Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 14, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

33:52

2146 Tom Woods and Stefan Molyneux Interviewed on Freedomizer Radio!

Best-selling author Tom Woods and Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio discuss libertarianism, anarchy, freedom and community on the The Valerie Sargent Martin Show.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome back to the Valerie Sergeant Martin Show.
	If you're just joining us, our number to call in is 347-324-3704.
	On the line with us now, we've got our two primetime guests, Tom Woods, author Tom Woods, and activist lecturer Stefan Molyneux.
	Gentlemen, thank you for joining me.
	Thank you so much.
	Glad to be here.
	Yeah, I've never had two guests on at the same time, so I'm not really sure how this is going to But I think everybody else will be okay with it.
	Well, what Tom and I are doing, just so you know, we're playing virtual rock, paper, scissors to see who gets to go first.
	So we've got a little video feed, which we can check it out with.
	I think that'll be very helpful.
	Oh, good.
	Good.
	Go ahead, Tom.
	You were about to say?
	Well, I was just going to say that, you know, we all know how reserved Stefan is.
	So when he inevitably gives his one-word answers, I'll be sure to jump right in.
	I think you might be making a joke at your expense there, Stephan.
	It's a pretty fair game, I think.
	Okay.
	Well, gentlemen, your primary purpose in joining us today was to help us promote the Libertarian Party of Texas' upcoming convention, June 8th and 10th.
	My question, I guess I'll direct this first to Stephan, is that I've watched several of your videos, Stephan, and you Aren't a huge fan of voting or the political process or parties or all of that.
	So what makes it okay for you to be involved in going and speaking at the Libertarian Party's convention in Texas?
	Well, I think the answer, like most voluntarists, would be free food.
	I think that's really the key.
	It's tough to make a living as a podcaster.
	I try never, like Stock and Cheese, to reject free food.
	But no, seriously, I mean, I'm a big fan of education, and there's no question in my mind that politics and education Economic education does a lot to draw people towards, I think, the true recognition of the non-aggression principle and a respect for property rights that is the essence of voluntarism.
	So you guys are out there breaking the matrix in certain areas for some people, and we hope that you bring them close enough to the Venus flytrap of anarchism that we might be able to snatch a few as they fly by.
	But I spent many years, two decades, as a politics and economics kind of guy And before I sort of made the leap, so I'm not going to say there's no value in it since I left, I sort of was in that area for so long that, and of course, you know, there's a lot of common cause between the two of us.
	I mean, we want to get rid of the tumor, you want to shrink the tumor.
	It's still going in the right direction, I think, for both of us in some way, so I hope that gives some useful answers.
	Yeah, well one of the things I wanted to hear from both of you is sort of a definition of all these different terms, you know, libertarianism, you said anarchism, and that's a scary word for some people, but maybe we could let Tom talk a little bit about, you know, Tom talks at all sorts of different party events, so maybe he should give us his take on why he's going to speak there.
	Well, sure.
	And as a matter of fact, the night before I speak at the LP convention at their luncheon on the Saturday, I'm going to be doing a book signing at, wait for it, the Texas GOP convention.
	I was invited to do a book signing by one of the people, one of the groups that will have a booth there.
	So you may say I'm hedging my bets, but really, my view is that if somebody wants to hear me or come see me or read a book, I'm glad to accommodate those people.
	But I mean, my attitude is very similar to...
	I'm surprised, actually, on this.
	I thought I had been led to the impression that Stefan was more dogmatic on this point.
	I'm sure it's his view that it's ultimately sort of fruitless to hope that Through the government you can win more freedom and that really there are other ways of doing this.
	We need to change minds.
	We need to perhaps practice agorism and sort of withdraw our consent from the system.
	But I'm very sympathetic to all that.
	My view simply is that most people, whether we may deplore this all we like, but most people Get their political views from reading the newspaper and seeing what the two political parties are saying, the two main parties.
	They look at what the political parties are saying, and that to them delineates what the allowable positions are.
	It never occurs to them that there are any positions beyond that, and that's why I feel like there is some value to having libertarians in the political process, not because we think that, you know, electing two libertarians is going to change the world, but because it kind of makes it okay for people To say, well, you know what, I think I believe thus and so, because I see other people believe it, but if all they had to choose from is Obama and Romney, they're going to think those are the only positions.
	Most people aren't, frankly, creative enough to think up other positions.
	But I'm quite glad to talk about this forbidden anarchist word, if you like, but I feel like already now, here I made fun of Stefan at the beginning, and I'm the one who's yammering on and on, so I feel like I'd better stop.
	Well, look, I mean, let me just, the A word is obviously troubling for people, and I can understand why, but anarchism really, I think, is just two things, which we all accept in our private lives, in our personal lives.
	One is no rulers.
	This simply means no violent oligarchical hierarchies waving guns at everyone, telling them what to do.
	And that's pretty much how I worked as an entrepreneur.
	It's how I dated.
	I tried not to kidnap too many women and put them in the back of a windowless van.
	I simply asked them out.
	They said yes or no or whatever.
	And so we kind of don't like the idea of some central authority telling us what jobs we can have, where we should go to school, who we should marry, and so on.
	So, you know, the anarchist simply says, okay, we don't like a hierarchical authority that's rooted in violence in our personal lives.
	Let's just see if we can push that out and extend it a bit.
	And really, but most fundamentally, I think anarchism is simply around a respect for the non-aggression principle.
	Thou shalt not initiate force against thy fellow carbon-based life forms.
	And so, you know, the rejection of violence, except in an extremity of self-defense, which 99.9% of people will never encounter in their life.
	I haven't had too many grizzlies run at me with chainsaws in my life.
	So except in an extremity of self-defense, you don't really use violence.
	We accept that in our personal lives.
	I think that the voluntarist or the anarchist is simply saying, let's continue to push this philosophy of nonviolence out as far as we can go.
	And there's no theoretical limit to it.
	And so far, I don't think we've found any good practical limits.
	So Obviously, it's not something we're going to achieve in our lifetime, but I think it's a goal that we can start to work towards and not say that there's an end point where we'll accept a certain amount of hierarchical violence in our lives, and let's just see how far we can go with it.
	And so far, I've not been able to find a real practical or theoretical limitation, though.
	Of course, I'm always open to better arguments.
	So is voluntarism...
	An agorism or anarcho-capitalism, are they just other words, prettier words or more socially acceptable words for the same anarchist concept or the non-aggression principle?
	I'll jump in here.
	The term agorism really refers to a strategy of how do you bring about a free society Whereas anarcho-capitalism is a term that refers to a set of beliefs about how society ought to be run.
	Agorism basically talks about how you ought to get there, and it is an apolitical strategy.
	The view that is put forth by Sam Konkin and those people who believe in agorism is that you defeat the state by means of assaulting it through a million little cuts.
	Through withdrawing your consent, so philosophically, yes, but also finding areas in life where you can evade the state's regulations and the state's taxation and the state's omnipresence.
	And you work out little sort of parallel institutions sort of under the radar, and in effect you build up the society you would like to see.
	Instead of trying to take over or elect people, whatever, you try to just build in your own life with your contacts and the people that you meet, You try to build up the society that you yourself want to see.
	That's one way to reach the sort of goal that Stefan and I favor, but that's a debatable question, the question over strategy.
	And then on this whole anarchism thing, it's true that it's a scary word, but really it's a question that free market supporters ought to ask themselves.
	If you really believe in the free market, And you believe that voluntary relations between human beings always maximize people's happiness vis-a-vis government involvement, then all we're doing is just taking that two or three steps further and saying that all those areas where you're going to say,
	but except, you know, we do need Nancy Pelosi to help us do this, we do need her to help us do that, what about just, you know, give us a chance here, listen to our arguments, what about the possibility that we might not need Nancy Pelosi or John McCain for anything?
	What is the prospect of that?
	Isn't that slightly tantalizing?
	And then also, all the things we think we need it for.
	Well, you know, how would you have courts?
	How would you have this or that?
	Every single one of these services at one time or another has in fact been provided through voluntary human interaction.
	And every time you have a monopoly, a coercive monopoly, you always have higher prices and lower quality over time.
	Does that not describe every single service the government provides?
	Education, higher prices, lower quality over time.
	The court system, higher prices, lower quality over time.
	It's true of all these things.
	Maybe there's a possibility that all these government monopolies could, in fact, are services that could be provided on the free market by just normal people.
	You want to jump in there, Stefan?
	Yeah, I agree.
	I agree.
	There's always a challenge to imagination.
	When there was slaves, slavery and so on, there was an institution that had been common throughout humanity's history, across all continents, all civilizations.
	And so, you know, when the Quakers and abolitionists first came along and said, maybe we should do without this institution, of course, people could always say, well, you show me a society where there's been no slavery and so on.
	And then they said, well, basically, since the slaves are all picking the cotton, if you don't want slavery, then you want no cotton to be picked, you want no fruit to be picked, you want Just all starve to death.
	It's like, no, I just don't want slaves to be forced to do stuff.
	And so, you know, the challenge is always put forward.
	Well, tell me how this is going to work without the government.
	Tell me how that's going to work without the government.
	Of course, you know, in the 17th century or 18th century, when like 80 percent of people were involved in farming, if you'd have said, OK, man, here's how it's going to happen.
	You know, 200 years from now, there's going to be these giant robot horseless carriages sweeping up.
	Through the agricultural lands, picking with metal hands.
	What's metal?
	I'll explain it later.
	Picking with metal hands all the cotton and the fruit, and only 3% of people are going to be involved in farming.
	Oh, and by the way, these giant robot boxes are going to be fueled by crushed tree juice from 300 million years ago that's been blasted up out of the ground and taken across the ocean.
	People would look at you like you are completely insane.
	But you can't predict the future in a state of freedom.
	You don't know where it's going to go.
	go.
	That's why you have to make your decisions based on principle.
	And of course, taxation and statism is a violation of the initiation of force.
	So I try to avoid, here's how it's going to work, because there's just no way to really tell it, and just say, let's go back to our principles.
	Why do you think so many people have trouble with just abiding by the principles and letting it work itself out?
	Tom, if it's a question about trouble with principles, I'm going to defer to you.
	I was a kind of reluctant convert to all this myself, because it's, first of all, it's an unusual position and it hasn't been held by that many people in history and it's relatively recently that it's sort of come into its own as a real, you know, a serious political philosophical position.
	And it also, it seems scary because you think, well, Yeah, I don't like the government, but at least I know what that society looks like.
	I'm living in it, and it really annoys me, and there are terrific enormities being committed all the time, but at least it's the devil that I know, and people are afraid of the devil that they don't know.
	But maybe the thing that they don't know isn't the devil.
	That's just it.
	That they don't know is a vast improvement.
	But I do think that there is, I say this as a historian, there is some value in looking back at different ways that people ordered their lives in the past.
	I mean, I have a friend, Jared Casey, who's a philosophy professor in Dublin.
	who insists that Ireland, for two millennia, had nothing that we would recognize as a state today, and yet the earth did not go tumbling toward the sun.
	But I think basically it's just a lack of familiarity, and again, as Stefan said, a lack of imagination of how it would be possible for these things to happen.
	But the point is that they did happen.
	Like in the Middle Ages, the merchant law developed totally voluntarily.
	I mean, here you've got a law that's got to encompass People across a continent speaking different languages with different customs and practices and yet somehow streamline all these practices so that merchants can engage in commerce in a way that's predictable and yields prosperity.
	And you would think, well surely there needs to be some government or some United Nations that will come together and codify this and force it on everybody.
	But that's not at all what happened.
	They developed it spontaneously on their own.
	And so when you say, well, gee, there's just no way that a legal system could come about other than through top-down coercion or through legislation or whatever, well, then it just basically comes down to who are you going to believe?
	These critics or your own eyes?
	Because it did happen.
	These things have indeed happened.
	And when you come to this conclusion that maybe there really is some kind of natural law of the universe that human beings can arrange their affairs without officially sanctioned violence, then you look at the state with much greater skepticism and you realize that all its propaganda, its so-called education, the speeches that we hear at the State of the Union, all this is geared to make us think These people are indispensable.
	Without them, everything would collapse.
	They are the source of all good things and all things civilized.
	And you realize just what an unbelievable scam this is.
	But you know what?
	Maybe you and I could, in fact, maybe we would not all revert to, you know, wolves wouldn't run free in the streets, in other words, without Nancy Pelosi.
	Maybe we could carve out some kind of livable society without institutionalized parasites stealing the fruits of our labor and telling us how much worse off we'd be without them.
	Well, I'd also like to add one thing, if you don't mind, that I think that we can look at history, but we can also look at the current system.
	The government as it stands right now, the democratic states that exist all throughout the West, are, to me, absolute proofs of the validity of voluntarism or anarchism, insofar as they all run on contracts that can't be enforced, right?
	As we all know, Obama has received in the past, and I think is on his way to receiving now, massive amounts of money from Wall Street and, you know, top-level financial interests.
	And, you know, as a result, they get lots of bailouts, they don't get prosecuted and so on.
	So everybody knows, if you give a lot of money to a political campaigner, if that political campaigner gets into office, then you get a bunch of favors in return.
	Now, these are actually illegal contracts.
	You can't write them down, you can't enforce them, and yet that's exactly how the system works.
	So even when the state is actively opposing the voluntary working out of contracts, they still work.
	Like a third of the world's economy is the black or the grey market, where not only don't you have contracts, you're actually not allowed to have contracts.
	Everything's got to be under the table, and yet that still works.
	So the pseudo-corrupt bribery of the democratic state is proof that you don't need the state to enforce the contracts, because the state is running.
	The whole political campaign and reward system, the contribution and reward system, is running without government enforcement, in fact, when it's specifically illegal.
	So if these sort of voluntary transactions can work, even with the cold-eyed laser guns of the state trained on everyone's forehead, imagine if we took all that force away, how these voluntary transactions could flourish.
	Alright, my thought is that collectively human beings don't do well trying to be free.
	They don't know how to be free.
	Anytime you give them the opportunity to be free the way the United States was, people tend to want to have leaders and rulers and have like a ruling elite or some sort of governing elite.
	Would you disagree with that?
	I think if we look at history, it is clear that obviously a lot of people have gotten away with doing that and with making people think that it's good and right and just or at least, at the very least, unavoidable that we would have a system like that.
	But this is why it's important, I think, to talk about the moral principles involved.
	Because once you persuade people that there are certain moral principles that nobody, no matter what What dignitary he is, what title he enjoys.
	Nobody can violate these principles.
	Then it becomes much harder.
	Like if you actually had a society that was functioning just according to the normal laws of commerce without anybody who had the power to initiate force over anybody else, and then all of a sudden somebody said – this is – I'm borrowing from Murray Rothbard.
	All of a sudden somebody said, you know what?
	I think from now on we should give all the guns to the Smith family And we should say that the Smith family can initiate violence against any of us.
	And the Smith family, anytime it needs to fight a war, can just conscript us and we'll just go fight it for them.
	And people would say, what are you, crazy?
	This makes no sense at all.
	Because they have already sort of We internalize certain moral principles.
	So this is why – I mean a lot of times I talk about utilitarian arguments or I talk about historical arguments, but fundamentally what really matters are the moral claims that we're making.
	And once people internalize those, it's much, much harder to trick them into thinking that it would be better morally, materially, or any other way for the Smith family to run things.
	Yeah, and I mean I think it's important to remember as well that this argument that there's somehow a need for leadership in the human heart and if we remove one leader it creates this power vacuum that creates another leader and so on.
	I think if that were true we wouldn't need so much propaganda.
	To exist within this hierarchy.
	It's sort of like saying, well, if you raise an animal in a zoo, it's not able to survive in the wild.
	Well, if we're all raised in this cage called the state and propagandized by the state and its teachers for a decade and a half and so on, then yeah, of course it becomes hard to think outside that paradigm because that's kind of what we've been taught.
	But if it were natural for human beings to seek out leaders, Then, of course, there would be no leaders because everybody would be following this ghost called a leader.
	But we wouldn't need so much propaganda to constantly be reinforced how necessary the state is, how without the state is nature red in tooth and claw and chaos and all this kind of stuff.
	And, of course, the reality is that the state of societies that we have right now, I mean, without going to the differences between the sort of minarchism and anarchism argument, the states we have right now are pure chaos.
	I mean, look what's going on in Europe.
	You've got riots.
	You've got massive debts.
	I mean, the unborn have been sold off to foreign bankers for pennies on the pound.
	I mean, it's crazy what's going on.
	Unfunded liabilities and wars.
	These deficits are just crazy.
	And so, to me, that is the very definition of chaos.
	But, of course, everyone says that if we're free, there'll be chaos.
	But they assume that somehow what we've got is somehow not chaos.
	I mean, in the U.S., one person in 20 Who's accused of some sort of crime, most of which are made up.
	One person in 20 gets to argue their case in front of a jury of their peers.
	Everyone else has to plea down because they're heaped down with these crazy sentences.
	And so that is not at all even remotely close to justice.
	So the last thing I'd ever want to suggest is that a free society is going to somehow try to do as well as the society that we have.
	Because the society that we have right now is doing really, really badly.
	It's just that how badly it's doing is being kind of...
	Distance from us by debt.
	If we didn't have the capacity to paper over these cracks with borrowed and printed money, it would be a whole lot of difference.
	But I think that's all beginning to wear thin, and I think people are really beginning to look at alternatives.
	Okay, so we're sort of running low on time.
	We've still got a few minutes here.
	I want to ask you guys, both of you, I am active in the Republican Party.
	I'm an officer in the Republican Party here in Georgia.
	And I got accepted to become an alternate to the Republican National Convention in August.
	And given Stefan's opinion about participating in the process, you know, I'm concerned that my participation may legitimize some of the bad things that I've seen witness firsthand in this primary process and in our Presidential election process.
	What do you guys think about me participating and what advice would you give?
	Let me jump into this one first, if I may.
	I'd like to absolve you of any worry over this because my view is that I can imagine certain circumstances in which Some political involvement might involve legitimizing bad people and bad ideas, but these people in the GOP, particularly the real party machine people, they hate the Ron Paul people with a passion that we can hardly conceive of.
	And so your presence there will annoy them, and to me that's just an end in itself.
	Maybe Stefan can give a more sophisticated philosophical rationale for what I'm trying to say, but anything that annoys these people I sort of, somehow I feel like even though this is not a very rigorous argument, I want to give my blessing to it.
	I want to endorse it.
	So whoever can be a gadfly is the person you want to be in the room.
	Especially because these are some of the worst people on earth, in my opinion.
	So if you can annoy them, you're doing better work than I am.
	Right, right.
	As far as education goes, again, I came through the political economic education route to the philosophical route.
	So, you know, Ayn Rand was a minarchist, although, of course, in Gold's College there was no government.
	So I came through.
	It's hard for me to throw too many stones at the very concept of it.
	But I will say this, though, that I believe it is far too late for a political solution.
	There is so much debt.
	There are so many dependents upon...
	And if you look at the examples of Scott Walker in Wisconsin and you look at the examples of what's going on over in Europe, anyone who even tries to bring, quote, austerity, right?
	Which is like, you know, some guy eating 10,000 calories a day goes down to 9,000 calories a day.
	Somehow people think that's starving to death.
	But it's way too late.
	I mean, there will be riots, there will be violence, there will be deaths.
	And I really am not particularly enthusiastic to have a libertarian at the helm when all this stuff goes down.
	You don't want to be promoted to be captain of the Titanic three minutes before it goes underwater, because that's all you're remembered for.
	So, for education, for awakening people up, I think that's great.
	But if anyone ever dangles that ring of power right in front of you, personally, I would run screaming the other way.
	But that's my argument.
	That's an interesting take on that.
	Because you're talking about you wouldn't want to be the captain of the helm of the ship when it goes down.
	And Gary Johnson is our Libertarian candidate running this year.
	You know, what if by some miracle Johnson was elected or, you know, whatever.
	Ron Paul got nominated in the Republican convention and then everything went to hell.
	Do you really think that Gary Johnson and the Libertarian political philosophy would be blamed for it?
	Oh, without a doubt.
	I mean, good heavens.
	I mean, there's still exonerations for Marxism by very many people on the left.
	Joseph McCarthy, who was right about there being spies in the State Department, is still vilified.
	I mean, the amount of propaganda that gets poured on this.
	And people are very primitive.
	They're not able to think what happened.
	What they'll know is that a libertarian got into power and suddenly there were water cannons and rubber bullets and rioting public sector workers and strikes and slowdowns and I agree completely.
	I think that's exactly what happened, especially because...
	I mean, it's not exactly like the media in this country that does play a very disproportionate role in forming people's opinions.
	It's not like they're known for their nuanced views of things.
	It's not like they say, well, the economy went down, but that wasn't necessarily the result of deregulation.
	It was the result of all these other things.
	There's the Federal Reserve.
	No, no, no.
	They just say, deregulation happened, then there was a problem, therefore deregulation caused the problem.
	So if they're gonna make that sort of argument, then surely they would say, Gary Johnson got elected, everybody rioted, therefore Gary Johnson caused this sort of thing.
	I mean, when it suits them, they will make arguments like that.
	When it doesn't suit them, as with Obama, they're still claiming that Bush is responsible for absolutely everything.
	But when it does suit them, I'm afraid they will make an argument like that.
	So it'll be better for – even if libertarians are not successful politically, it'll be better for them to be remembered as the prophets who were ignored.
	Then maybe we might be getting somewhere.
	Yeah, I mean, look at what people believe about the Great Depression, you know, that it was somehow the freewheeling free market that blew up the economy, and then the Federal Reserve came in and saved everyone, as did all of the federal policies of FDR, and then capitalism was saved by war!
	I mean, of all of the crazy, Marxist, ridiculous, lunatic interpretations, that is still the mainstream one, what, 70, 80 years later?
	When the truth has been out for decades, you still can't break through this wall of propaganda.
	So, yeah, we're ruled by a kind of irrational mob, and the verbal abuser is called the mainstream media, so, you know, there's not a particular way to spin the truth when people aren't receptive to it.
	So, I would have that particular caution, yeah.
	Okay.
	One of our guests in the FreedomizerRadio.com chat room asked, so, Stefan, then what do you think the end game is?
	The endgame.
	Wow, that sounds very spy-like.
	Well, I mean, I think it's a multi-generational process.
	I think that we need to begin with the non-aggression principle in our homes, in our hearts.
	I think we need to, obviously, as a community, we need to recognize that, say, things like spanking and aggression towards kids is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	You know, we need to, I think, focus on a multi-generational change.
	Politics can be a fine way to broadcast information and get people to start waking up, but I think that we want to find ways to bring these values to bear.
	I'm not a big one for going underground and the agorism thing.
	I like my comforts, and I also like being part of the public discourse.
	I think that's very important.
	But there's so much we can do.
	To bring non-aggression to our own lives and our own communities, that, I think, has been fairly well shown to bring up, you know, kids who are more rational, who are better able to process reason and evidence, and who are going to be more skeptical of authority.
	If they've received benevolent relations with parental authorities when they're young, they will then not speak the language of subjugation to violence when they get older.
	So, you know, I think it's, you know, I'm very much a big one for Voltaire's Candide, you know, deal with your own garden, focus on the efforts that you can change in your own life, and I think that has an inevitable ripple effect to the future.
	And Tom, you wrote a whole book on all of these topics.
	So people should go and read your book.
	Which one was it?
	Meltdown or the rollback?
	Well, I mean, Rollback talks about all the things that are supposedly indispensable, and we die instantly without them, and arguing that to the contrary, these things that are causing our problems, and then in the last chapter I do try to talk about the sorts of things that we might do, but yeah, that indeed is Rollback,
	and that was a very radical book, and my publisher is a very mainstream, or my recent publisher is a very mainstream conservative sort of publisher, and I think I sort of panicked them with how radical the manuscript was, so they tried to tame it By packaging it as a book against Obama,
	which I suppose it sort of is indirectly, but it really is saying it's against Obama, against Bush, against Clinton, against the whole system, and they didn't quite know how to compute it, so they made it seem like a boring book, but I just promise you guys it's not a boring book.
	I'm kind of happy with it.
	And before we let you go, both of you, Tom, you started a new venture, libertyclassroom.com.
	Why don't you tell us a little bit about that?
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, here's an example of how you can do something.
	We shouldn't feel totally helpless, like, well, I guess it's just a fact of life that the universities are going to teach propaganda to the kids.
	There's nothing we can do about that.
	It's just a fact of life.
	No, it's not, because you can make your own facts in this world, especially with the Internet.
	So I just decided there's no way I can...
	I wouldn't force universities to hire sensible people.
	I wouldn't even want that power, but there's no way I could even persuade them to do it.
	So instead of just waiting around and bitterly denouncing everybody, why don't I just go over the heads of these people and start my own thing?
	So yeah, you're not going to be able to get very reliable U.S. history or European history or economics in a lot of these classrooms.
	So I'm going to open my own classroom on the internet and I'll teach it.
	Or people I trust will teach it with me.
	And so it's called libertyclassroom.com.
	And we've got a few people, a Kevin Goodsman, a great U.S. historian I totally trust.
	We wrote a book together once.
	He and I are teaching U.S. history, like the real U.S. history.
	Systematically, from the colonial period to now, we've got Western civilization, very important to know about, and then in a few days we're launching our Austrian economics course, and the idea of it is you don't have to sit in front of your computer screen at Friday night at 8 p.m.
	It's already made.
	You just download it, you watch it, or you listen to it, if you'd rather just listen to it.
	And if you have questions, you can come on and ask us, because we're sitting there on the forums.
	And the idea is that this is a way, instead of feeling like we've got to We have to get all good free market people hired at Harvard.
	We just make our own parallel institution.
	And we train people that way.
	And my thinking is that if our people are just that knowledgeable, that other people sort of are afraid to debate us, Then this has to be a contribution to the cause.
	And so this is the thing that I can do.
	I don't have talent in other areas at all.
	I'm not good at really anything else other than writing and explaining things.
	And so LibertyClassroom.com is my attempt to take the knowledge that I have and basically give it to people.
	Kevin Goodsman is a friend of the show.
	He came on about two months ago after he published his new biography of James Madison.
	We'd love for you and Kevin to come back and talk with us about Liberty Classroom another time.
	Stefan's got his own set of videos and books and teaching.
	Your site is freedomainradio.com, right, Stefan?
	Yeah, that's right.
	And, of course, just wanted to mention for people who are going to be in the Dallas area, or, you know, don't even be in the area, come on by.
	I mean, it's going to be a great weekend that's going on in just about two weeks.
	I mean, obviously Tom's going to be there.
	I'll be doing some emceeing.
	There's going to be panel discussions.
	And I really strongly urge people...
	like-minded liberty people.
	We can feel a little bit like lost in the land of the muggles, like we're the only people at Hogwarts who recognize that everyone else is insane and there is no magic.
	So I really strongly urge people to make that kind of social connection, come out and meet people.
	Everyone I've ever been at these gatherings is really happy to talk with people, happy to have discussions, and it really can be a very, very powerful thing.
	So I really wanted to, you can I think it's the 9th and onwards.
	I really strongly urge people to come out to Dallas and to join up and meet up.
	It's always such a very, very enjoyable social event full of great ideas and great people.
	So I really want to put that plug in for the gathering.
	Let me also add, you don't have to be a member of the Libertarian Party.
	You just have to be, you know, I mean, we'd like you to be civil, but anybody can come.
	You know, you register to attend, and anybody is welcome.
	So the more the merrier.
	Sounds great.
	So that's the Libertarian Party of Texas' state conventions being held June 8th through the 10th, and both author Tom Woods and activist and lecturer Stefan Molyneux will be there as speakers and attendees.
	If I were in the area, I definitely would be there.
	It's just an amazing thing to have you both here together at the same time, and thank you for being so gracious to join me.
	I really do hope that you will come back again and let us talk about many, many other topics, because I know all of our listeners here on FreedomizerRadio.com just love to hear you speak.
	So I hope you'll join us again another day.
	It would be a pleasure and thank you for the invitation.
	Likewise, thank you very much.

▲