gazelle and the gazelle loses, or the lion doesn't catch a gazelle and the lion starves to death, right?
	Right. So that's win-lose, and it's like win-lose, predatory, eat, right?
	It's cannibalism, and it's brutal.
	In the same way, if you look at, I mean, the typical example that's given in biology textbooks is those, you know, when the soot was covering the trees in northern England, the moths that developed darker coloring were less visible on the darker trees by the birds and the, you know, whoever, whatever ate them, and therefore they lived.
	And so you got a dark moth next to a light moth And the bird can see the light moth and the bird eats the light moth and not the dark moth and therefore the dark moth, the genes tend to reproduce and expand and so on.
	And so it's like the moth next to you gets murdered and eaten and you don't, right?
	And none of that has anything to do with the free market, right?
	I mean, the free market is not, I hope I make the sale or the other salesperson gets to boil me into a soup and drink my bones, right?
	It doesn't happen that way, right?
	It's like the difference between evolution and the free market is the difference between rape and lovemaking, right?
	I mean, they really couldn't be more opposite.
	So I don't think you're going to find any particular precedent for the non-aggression principle of property rights in nature.
	I mean, you can maybe see some respect for property in nature, but, you know, it's not really a principle.
	In the same way, you can't find The special or general theory of relativity in evolution, right?
	Right. Right?
	You can't find the theory of evolution in evolution.
	That's something that we have abstracted and developed as, you know, the most brilliant species I think the solar system has ever known, right?
	Right. So, when people...
	I mean, one of the things that...
	I'm not speaking about you, but one of the things that I have as a test, whether people have any understanding of economics, or for that matter, evolution, is if they use metaphors around, like evolutionary or biological metaphors to describe the workings of the free market, then I know that they don't understand the free market.
	Right. I think it's, yeah, you can't find the justification for the non-aggression principle in evolution because evolution is win-lose and the non-aggression principle is designed to make things win-win.
	The reason that you don't have violence in an economic transaction is it makes it win-lose by definition.
	Right. In the same way that, you know, a lion and an antelope is win-lose.
	One of them's gonna win and one of them damn well is gonna lose and lose like in a really horrible way.
	Killed and eaten, right?
	Or starving to death, which is probably even worse in terms of the experience.
	And so I would not look for that kind of precedent in history or in evolution.
	I mean, the purpose, of course, our philosophy is to universalize and abstract.
	And we have developed, I would argue, the core and most important capacity of our minds and what differentiates us so much is concept development.
	Which means the extrapolation to universals from individual sensual experiences.
	You know, not just... I mean, dogs know how to catch a ball, but that doesn't mean that they can describe it mathematically, right?
	It's the description of things mathematically that can be universalized.
	Like, we know that the moon is a big rock that's falling, right?
	It's just falling with the opposing energy or the opposing principle of centrifugal force.
	And so, the dog never looks at the moon and says, hey, that's just a big rock falling.
	Like... You know, a rock that my master threw this morning.
	They're never going to get that.
	They're just going to say, that looks like cheese and I'm hungry now, or something like that, right?
	And so our capacity to extrapolate does not have anything to do with evolution.
	Now, of course, our minds are a product of evolution, but what we've been able to conceptually develop as a species is not described in terms of evolution.
	And, I mean, you know that it's something radically different because There are no cities among beavers.
	There are no airports for the snakes.
	They can't do any of that sort of stuff.
	And so what we're able to do is radically different.
	Although it is a product of evolution, it cannot be described in terms of evolution, if that makes any sense.
	Yes, that's perfect sense.
	So would you say that NAP requires a human-like level of intelligence?
	Yeah, I mean, I think so, for sure.
	And I, you know, I'm sort of crossing this threshold as a parent now where my daughter is becoming morally responsible because she's able to, she's able to, she tries to, and I think it's a perfectly good thing that she tries to, is she tries to defend her actions according to universals.
	And she makes promises, which then she sometimes doesn't keep.
	And she's how old?
	She's almost three. That's amazing.
	Oh, yeah. No, I mean, it is fantastic.
	I've been talking about this for a while.
	She's just a UPB machine.
	Universally preferable behavior is how she runs everything.
	And of course, that's how her language is developed.
	Universally preferable behavior is, you know, concept formation is exactly how she's got language.
	And that's why she doesn't have to invent a name for every chair that she sees, but she knows it's a chair.
	And she's, you know, a constant negotiator, and the best way to negotiate is to get the other person to accept some universal principle that they have to obey so that they feel like they're not obeying you but obeying that principle.
	And she's been trying that for eight months, and she's damn good at it.
	I have to stay on my toes in terms of how she negotiates for these universals.
	And so that's, you know, that's fantastic.
	It's wonderful to see.
	And so, yeah, so she's having...
	She's developing moral responsibility and has been for quite some time because the moment you use any kind of universal, then you're morally responsible.
	So the test would be, is the entity using any kind of universally preferable concept to explain or defend or advocate behavior?
	And then bingo, bango, bongo, they have the heavy mantle of, or the jetpack of moral responsibility has landed upon their tiny shoulders.
	That's great. Well, thanks so much, Steph.
	I'll let you get back to the other callers.
	Great. Yes, great, great question.
	I'm glad you brought it up. It's really, really good.
	All right, thanks, and talk to you later.
	You're very welcome. Love these listeners.
	Love them! Okay, a little bit of time.
	Not too much. Just the right amount.
	Who's next? No, it's in your ear.
	Don't worry, it's letting me know, because I know you need to talk.
	No, next up we have Ross.
	Hey guys, can you hear me?
	Sure can. Hey, he's got a nice mic.
	Love you. It has been a really great and funny show today.
	Oh, thanks. I have a question, and then I guess a joke and a shout-out, if that's okay.
	Yes. Okay.
	The... The shout-out is to Coolblue and Little Odie and Sec3.
	There are people listening. The joke is, what if there was a movie about a philosopher that studied all this philosophy and created this really successful website, and then the rest of the movie is he just got stuck on Infinite Loop making jokes to this one guy on this show.
	Yeah, that would be from UPB to OCD in one fell swoop.
	Yeah, that would be pretty funny.
	And, you know, honestly, that would be like the never-ending story.
	So, yeah, that would be pretty chilling.
	Okay, so the question is, well, I just got hired in as a manager at McDonald's.
	Wait, it sounded like you just mentally spit out of the side of your mouth when you said that.
	McDonald's. Why? McDonald's is good.
	I mean, they have a great place. Yeah.
	I am. I get wedged because I'm just big enough to get wedged into those play centers to the point where I have like birth canal flashbacks and I feel like I'm gonna have to have firemen cut me out because I sort of get my way in there like a snake going into a tiny culvert and then I feel like I'm gonna get wedged and all that so I'm a big fan of the McDonald's.
	But anyway, sorry, go on. So I just got hired in and I'm a manager.
	They had this three-day trial where they assessed me just to see how I fit in, see if I was going to be able to pick everything back up.
	Because I haven't done it for almost a year now, but I worked there for four and a half years.
	Sorry, done what? I haven't worked at a McDonald's.
	I've worked at McDonald's before.
	Before, when I worked there, it was for four and a half years, and I was a manager for a year of that.
	They just wanted to assess me, but they hired me in.
	My question is, do you have any advice for somebody who is coming in new?
	I'm going to be an authority figure above everybody, but a lot of people don't know me.
	I know there's going to be some resistance.
	Who's this new guy that's coming in telling me what to do?
	That sort of stuff.
	So I was just wondering what sort of advice you have for somebody who's going to be in that situation.
	Right, right. Well, it's tricky.
	And, you know, that's why you get paid the enormous amounts of money that you do as a McDonald's manager.
	But all the fries you can stuff up your nasal cavities.
	But my particular preference when I've been in situations of authority is to have as light a touch as possible.
	To view myself as a resource that makes the jobs of the employees better, right?
	So the reality, as you know, is that your employees are giving up a certain portion of their salary in order to have you as a manager.
	And I was very aware of that when I was a manager, that, you know, people were giving up, I don't know, my employees a couple of thousand bucks a year, a year, a couple of thousand bucks a year each to have me Manage them to have me available as a resource.
	And I was always concerned, since they didn't choose to have me as a manager, I was always concerned to make sure that if they could choose me as a manager versus having no manager or whatever, that they would pay for that.
	Right? So, I mean, I could obviously try and do my own dental work, but I'm very happy to pay a dentist to clean my teeth.
	Right? And that's the voluntary, you know, I'm willing to give up a portion of my salary to, you know, keep good oral hygiene and so on.
	And so you're taking a certain portion of their wages.
	You work for them.
	They're paying you a certain portion of their wages to do what?
	Well, to do stuff that is not fun for them, to do stuff that might be intimidating for them, right?
	So when I was in business, if some client would be angry or upset, then I would go out and Talk to the client and, you know, try and work it out.
	And I was good at that.
	I was very good at that. And, you know, I would say, well, this is, I would remind the employees, you know, I'm going out to take these bullets.
	This is sort of part of what you pay me for.
	They did not want to sit around a boardroom table with a bunch of other executives and discuss strategy.
	And so I would do that for them, you know, with their consultation and so on.
	They didn't like pounding the table and demanding more money.
	When they justly deserved it, so that was my job to get them more money.
	So I aimed in my mind to provide my employees with a service that they would be willing to pay for if that was their choice.
	You know, in the same way that I want my daughter to choose me if she had the choice over every other dad in the world.
	And so far, since she Two days ago told me that I was the best dad in the whole world and how much he loved me.
	That seems to be going according to plan.
	So there is a humbleness in being a manager in that you are taking money from people and in return you should provide to them a service that they would voluntarily choose to fund if it were their choice.
	Now, I mean, that's a pretty abstract way of looking at it, but if you think of management as the provision of a service, then, you know, like...
	It's weird to me, right?
	So a waiter doesn't come along and say, are you ready yet?
	Where's your damn order? Come on!
	Oh, you really?
	Have you looked at how your belt buckle is hanging on like the front zippers over the lower belly of a TSA worker?
	My God, man, do you really think fries is a good idea right now, you pig?
	Right? I mean, you would never have a waiter do that.
	A waiter would be fired immediately.
	Because they are a service provider.
	Well, managers are a service provider as well, which means be polite, be respectful, be kind, be generous, and be sensitive to the fact that they know you can fire them.
	And so, you know, I mean, I had a boss early on in my professional career.
	He'd be like, Molyneux, in my office, now!
	And then he'd like, hey, I really like that program you wrote.
	Really? I really like this puddle of urine I'm leaving on your chair, but you don't see me yelling at you, do I? And so I'm sensitive to that.
	So when I was a manager, I'd say, listen, so-and-so, can I borrow you for a sec?
	I have a question. And particularly if they're in front of other people, right?
	So that is something that is important, if that makes any sense.
	Yeah, it definitely makes sense.
	I don't know if I've really thought about it as offering a service to them.
	I've definitely thought about it as a support position.
	You know, if I'm doing my job, I'm supporting them.
	I think going in there thinking, I'm not just trying to service the customer, but also trying to service the employees under me, I think it would be a nice attitude to bring in.
	The reality is that you cannot service the customer without servicing your employees.
	You cannot service the customer because if your employees are not happy, then they're not going to be as positive with the customers, right?
	I just never really thought about it as a service.
	I've never thought of it in the context of, you know, the employees are losing money because I'm there fulfilling that role.
	But it's true, right? It's true.
	Yeah, it is true. Because, you know, all the employees could just do a lot of this stuff instead, but they have me there to do it.
	Right. I've never thought about it as me being an employee for the...
	Or, yeah, me being employed by the...
	But the economic reality is that's true.
	And of course, I mean, they're paying money for the big golden arch, right?
	In other words, if they didn't have to pay licensing fees to McDonald's, then they would make more money in their hourly wage.
	Now, the reality is, I think that they would have far fewer customers, so they'd actually end up making less, right?
	So that's the value proposition you have to bring as a manager, which is that you are paying me 20 cents or 50 cents or whatever it is per hour Out of your salary, but because I'm doing what I'm doing, you're actually making more than if you weren't paying me, right? And that's the important thing to remember.
	I mean, they could make more money if they didn't pay for a building, right?
	If they didn't pay to have it heated.
	If they didn't have cash registers, right?
	But the reality is that they'd end up making less money if they were standing out there with a barbecue and You know, some half-rozen burgers trying to sell stuff with no logo.
	People are like, who the hell are you people?
	I don't know, right? It's funny.
	I'm laughing, though, because I live in a really small town, and right across the street, there's just this log cabin, and there's a guy who does that, and he sells barbecue, and he doesn't have his time.
	Is that right? Right, and see, now that might work, right?
	But not for people driving through the town, right?
	People driving through the town are not likely, if they see the golden arches, they know there's a certain level of predictability, and And quality and so on, cleanliness and so on, whereas, you know, some guy, you know, it's like going to Best Buy versus buying something out of the back of someone's van who seems to be in a rather big hurry as sirens come over the hill, right? I mean, there's just, you may save some money, but you get no support, you get no warranty, and you may in fact get an accessory to crime charge.
	So I think that's important.
	Everything that reduces...
	The immediate salary of the employee should be, at least at some level, understood by everyone who's reducing that salary.
	It should be understood as something which is, in fact, raising their salary.
	So your question is, you know, how am I raising their salary?
	You know, how am I a service that is better for them than otherwise, right?
	So, I mean, obviously, the cash registers cost them money, but if they had to do all of that stuff by hand, you know, one of those old-timey Andy Griffith, ka-ching, ka-ching, bing, bing cash registers, it would really slow down.
	It would slow everything down and mistakes would be made.
	Customers would be frustrated and they'd be less likely to come back.
	So those cash registers, it's like, okay, I'll pay 3 cents an hour for those cash registers because otherwise I'd be paying 20 cents an hour because customers would be less happy and wouldn't come back or whatever, right?
	So you are an overhead, but you must be a profit center for the employees.
	And however you try to do that is important.
	Now, of course, there's immediate...
	I'm sorry if this is really over-explaining, but I really want to get this point across.
	There's the immediate financial benefits Of, you know, what resources can you do, right?
	So maybe they don't want to sit there after hours and, you know, close the caches or whatever, and they get to go home.
	So, you know, you stay there an extra hour closing up the store, well, that's worth something to them, so they'll pay you for that, right?
	But the other thing, this is something that I think is much more important, is one of the things that I was always very concerned with my employees was to add to their human capital.
	Right so I tried for those employees who were interested not all of them were but for those employees who were interested I coached them on what I was doing and why and how my job worked how I tried to make decisions decisions I made that were good or decisions that I made were bad and here's what I learned and so on and so I had one employee who was very interested in what I did in the sales process and the marketing process and so when I had a A sales meeting in town.
	I said, well, you know, I got a sales meeting on Friday, you know, throw on a suit and let's go down together.
	And he was a programmer. But I knew he was really interested in that.
	And so I, you know, got him involved in that and got him to start working on proposals and coming down.
	And he eventually started doing some presentations and so on.
	And that was a great value to him because it was an education on how to do corporate level sales, which is a very important thing.
	If you want to sort of move up in the world, knowing how the business works, knowing how sales ends works is more important in some ways than just knowing how to code.
	And having the two together is really good.
	And then, so I had him then go out and start doing specification meetings with clients and so on.
	And over the, I think I was his manager for about five or six years.
	And I think he's actually still working with the company that I founded.
	And, you know, he's doing very, very well.
	And so he gave up a certain amount of his salary to me.
	And so I did a bunch of stuff that he didn't want to do.
	But I also helped develop him As an employee to be able to do stuff that was interesting to him and was really value added and that helped boost his salary in the long run.
	And I would assume that if someone would ask him, you know, was it worth giving up a couple of K to Steph for those couple of years, he'd say, well, yeah, because now I'm making twice what I made when I first started.
	So there's also the development of human capital.
	So if you've got somebody who's young and interested and ambitious and smart or whatever, then You know, you can mentor them.
	You can help them to understand how the business works and why decisions are made and what a manager does.
	And that's a real on-the-job kind of training that doesn't take a lot of time, of course, but is hugely valuable to people.
	And, you know, you can be remembered for the rest of someone's life as someone who gave you that leg up, particularly if they come from a sort of lower-rent or lower-class section of town, so to speak.
	Cool, man. Thanks for the answer and the advice.
	And can I ask one more quick question before I go?
	Sure. Okay, I know James is kind of busy because there's this troll.
	He keeps coming in and he keeps talking about the reptiles.
	And I was wondering if you could reveal once and for all if you are, in fact, a ship shifting reptile.
	If I am, in fact, a shape-shifting reptile.
	Okay, here's my movie pitch, see?
	No. I am not, in fact, a shape-shifting reptile.
	I was, but then I shifted into human form, and frankly, looking into the mirror, I found my new human form to be so deliciously and delectably sexy that I would never, ever want to turn back.
	The soft skin, the single-sided tongue, the eyelids that close from the top down rather than the bottom up, the fact that the blood can go up and down in temperature.
	Yeah. And I also found in this form that there were certain aspects of the human female anatomy that I did not feel I could live without.
	And frogs to princes accepted there are not a lot of reptiles that get their hands on naked human females.
	And so it was really a one-way street for me once I realized, you know, how damn hotly sexy I was and what that gave me access to.
	There was no. No going back.
	So my shape-shifting days are over.
	Except for the one shape-shifter that does occur in the proximity of human females.
	But anyway, that's another story. All right.
	Thanks a lot. You're very welcome.
	Have a good day, Steph.
	Thanks, man. I think you missed one important aspect of human anatomy, and that's hair.
	But... Well, Sid, that was obviously a little shape-shifting to occur there.
	Except, of course, for adding the hair to my nose, which is something...
	Hair in the nose and in the ear and increasingly up the back of my neck is something that I just really wanted to thank Jesus for.
	Because, you know, the divine plan for how to keep human beings self-respect over 40, you know, failing eyesight, bad backs, hair where you don't want, no hair where you want it, and lots of places where you just never expect it.
	I'm waiting for hair to grow out of one eyeball and a tongue at this point.
	Yeah, it's just another thing to thank God for in the excellent planning of human beings.
	I don't know. I would have gone with, well, I was just confused and I can't change it, but that's okay.
	Next up we have Ian.
	Hey, Steph. How's it going? I'm good.
	How are you doing? I'm doing very well.
	Do I sound good? You sound hot.
	Okay, wonderful, wonderful.
	Alright, so I would like your help in resolving some apparent contradictions in my life.
	I am currently, let me start by saying in the past year or so, I've really gotten into your YouTube videos and I've started reading some of your books and I'm Really getting on board with the whole anarchism, libertarianism, and downsizing and eventually dismantling government.
	And so I'm down with that.
	That's cool. But I am going to a state school right now using federal financial aid.
	And on top of that, I grew up...
	My family's only income was through federal disability, social security disability.
	And so it's...
	I feel...
	I'm very hypocritical in proposing the dismantling of government and the ending of social welfare programs.
	It's things like that that are pretty well responsible for me having survived because I really don't think that I would have without things like that.
	When you say you would have survived, do you mean your family?
	Yeah, my family. The thing is that my mother was on Social Security Disability because a little while before I was born she had some sort of infection that required surgery that left her with some sort of chronic fatigue disorder.
	My mother is an alcoholic too.
	My father is schizophrenic and a drug addict.
	I can't help but feel that if we didn't have that very meager amount of money coming in every month.
	It was a family of seven that lived off of just over $1,200 a month for my entire childhood.
	Did it stay seven or did you start feasting on the younger?
	Well, I was the youngest.
	Let's keep it at seven, everybody.
	Back away with those forks.
	Hey, hey, hey. That's not lotion.
	That's tenderizer. Hey, that's marinade.
	Stop it, people! Anyway, sorry.
	The fourth coffee really helps me with this show.
	I know. I love it. It makes it more entertaining.
	I'm just wondering. It's hard for me to propose these things and really support them whenever I have to acknowledge that They are the reason why I had any sort of somewhat comfortable life growing up.
	Right, right.
	Well, listen, I mean, in all seriousness, first of all, I really wanted to say, like, I'm really sorry about your childhood.
	I mean, that's, you know, drunk plus schizophrenic is not anybody's idea of the right place to land.
	I really just want to seriously express massive sympathies for that.
	that is just beyond horrible and challenging and chaotic.
	And if, you know, it seems almost inevitable that there would be a multiplicity of kids in that kind of environment. - Oh, I mean, it seems, sorry, go ahead. - One more contradiction that just seems funny is the fact that in school right now I'm studying political science.
	So it seems funny to be an anarchist and to be studying government, you know?
	No, that's fine. I mean, that's like saying an oncologist can't study cancer.
	Well, of course you can. They'll point us to study the enemy, right?
	I think that's perfectly. I mean, it's like saying atheists can't read the Bible.
	No. If everybody read the Bible, we'd all be atheists because it's such a horrible book, right?
	Yeah. All right.
	Look, I'll start with some general principles.
	And look, if you were raised in Germany in the 1930s, is it true that you could never be anti-Nazi?
	Mm-hmm. No.
	I mean, there were obviously a lot of anti-Nazis there, but they probably weren't very open about it.
	Right. But what I'm saying is, if you were, you know, you were born in 1930, and then, so in 1950, you're 20.
	Yeah. And you say, I hate Nazism.
	Would anyone say to you, well, wait a second, the Nazis educated you, and you're against Nazism?
	Are you crazy? That's a very good point.
	You know, could we say to Lech Walesa, who died today, who's very sad, he was 75 years old, the leader of the Solidarity Movement in Poland in the 80s, would you say to Lech Walesa, you cannot rail against communism because the communist system delivered your food when you were a baby?
	Would you say that? No, not at all.
	No. Would you say to the American revolutionaries, are you kidding me?
	Most of your parents are British.
	Of British origin, you can't fight against them.
	No, never. Right.
	Would you say to the French underground...
	Anyway, you understand, right? So, in fact, I would say to somebody, well, if you were raised under Nazism, you would probably be the most honest and authentic anti-Nazi that could be imagined, right?
	That's a very good point.
	I mean, if somebody was raised in a KKK family in the South, And their parents dragged them to KKK picnics where they spent their time hiding from little brats in bedsheets.
	Would we say to them, well, you tasted of the KKK chicken.
	You cannot be opposed to the KKK. You have downed chicken paid for by the KKK, right?
	That's a good point. I feel the same way about psychological health because I feel like I have tended more towards psychological health because at a very early age, I realized that things were very wrong.
	I started seeing a therapist and got into a 12-step program very early.
	I knew exactly what was wrong and I wanted to stray his I'm as far from it as I can.
	So I guess it's a similar situation there.
	Yeah, by consuming this chicken, you agree that whites are the supreme race.
	I bet you it was even white chicken, never the dark chicken, right?
	I mean, you understand. I'm sorry, somebody's just corrected me that it's Václav Havel died, not Václav, my apologies.
	But no, so the fact that you grew up under the tender care, control, and mercy of the state, I would argue, gives you perhaps even more legitimacy.
	To be able to criticize the state.
	Right? Because the government took over the care of your family.
	Right? It wasn't just money.
	Because there's six million social service agencies, right?
	That are supposed to help families in crisis.
	And your family was certainly in crisis, I would imagine, almost permanently.
	Yes, yes. Right, so if I... If I take care and custody, let me just take it, it's a silly example and I apologize if it sounds insulting, but if I take in a stray animal and I harm it, I am responsible, right?
	And the reason that I'm responsible is obviously it's bad to harm animals, but I'm also responsible because by taking the stray animal in myself, I have prevented someone else from taking care of that animal, right?
	Do you see where I'm going with this?
	Yeah, that's a very good point.
	I mean, that if you willingly take on responsibility, you cannot just do the bare minimum or less than the bare minimum.
	Right, and you've also prevented, right?
	So there's an old argument that says, if a kid is drowning in the sea, and I say to everyone, stand back, I'm a lifeguard, and then I dive into the water and start swimming energetically towards the kid, who's, you know, a couple hundred yards offshore, And then I tread water and watch the kid drown, that I'm responsible for murder, right?
	Yes. Because my actions, through my actions, I have actually prevented other people or discouraged other people from helping.
	Yes. Right?
	Because they're like, oh, the lifeguard's going to go get him, so I don't need to go in, right?
	Whereas if I'd said, I'm going to go and swim and watch him drown, people are like, fuck you, you asshole, I'm going to go get him, right?
	Yeah. So the government took over the care, custody, and control of your family, right?
	And through doing that, they effectively prevented other agencies or other people or other charities or other concerned citizens or other community services from getting involved, right?
	People don't understand the degree to which government Money and services displaces other services, right?
	And so my question would be, so the government took over making your family functional.
	How did they do?
	Not very well. I mean, functional is used in the most loose sense possible there.
	Well, go on. So, I mean, you don't have to go into any details that you don't want to, but, I mean, to me, looking at a family in crisis like that, if an agency is going to take over and say, okay, okay, everybody stand back, we've got this.
	We're in there. We're going to work this out, right?
	I mean, a bare minimum would be, okay, well, we've got to get the alcoholic to stop being an alcoholic, and we've got to get some real help for the schizophrenic.
	Yeah, and what's funny about that is that— And we've got to get some stability, and we've got to get—these kids have got to have some peace and security and serenity.
	That would be the bare minimum, right?
	Yeah, and there were multiple times that throughout my childhood and throughout the childhood of my siblings that I think the Department of Children's Services came in, but— My family was, I guess, good at concealing things.
	And so, I mean, all they really did, it was just purely financial.
	And most of that money went toward beer and cigarettes.
	You know, I mean... Well, of course, but look, look, sorry.
	Anybody who knows anything about addiction knows that addicts are terrible liars, right?
	Yes, yes. I mean, they're actually very good liars because they practice so much, but they're persistent liars.
	Yes. I mean, you just have to watch one Dr.
	Phil intervention to realize the degree to which addicts are liars.
	So the fact is that, oh, my parents were so good at heights.
	Well, of course. Of course they were.
	I mean, that's like the police saying, well, I couldn't catch him because he ran away.
	Well, of course the criminal is going to run away.
	I couldn't catch him because he didn't come to my house with a signed confession.
	So how on earth could I convict him?
	Well, of course the criminal is going to run away, and of course the criminal is going to try and avoid punishment for his crime, and of course the addicts are going to lie.
	That's understood. That's in the job description called trying to help addicts, right?
	So the fact that your parents lied and got away with it is entirely the fault of the state.
	That is a very good point.
	I mean, but like I said, it's I don't know.
	I guess I'm thankful for where I came from.
	I mean, I'm thankful that I had what little that I did, and it's given me the opportunity to seek out better.
	Right, but all I'm saying is that, and I appreciate that, and look, I can hear the strength and resolution in your voice, and I mean, I'm definitely full of immense admiration.
	For where you are versus where you came from.
	I mean, where you are is admirable, I assume, regardless of where you came from, but you throw in the ditch you had to dig yourself out of, and it's all the more admirable.
	Thank you. But you have seen the help that the government provides up close.
	Right? Because the government says to everybody else in the world, we got it.
	Right? You understand? We got it!
	Back off, everyone! Back off!
	We got it! We're going to go save the kid.
	And I'm saying you don't got it.
	We're going to go get rid of drug use.
	Everybody stand back. We got it.
	Yeah. Right?
	Like the doctor, you know, somebody falls down and breaks their skull open or the doctor says, I'm a doctor.
	Everybody stand back. I got it.
	And everybody stands back because the doctor says he's got it, right?
	The government says about the poor, no, no, we got it.
	The old. We got it.
	Healthcare. We got it.
	Everybody stand back.
	We got it. National security.
	We got it. Crime problems.
	We got it. Educating the young.
	We got it. Everybody stand the fuck back because we are going to take care of it.
	Back the fuck off. Right?
	Yeah. Do they got it?
	Not. Not at all.
	No, it's horrible. It's horrible.
	It's worse than abandonment.
	I mean, people care about other people.
	People care about the poor. People care.
	I mean, of course, there are a bunch of sociopaths who don't, but let's not give them political power, right?
	I mean, they're all in the government anyway, so...
	Yeah, they're all in the government anyway, right?
	But people do care.
	Now, if people think that they don't care, then they have to explain why people vote for welfare programs, right?
	They vote for welfare programs because they think that that's how things get helped.
	They don't. It's not true, but that's what people think.
	I mean, the government programs are like a neutron bomb landing on the city of mutual aid societies, of friendly societies, of churches, of charities, of neighborhoods, of neighbors, of the Legion, the Salvation Army, the Shriners, whatever it is that people get involved with helping others.
	It empties out that whole city and replaces it with a bunch of empty-headed, jackbooted bureaucrats.
	And I speak from personal experience.
	The government was helping my family for many years.
	It empties out.
	It allows everyone to take a step back, turn away, and imagine that the problem is dealt with.
	But, you know, it's like the ambulance is a kidnap van, right?
	So it's, oh, it's going into the ambulance.
	People say, I'm going to go take the injured person into the ambulance.
	No, you know what? We're going. We got it.
	We got it, right?
	And it drives them off to sell them into white slavery.
	I mean, sex slavery, that's what's happening, right?
	People think it's an ambulance, but it's not.
	And because they think it's an ambulance, nobody says, well, shit, we better get this person to a hospital.
	No, no, no, the ambulance has got it.
	It's driving off a cliff, but no.
	So it displaces. And then people have this weird idea that if the government wasn't doing it, nobody would do it.
	No, no, no, no. Nobody's doing it because, or few people are doing it because the government is doing it.
	That's easy to establish historically.
	I think a lot of the reason why people believe that no one else would do it is because of the absolute bare minimum of support that the government gives.
	It gives people the idea that people are not reliable because if there were opportunity for someone to step in and show an incredible amount of goodwill that would Blow out anyone's ideas of cynicism, then it would happen and that people would not be as cynical.
	But as it stands, everyone just stands back and doesn't do anything.
	And the people who are without, they get the bare minimum and they say, oh, well, there is no good in the world because no one does anything.
	But the truth is that no one stepped forth because they thought that it was taken care of.
	Yes, that's right.
	But that's only half the bad story, right?
	So people say, well, my God, I mean, it costs $15,000 to $20,000 a year for 13 years to educate a child to even reasonable literacy and get them ready for college.
	I mean, how on earth could poor people afford that?
	That's why we need the government.
	And it's mad. It's completely insane because, of course, the only reason it takes that long And cost that much is because of the government.
	Right? It's like people saying, well, my God, it takes like 40% of the population to produce food under the communist system.
	So we can't change it because food will be so expensive.
	It takes so much labor.
	No, it only takes so much labor because it's a communist system, because there's not that same incentive to innovate and to automate and so on, right?
	So people say, well, they look at your family and say, my God, well look, I mean the government with all of its resources and all of its agencies and all of its power could not substantially help bring stability and health to this family.
	But this is why we need the government because these family problems are so intractable.
	Bullshit, I say.
	The family problems are intractable because the government has no incentive to help people.
	Wow. That is actually a beautiful analogy between communism and food production and the government and welfare.
	Because if there is no incentive to innovate, then innovation won't happen.
	Look, if I'm going to give to a charity, and I do give to charities, I do my research before I give to charities.
	I want 80% of my money going to overhead, and I want to know what their damn success rates are.
	I mean, are you going to give...
	Money to an educational charity that spends $300,000 for less than 50% graduation rate over 12 or 13 years?
	Never. Of course not. Where scores stay flat no matter how much more money you give them or scores even decline and where anyone who comes along who raises scores, whether it's a teacher or an administrator, gets fired.
	No! I want to know that my charity is doing some good.
	I want to know what their independently verified success rates are.
	I want to know that they're up on the latest research in psychology and medicine.
	I want to know that they're going to confront that which needs to be confronted, right?
	Look, I bet your parents went all kinds of friendly to anybody who wanted to help, who asked them to change their ways.
	I would imagine that quite the opposite of what was true.
	So what is the incentive for somebody in the government to get all up in your parents' face to get them to change?
	Nothing whatsoever. Nothing.
	It just makes their day shitty and might provoke a firestorm of troll attacks from God knows where, right?
	Mm-hmm. Complain, complain, ah, they got tons, like these people have time on their hands and the bureaucrats don't.
	It's why the parents don't all band together to get a teacher fired.
	Mm-hmm. Right?
	Because they can't and they're concerned about retribution against their kids, right?
	Mm-hmm. And so...
	I mean, this is the problem of violence.
	This is the problem of monopoly.
	This is the problem of involuntarism, is that voluntarism is quality.
	There is nothing involved in quality except voluntarism.
	And people have asked me what my definition of quality is.
	Well, it's nonviolence, because that which is chosen is automatically quality.
	And that which is chosen in a hierarchy against everything else that is chosen is clearly the highest quality for the person who's choosing.
	That doesn't mean objectively, but, you know, quality is a subjective standard.
	Right? To some degree. And so you cannot get quality help for the poor through force because it's involuntary and the incentive is gone and the optimization is gone and the improvements are gone and the poor suffer.
	They suffer in the short run through dependence and subsidization of the terrible habits that have made or kept them poor and they damn well suffer in the long run when the government runs out of money and the dependent classes have No skills to fall back on.
	So, yeah, it is a brutal system, and I really want to express my sympathy, and I would say that having been in the belly of the beast, you have perhaps the greatest credentials to oppose the beast.
	Thank you very much. That really boils it down for me.
	That makes me feel a lot better about things.
	Good. And again, massive sympathies and massive respect.
	I really appreciate it.
	I'm working hard to do the best with what I have.
	Thank you. And this is partly why, I mean, I don't want to charge, right?
	The quality that I can bring to the table, I need to stay hungry.
	I mean, this is why it's a donation-based model.
	I mean, I did think about this long and hard, and I have lots of experience in the non-donation-based model.
	And I started off with my books in the non-donation-based model, charging for them.
	But I need to stay at the highest level of quality that I can.
	I mean, this is like the 12 billion Sunday show where And I hope that people are finding it, you know, a value and, you know, it's not just a rehashing of everything that's come before.
	So I need to keep my level of quality up.
	And the only way that I know to do that is to keep things as voluntary as possible.
	And I just wanted to sort of mention, I really feel very strongly about this issue of quality.
	Quality and voluntarism are the same thing.
	And there's nothing more voluntary than pay if you like, right?
	As opposed to pay up ahead.
	So I just wanted to mention that.
	It's a very relevant point.
	All right. Well, thanks very much.
	It was a great question, and I'm glad that you are feeling better about it.
	Thank you so much. I'm glad I called in.
	Good. All right.
	I think we've got another caller.
	Yes, we have David from New Jersey on the line.
	Hello, Stefan. Hi.
	How are you doing? Pretty good.
	So, I have a question for you.
	I have been reading Iron Grant For some time now, and I need a clarification.
	There's one aspect of her philosophy that I still can't quite grasp, and maybe you can bring some light and maybe help explain to me what she means.
	Sure. So, I was reading, I think it was for the New Intellectual, And somewhere in the book, and I think it was John Galt's speech, John Galt says something along the lines of, existence exists, and that's supposed to be the most fundamental proposition for her entire philosophy.
	And I can't really understand what she means by that.
	There's a paragraph here that I can read and maybe I can explain better what she's saying so you can refer to it.
	Sure. So the paragraph is, existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms.
	That something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness.
	Consciousness is being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
	So I understand the two corollary axioms.
	I mean, I don't think that needs explanation because it's self-evident, like something exists and I perceive it.
	But it seems that she's saying that these two axioms derive from a more fundamental proposition, that is, existence exists.
	And I can't really grasp what that more fundamental proposition is.
	A more fundamental proposition than existence exists?
	No, that existence exists is the more fundamental proposition, but I don't understand what that means or what she means by that.
	Yeah, I mean, I'm sort of trying to understand your question, and I think that we both understand, and I agree with her, that That existence is the description of that which is, right?
	The stuff in the universe and the matter and energy and physical properties and so on, that that's existence.
	And once we say existence exists, that we are perceiving, we are using our minds to perceive or rather to accept that existence exists.
	I don't know if she's talking about some Cartesian, I think therefore I am, I don't think so.
	I think that she's basically saying that you have to accept that there's something outside of your mind called existence and through that acceptance you also accept that you are perceiving something that exists.
	So existence and identity or the existence of that which is outside your mind and the existence of your mind are both What she would call sort of fundamental axioms.
	I don't agree with that, fundamentally.
	I guess it's an axiom.
	Well, no, because the Cartesian argument is, well, how do we know that everything exists?
	Right? I mean, could I not just be a brain in a vat, like a matrix, where all of my senses are being manipulated by some sort of devil or some sort of computer program?
	And so... Everything that I perceive could be a dream.
	It could be an illusion. It could be like, maybe my dreams at night are a dream within a dream and I'm going to wake up to something completely different, you know, in that sort of matrix analogy.
	You can't disprove that proposition.
	This is what drove Descartes so mad, right?
	He said, well, how?
	And so the only thing he could say was, well, if I'm being fooled by a demon, Then the only thing I can be sure of is that I am being fooled by a demon, or that I exist.
	I think, therefore I am.
	That's sort of what he was saying. The only thing that I can be sure of is my own existence.
	Everything else could be a cunningly manipulated illusion.
	And it's a non-disprovable thesis.
	There is no null hypothesis for that, because everything that you would try to To use to disprove that would be part of the illusion, right?
	So if I could say to you, well, no, it's not because I'm here and I flick you on the nose, well, that could just be part of the illusion or whatever, right?
	So the argument that everything that exists within your mind could be manipulated by some evil entity or computer outside your mind, creating the illusion of seasons and trees and whatever, right?
	You can't disprove that thesis.
	It's impossible to disprove.
	But that doesn't matter.
	Right? It doesn't matter that it's impossible to disprove.
	Philosophically, it doesn't matter.
	I see. The reason that it doesn't matter is that the moment that somebody attempts to engage another human being in debate or conversation, they are implicitly accepting that it is not an illusion.
	Right? The moment I try to change your mind about something, Then I'm automatically assuming that there's a mind outside myself that I can change.
	I see. I saw some of your videos and you usually mention that you have a lot in common with her.
	But being this her most fundamental argument, the basis for objectivism, So where do you find commonality with her?
	Because you're saying that you don't necessarily agree with her on this specific argument, right?
	Well, see, I agree with the effects of the argument.
	I don't agree with her argument, right?
	So the Bible says, thou shalt not murder, and I agree that thou shalt not murder.
	So I agree with the conclusions.
	I don't agree with the methodology, if that makes some sense, right?
	So if somebody...
	Let's say you're driving, this is a ridiculous example, but I think it's useful, right?
	So let's say you're driving along a highway and You stop at a gas station and you say, listen, I need to find my cabin, which is at some place.
	Where should I go? And the guy says, north.
	And you say, great. And you go north and you get to your cabin.
	Well, maybe the guy thought you were asking, who was that guy named Gary who was involved in U.S. politics, who was kind of libertarian and who used to be military, and it was something to do with Reagan and the Iran-Contra, and he's like, north, like Gary North.
	And all he says is north, because that's what he hears you say.
	Well, you get the word north, you drive north, you get to your destination.
	It was accidental that you got the correct information, and the guy certainly wasn't trying to provide you directions, but rather the name of some military guy who got involved in politics.
	And so you can agree with the conclusions of an approach or a philosophy without agreeing with the methodology.
	Okay, I got it.
	So, I agree with a lot of her conclusions.
	I agree, of course, that the world is subjective.
	I agree that reason is the reason and evidence of the supreme arbiters of truth.
	I agree that we have to accept the language has meaning.
	I agree that there is no supernatural, religious, or spiritual dimension to the world.
	I agree with her about free will.
	I agree with her about the free market.
	I agree with her about the non-aggression principle.
	I mean, there's a lot that I agree with and a lot of her reasoning that I would agree with.
	But there's stuff that doesn't follow.
	I can give you one very brief example, if you like, where I think she ties herself in a knot very quickly and a very important issue.
	Okay, so I mentioned this before.
	I was just touching it briefly. So, Ayn Rand says, the moral is the practical.
	The moral is the practical.
	And then she says that the non-aggression...
	Sorry? No, I think I know where you're going.
	But you can go ahead. But yeah, I think you mentioned this very, very...
	Not too long ago.
	But yeah. Yeah, so...
	The moral is the practical and the non-aggression principle is moral, which must mean that the non-aggression principle is practical.
	Now, of course, the consistent application...
	And she also says that philosophies must be consistent or they fail terribly.
	And so the consistent application of the non-aggression principle eliminates the state.
	But Ayn Rand violently objected to the elimination of the state because she felt that anarchy was impractical.
	But that doesn't work logically.
	If the moral is the practical and philosophies must be consistent, but the consistent application of the most moral principle of objectivism, which is the non-aggression principle, results in something that is wildly impractical, which she called anarchism, means that there's something fundamentally wrong with that whole approach.
	And the fact that she said that relatively early on in her life and never revisited it and never corrected it meant that she surrounded herself, unfortunately, with people who weren't able to criticize her and to help her grow intellectually.
	That, of course, is the great Danger of people of extraordinary high ability is that you feel you cannot be coached by others.
	And it's something that I've always tried to retain.
	I've tried to learn as much as possible from some of the flaming megaton asteroid-smashing disasters that came out of objectivism despite its many enormous and profound successes.
	And obviously trying to set myself up as some arbiter of truth is a terrible idea.
	And to remember that You can get coached, as I regularly am, by a child of less than three years old, i.e.
	my daughter, is something that is very, very important.
	So, yeah, I mean, the fact that she had this very obvious and glaring contradiction, massive, fundamental contradiction within her philosophy, and the fact that it went unremarked on for so long and was not corrected by her in her life meant that She wanted conclusions.
	This is also the great danger of philosophy, is you want conclusions and you will just find ways to get there.
	You know, she wanted the free market.
	She was not able to function without the concept of the state.
	And of course, that's because she set herself up as a final and unjudgeable arbiter of truth in many ways, and that's what the state is in society, though not of truth, but of effect.
	And so because of her own Megalomania in certain areas, she was susceptible to the virus called the state because she could not have her philosophy stand without her as the final arbiter and she could not conceive of as a society that could stand without the state as a final arbiter.
	And the way that she criticized anarchism was to say, well, defense agency A or defense agency B, they both arrest a guy and they can't work it out.
	In other words, they can't negotiate with each other.
	They can't set up contracts ahead of time.
	They can't find ways to make it happen.
	And so we need, bam, to drop into this world of peace, a violent agency, an aggressive agency that is the final arbiter.
	But that, of course, was the description of her own philosophy and her role within it, which I think was genuinely tragic and was a swing and a miss that was pretty significant.
	And, you know, in my own small way, I'm trying to correct those mistakes as best I can.
	Okay, yeah, that clarifies it a little bit.
	I mean, I still...
	I would like to understand what she means by that because it's still...
	I still don't understand what she means.
	But, I mean, I understand where she's coming from.
	I understand that, you know, those two statements, those two propositions that you were just talking about, that, you know, there is a world that exists outside of my senses and my consciousness is the way that I perceive that reality.
	I think that is self-evident.
	I don't think that needs to be proven.
	It can't be proven. But it seemed that, from this paragraph, it seemed that she had a more fundamental argument that preceded these two arguments.
	And that's supposed to be that existence exists, but I never really understood and I never really got a definition of what that actually...
	Yeah, and listen, you may want to go to the objectivist forums or websites.
	There may be people who understand that question better than I do.
	So... But yes, it's worth pursuing.
	I mean, it is obviously very, very important.
	So, you know, my approach is certainly a little different from hers, but the fact that existence exists, I mean, I accept and I think is great.
	Because I heard some people that criticize her based on this argument that says that it's circular, that it's a tautology and doesn't mean anything.
	And I never really got to the conclusion of whether it's But I never really understood what it meant, so I couldn't really know.
	I didn't know where to go, basically.
	Like, is it good? Is it a good idea?
	Well, but remember, of course, sorry to interrupt, but remember, most people, when they're looking at philosophical arguments, will simply apply descriptors to those arguments rather than analyze them, right?
	So saying, well, it's tautological and, you know, it's circular and so on.
	I mean, they're just sticking labels on something, right?
	Thinking that you've understood it or really processed it.
	And I mean, this happens, of course. It's really an ad hominem attack.
	It's calling an argument wrong without proving it, which is like calling somebody stupid without showing If and how and when they're stupid, or like calling somebody evil with no proof or standards.
	The ad hominems are either against the person or against the argument.
	And if that argument is so obviously circular, and I mean, I sort of understand how somebody would apply that label to it, because she's saying it's an axiom.
	It's axiomatic that existence exists.
	And so basically saying, okay, so I'm saying that it's, I'm just excluding the possibility that reality could be an illusion created by a demon.
	And I'm going to call that, rather than I'm just not going to deal with that possibility, I'm going to say, well, mine is axiomatic, and therefore we're just going to start from there.
	And unfortunately, philosophy doesn't let you do that.
	You know, philosophy does not let you say, well, I can't find a solution to this, so I'm going to call the opposite of it axiomatic.
	Right? I mean, it's sort of like saying, you know, it's axiomatic that I should get this job, so stop interviewing people.
	No, it's not axiomatic.
	You can't just use the word axiom in place of an argument, right?
	So I've certainly always tried to avoid that standard.
	And so, you know, I mean, the argument that that which is best for man's mind is the good and so on, I mean, well, I mean, that's just stated without an examination of the opposite, right?
	I mean, it's like saying that I don't know, mental health has something to do with happiness.
	I mean, it's nonsense. I mean, if you look at Saddam Hussein, you know, one of the most murderous psychopaths that the world has ever spawned, I mean, he could have left power just about any time.
	He had billions of dollars in foreign banks.
	He could have left and gone to some country and lived on a beach for the rest of his life.
	But no, he stayed and wanted to exercise power.
	It made him happy. He liked it.
	He wanted to act out those unbelievable cruelties to others.
	As Christopher Hitchens says, In one of his debates with his brother, I think, he says Saddam Hussein would get people to force them to applaud the murder of their family members right there in front of them and to cheer them.
	And Stalin and Hitler and Mao and, you know, lots of these other monsters, they actively and assiduously pursued power.
	Sadism makes the sadist happy.
	And so happiness doesn't have anything to do with mental health.
	It's, you know, you can't just say, well, you know, okay, but it's happiness for healthy people.
	That's what I mean by no, no, no.
	You can't use the healthy standard.
	That's like saying anyone can play in the NBA, but it's only for tall people.
	Well, then you can't say everyone.
	And so, yeah, so, you know, saying that which is good for man's mind is the good is like, well, okay, you can start there if you want, and then you can build something on it, but there's no reason to believe that that's true.
	And that's, of course, the fundamental problem.
	Philosophy doesn't let you place your flag arbitrarily anywhere.
	Philosophy does not allow you to just say, well, let's assume this is true and work from here.
	Philosophy is a tougher bitch than that.
	She'll slap you six ways from Sunday if you try that stuff, either internally or externally.
	So yeah, I think that is the challenge.
	You have to come up with inescapable arguments.
	And the reason that people try to avoid inescapable arguments, and this is of course the challenge that people have with UPB, is that inescapable arguments about virtue and truth and reason and free will versus determinism are enraging to people.
	They really get people angry.
	If you just say, okay, I plant my flag here, and this is where I start from, and somebody says, okay, well, I plant my flag over here, and this is where I start from, that's a live and let live thing.
	But if you say, this is the only place the flag can be, then everyone else who's planted their flag anywhere else gets really pissed off.
	Yeah, you're correct. When I first read UPV some time ago, My emotional reaction to it wasn't probably the best.
	Not just UPV specifically, but in general.
	Whenever I heard an argument that I can't really argue against because it's logically valid, but it goes against my core set of beliefs, my first reaction is emotional.
	I just have this, no, I don't want to hear it.
	It must be wrong. It must be...
	Yeah, it's like, fuck you, because so often absolute arguments are put forward to control us.
	And so when you hear somebody making an argument from first principles that's inescapable, particularly in the realm of morality, we feel our choice and our individuality and our free will sometimes be stripped away.
	It's like, okay, well, if this is true and it's unarguable, then I've got to change my mind against my will, maybe against my preferences.
	It's like I've lost control of my own brain.
	I hate it. And if it's any consolation to you, right?
	But if it's any consolation to you, my experience of UPB was very similar to yours.
	I didn't like it either. It was a great tragedy for me to work on UPB in many ways because, you know, I knew that it was going to be a very difficult work to put out, that it was going to get a lot of hostility.
	And I knew that because I also felt a lot of hostility towards it while I was working on it because I felt that my choices and what I perceived of as my individuality was being washed away.
	And... It's sort of like if you're a sailor, you know, and you're just like sailing around.
	You can sail wherever you want.
	And then, you know, you have to go somewhere and someone gives you a map.
	It's like, well, wait a sec. I just wanted to sail wherever I want.
	And now I've got to go sail here and navigate by this star and use this sextant.
	My choice to sail around where I want is gone.
	And so, yeah, if it's any consolation, it's like what James Joyce in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Stephen Daedalus, I think his name is, was talking to his friends.
	And one of his friends said, did it ever occur to you that Jesus might have just been a really bad man?
	And he said, of course, the first person that occurred to was Jesus himself, right?
	And not to put myself in such lofty categories, of course, right?
	But if it is any consolation, I, you know, probably nobody got angrier at UPB than I did and found it more difficult and frustrating and annoying to work on than I did.
	It's just that that's Where you've got to plow if you want to get out of the muck.
	Yeah, and I have seen it in people around me.
	Whenever I make an argument, I already process both intellectually and emotionally.
	Whenever I put forward an argument with people that have not really processed yet, they immediately put a defense wall against it, and they just come up with the craziest rebuttals.
	And I don't blame them immediately.
	I don't want to be too judgmental of them because I also made the same mistake in the past.
	So I try to be as gentle as possible and kind of walk them through and just give them time to process.
	Eventually, at some point, if they don't get it, they won't get it ever.
	But it's not like whenever you hear an argument that you can't contradict, immediately you're not going to change your mind at that very second.
	It takes time, I think.
	No, and it's great. I mean, I take enormous relief, pleasure, satisfaction, and joy over the hostility that UPB generates.
	And not because I'm masochistic, but because it means that people really care.
	It means that, look, if you put philosophical works out there and people don't give a rat's ass or whatever, I mean, the haters are an incredible validation that it's important.
	That it's important that people really care about philosophy.
	You know, if somebody sort of corners me at a party and starts telling me about their stamp collection, I don't get angry.
	I just start, you know, I do those inner yawns, which occasionally, if I'm tired, I have to do it in my interview, you know, where you sort of, you know, you sort of whiten your mouth to this little internal expanding lungfish cave and try not to have your nostrils flare too much and all that, right?
	But, I mean, if people are really boring me, I'm bored.
	I'm not angry. I may eventually get irritated if they show no social graces, but when, you know, people read something and they explode into hostility, it's like, wow, what a fantastic validation.
	Thank you. It means it's important.
	It means I'm doing something that's important, that matters, right?
	They don't shoot flack at you until you get close at the target, if you're a bomber, right?
	So, you know, the hostility, the frustration, the annoyance, I mean, it's an incredible validation that you're on the right path.
	Yeah. And you can tell the difference between somebody who takes the argument and thinks about it versus someone who just plainly rejects it because it goes against whatever his short-term benefit is.
	I used to be religious.
	I used to be a Christian, actually.
	I was born in a Catholic family.
	I was religious until maybe my sophomore year in college.
	You know, which was, you know, late teens.
	So, I mean, it took me a while to overcome religion.
	It took me years. I was agnostic for some time.
	I was a relativist for some time, you know, until I became an atheist maybe, I don't know, a few years ago, three, four years ago.
	So it wasn't an easy thing.
	It's not easy.
	It's painful. I lost a lot of friends.
	It's very painful.
	It's very, very painful. But I couldn't see myself living in a lie.
	And especially for me, it was maybe a little easier since I had some really bad consequences.
	Coming to me if I accepted religion because a lot of the people around me at the time were religious and they were doing a lot of harm to me, psychological harm.
	So I guess from that perspective it was easier for me to deny religion or kind of get out of that mentality because my immediate short-term effects were going to be beneficial.
	So I can't imagine someone whose entire family is religious And, you know, whose entire well-being depends on being religious.
	How would they go about going against it?
	I mean, that would be almost...
	Well, do you know what the, you know, the system, I mean, I think you're touching on a huge number of important topics here, so I apologize.
	I'll try and keep this short.
	But, I mean, I think what you're touching on is the degree to which philosophy brings this absolutely terrifying, bright, Glaring, hideous light into people's lives.
	This is what I've talked about with the against me argument, with the do you support me being killed for being an unbeliever to the religious, the Old Testament believers argument, and I've done this many, many times in many different circumstances.
	What you basically do when you become, I think, rational and philosophical and empirical and all that kind of good stuff, Is you go up to people who say that they love you and you say, listen, do you love me as a human being or do you love your illusions more?
	Who do you love? Me, a flesh and blood, breathing, thinking, feeling, caring human being?
	Or do you love the dead, washed up, driftwood, inertia, fantasy, bigoted ideologies that you happen to have inherited?
	Do you love life or do you love The dead eras of dead minds.
	Well, they're going to say they love you, but they can't give up their irrationalities.
	I mean, that's what they're going to say. They're going to say, yeah, I love you, but I also believe in Christ and whatever.
	Well, I understand that.
	I understand that they will, of course, try to have their cake and eat it too.
	Of course, they're part of the irrationality, right?
	Right, right. And so, you know, around the state, do you love your nation, which doesn't exist, or do you love me, who does exist?
	Do you love your state, which cares nothing for you, except as you are useful to it, or do you love me, you know, a family member, a friend, a brother, a sister, a lover, a husband, a wife, father of your children, mother of your children, or your adult child?
	Do you love me, or do you love...
	Historical, unchosen, wretched errors.
	And when you put that on the line to people, I mean, it's absolutely chilling how often people will choose the illusion over the living, breathing, loving, caring, thoughtful, concerned, curious human being standing right in front of them and how they will be swept backwards Into the trash heap of history and all of its historical mistakes and bloodshed and errors and delusions.
	And how they will almost welcome that skyhook that dumps them back into the past and away from a living, breathing human being who's standing in front of them saying, care for me, care for the truth, care for reality, care for life.
	Do not be embraced and hidden from my heart by these ghostly, ropey, dead hands of historical fiction.
	It's horrible how often people choose dead lies over live people.
	I guess it's over 4 p.m., so you probably need to go.
	If you had something else, I would be happy to talk if there's anything else you wanted to ask about.
	You've got great comments. Not really.
	I guess I have one more really quick question.
	Is there a way that I can...
	Because I know you used to have these private one-on-one conversations with users of 3D9 Radio.
	Sure. Is that still available?
	Totally. I guess I'll just send you an email and we can figure some time in the next couple of weeks.
	Yes, please do.
	I want to mention people.
	I'm still happy to do those.
	They've been tougher to schedule. Because of my responsibilities throughout the day.
	But please, I love to chat with you.
	I love to chat with listeners.
	It is a hugely rewarding thing.
	I'm always impressed by the sensitivity and intelligence and curiosity of the listeners, without exception, that I can think of.
	And also, I think it's very helpful if it ends up being a podcast, which for some it does.
	It's very helpful. To other people in the community.
	I think I get more praise for listener combos where listeners talk than I do for what I say, which is fantastic.
	So, yeah, absolutely.
	If you want to, shoot me an email, host at freedomainradio.com.
	Okay. Yeah, I mean, I basically, I'm trying to figure out that I want to go back.
	Actually, I want to go to therapy.
	I want to start going to therapy. Because I think I still have a couple of issues that I haven't worked with.
	In my personal life, so I have some questions that maybe you can help me clarify.
	I would be happy to just shoot me an email.
	And yes, we're going to do a show next Sunday, the 25th at 2 p.m., of course.
	I will be slurring from carrying around my big belly of eggnog, but I will try to do my best.
	But yes, we will...
	We will do a show next Sunday.
	But yeah, sorry, that's not for you. That's just for everyone.
	Okay, thanks. Alright.
	Well, thank you everybody so much.
	I really appreciate it. You know, always a fantastic time to sit and chat with you.
	Sorry for people who tried to donate over the last couple of days.
	I had a minor PayPal issue, but it's all back and solved.
	And I really appreciate your support and the new subscribers.
	You know, thank you so much.
	It is just wonderful.
	FreeDomainRadio.com forward slash donate.
	If you have a mind and the capacity, I really, really appreciate it.
	And have yourselves a great, great week, my friends.

▲