Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 4, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:55:57

2245 Avoiding Self-Knowledge Will Make You a Robot - Freedomain Radio Sunday Show, 4 November 2012

0:00 Hurricane Sandy and Price Gouging 3:40 The Moral Hazard in Society 14:50 Philosophical Grandparents and Parenting Toddlers 39:00 Self-Knowledge and Free Will 1:15:00 Arguing for Objective Truth.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning, everybody.
	Hope you're doing well.
	It is the 4th of November, and we have a show.
	And it's a show about philosophy, and it has me, and it has James, and it has callers, the first of which would be...
	What was the question about sanity?
	Not sanity.
	The fallout of Hurricane Sandy.
	If there's been anything that you've noticed around...
	I mean, there's the gas shortages and stuff that's been going on.
	Pretty nutty.
	I don't know if there's anything really...
	Yeah, I mean, it's the usual stuff with this, which is that the...
	I mean, some people are going to be out of power for the rest of this month.
	I mean, that's quite astounding.
	That is quite astounding.
	And it's the usual thing where people risk life and limb to bring resources to people and they expect to be paid extra.
	For those things.
	And then they're accused of price gouging and they've been barred from selling and so on.
	It's always interesting, you know, to see the hypocrisy that goes on in these kinds of situations.
	So, policemen and firemen and other first responders, but particularly policemen and firemen, they get paid extra because what they do, you see, is difficult and dangerous.
	So they have to be paid a premium and they have to get extra Retirement benefits and extra health benefits and all that kind of good stuff because what they do is difficult and dangerous but when somebody in the free market does something that's difficult and dangerous like you know brings resources to a storm smashed area then they're not allowed to price gouge.
	See the state is allowed to price gouge because what they do is difficult and dangerous but private citizens are not allowed to price gouge because that's just being greedy and the reality is of course that police actually have It's far less dangerous than many, many other occupations to be a policeman.
	The idea that being a policeman is particularly dangerous is just not true.
	There are at least 10 other occupations that I know of, like being a fisherman and all that kind of stuff, that are much more dangerous.
	Oh yeah, New Jersey Union laws didn't let non-unionized relief workers operate in the state, naturally.
	Oh yeah, and thanks again to Redmond Weissenberger of Mises.ca for putting on a pretty cool event yesterday, a very cool event yesterday.
	And I gave a speech in the morning and then I had a juicy, tasty Nugget of an hour and a half where I put forward a new theory.
	And it was really, it was fantastic.
	It's a great audience, a full house.
	And, you know, I'm trying to do this thing where I don't give a speech, but I just have a conversation.
	And I had a new theory, which I won't sort of go into now because we recorded the speech, so we'll put it up.
	But it was a, you know, just, I love, I love libertarians.
	It's so smart.
	And so we had a great conversation about a wide variety of topics.
	And I did go into, I hope, gripping detail about the history of fires on the Cuyahoga River.
	And so, of course, I'll send it to Sam and see if that shakes any of his new birds out of history.
	And it was really nice.
	It was a great, great event, lots of fun, great energy, great excitement.
	And yeah, Most enjoyable.
	And I've been thinking about, since we're waiting for callers to pop in, I've been thinking about one of the very interesting challenges.
	You know, I saw a long time ago these demotivational posters they have on the web.
	Pretty funny.
	And one of it was a ship upending itself and going down on the And underneath it said, it could be that the sole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
	And I always thought that was very, very funny.
	And there was something fundamentally very true about that.
	And it's almost like There's a moral hazard.
	No one talks about moral hazard in terms of investing in banks and this that the other but the moral hazard just in life in general to me is very interesting.
	A moral hazard is always something that was talked about when I was a child.
	Like most of society's rules it only applies to the least powerful and the most powerful create these rules specifically to create exemptions for themselves.
	But when I was a kid The moral hazard was always put very clear.
	If you don't study, you will get an F. If you get an F, you will be punished.
	If you continue to get Fs, you may not advance to the next grade and you'll stay here forever in the trenches of third grade.
	If you misbehave, it goes on your permanent record and you won't be able to get into a college.
	And if you can't get into a college because you don't have good grades or you've misbehaved, then you will end up pumping gas Or painting walls for the rest of your natural-born life.
	If you end up pumping gas or painting walls for the next of your natural-born life, then you will not be able to provide for your children.
	No woman will want to marry you.
	No man will want to marry you.
	And it will be a wretched life of waking up every morning and wishing that you'd listen to your teacher in third grade.
	I mean, it was...
	Not always quite as sort of domino-sequential as that, but it was always a pretty vivid curse that was put upon us when we were children.
	And this is just one of many, right?
	You know, if you don't brush your teeth, then you do that.
	If you don't eat your vegetables, then no, no, no, no, no, right?
	So there was always this moral hazard, so to speak, or the negative consequences that will accrue to you based upon your own choices.
	And there were, of course, A couple of kids who didn't listen to other, didn't listen to their parents or whatever like that.
	And there's some comedian who said, you know, how the mother's voices will always get hushed when they talked about the children who did not listen to their parents.
	You know, like, remember little Billy who didn't listen to his mother about not running downstairs and now he can't spell his own name?
	And there was always this hazard, like if you don't listen, if you don't obey, if you don't do the right thing, if you don't study, if you don't brush your teeth, if you don't eat your vegetables, there was always this negative effect, always this massive moral hazard that could literally ruin your life.
	And for kids, of course, who don't vote, those moral hazards to some degree and to a large degree remain in place.
	But For adults who do vote, really, they've just been voting themselves out of moral hazards, using the power of the state to vote themselves out of moral hazards.
	I mean, of course, teen pregnancy is one of those things, right?
	So in the old days, which I'm not saying are always the better days, but in the old days, if a teenager got pregnant, you know, it was socially shameful that it was Would result could result in ostracism and so on and basically the you know the girl would be sent away to go live with relatives until the baby was born and then the baby would be put up For adoption and the reason for that is that the parents of a teenage girl Probably don't want to start raising another child from scratch with the complications of having A
	mother there and a girl who's a teenager who's in school is not going to be able to raise her own child.
	Of course, everybody breastfed back in the day, so she would need to be there to breastfeed, which means she'd have to be up all night, which meant she couldn't go to school.
	Bloody, bloody, blah, right?
	And of course, if you got pregnant and kept the baby when you were a teenager, it would be significantly bad for your life as a whole and so on.
	But that has to a large degree I mean, all of that sort of stuff.
	It's still, of course, a lot of problems, a lot of difficulties, a lot of challenges.
	But, you know, if you get welfare or you get free health care and it costs your kids to go to subsidized or free daycare, you can get subsidized or free housing, you get food stamps, you get, like, you shield it from the economic consequences of making mistakes.
	Just as the banks, you know, the rich are shielded from the economic consequences of blending in impossible to pay off mortgages in amongst healthy financial instruments.
	And so all of this is interesting because what used to happen is there would be this moral hazard that you could point to.
	You could call it a moral signpost, which is a person, you know, well, do you remember Judy, the teenage girl who kept her baby?
	Well, she ended up scrubbing toilets for, you know, 15 years and her kids grew up wild and whatever it is, right?
	So there's this, don't do that because these are the consequences.
	But that, to some degree, has been taken away.
	And what's interesting to me about that is, I mean, I sort of have two minds about it.
	I want to hear what you guys think if there's anything else, if we don't have a lot of callers today.
	But at an individual level, I can really sympathize with somebody who's, you know, makes those mistakes, has those problems, whatever, right?
	I can really sympathize with that.
	But...
	At a social level, it doesn't work to eliminate the moral hazard in a very fundamental way.
	It works for the individual who has the moral hazard, but it doesn't work fundamentally for society as a whole.
	Now, of course, the individual has a great motive to want to eliminate the consequences or want to eliminate the moral hazard, but society as a whole does a lot worse if those moral hazards are eliminated.
	And so I just wanted to point this out.
	And this is why I think a community Which has sympathy for the individual who has this moral hazard.
	The community is the person, is the group or the entity that should provide the charity where necessary, but society as a whole can't do it because society doesn't know the details of the situation and doesn't know whether charity is going to help or is going to hinder.
	And only like a personal knowledge of The need for charity, only a deep and personal knowledge, can figure out the balance.
	I mean, charity is a real crab to get right.
	I mean, obviously, I think we all want to help people who are in need, but at the same time, we don't want to create a system of help that encourages reckless behavior, or at least shields people from the consequences of reckless behavior.
	And this is why a centralized institution Can't work.
	Government can mail a check and government can pass laws, but government can't know any individual in any way, shape, or form, to the degree, and there are circumstances to the degree that it can really help without creating a moral hazard.
	I mean, so for instance, if I knew, let's take this extreme example, right?
	So if I knew of a woman who had been raped and who, because she Was very big on the sanctity of life.
	She decided to keep her baby.
	Because even though it was the victim of a crime, the baby was the product of a crime, obviously it's not the baby's fault and so on.
	I would, in a very strange way, or maybe even not strange way, I would find that pretty powerful.
	And in some ways quite positive.
	And so...
	I think that would be someone to help out, you know, as opposed to other, you know, productive irresponsibility, you know, third kid by three different fathers by the age of 18 or whatever, there's a whole dysfunctional family mess and so on.
	But the state can't know that.
	But what happens with the state is that when the state begins to provide charity and resources, it removes the influence of the society around that individual.
	And that is really problematic.
	Society then cannot say, you can receive charity on the condition that.
	You can receive charity on the condition that.
	X, Y, or Z. I mean, with my own mother, of course, who's now been on disability and welfare and so on for, I don't know, about three decades or something like that.
	Two decades.
	No, maybe three.
	Anyway, I mean...
	I have no influence.
	I had no influence over, you know, I couldn't say, listen, you need to stop doing X or start doing Y. Because, you know, she got the money anyway, right?
	So there is a degree, like charities can exert hopefully beneficial influence or even control over people on the receiving end of charity.
	And this is no more egregious than your boss saying, you know, your duties are to do X, Y, or Z if you want to get paid.
	It's not mean.
	It's not brutal.
	It's just...
	If you're paying the bills then you have a disproportionate amount of influence over the person who's receiving the money than somebody who's not.
	And when the government steps in and just starts lobbing money over the blank wall of ignorance then it actually removes society from Being able to get in there and help people make better decisions to encourage positive things, right?
	So, you know, if a teenager or woman keeps getting pregnant, then the community can say, listen, you know, we'll help out, but you have to go and get therapy.
	That's the deal.
	That's the price.
	The government's not going to impose any of those conditions, of course, right?
	But by giving money, it removes the power from the community to affect positive change based upon an intimate knowledge of The person's situations and circumstances.
	So, I just wanted to mention that at an individual level, I really sympathize with people who've made bad decisions.
	Even people who've been irresponsible.
	Because, you know, again, especially if they're young, that usually comes from some sort of family history.
	But at a larger level, we do need these signposts in society.
	So that other people can see the consequences of bad decisions and make better decisions.
	But we do have another caller.
	So I suppose that the interstellar polysyllabic holding pattern can break.
	And who do we have to chat with?
	Today we have Nate.
	Nate.
	Good morning.
	Can you hear me okay?
	I can.
	Sounds nice.
	Thank you.
	I was spitballing a topic.
	I enjoy all sorts of the stuff that you talk about and different sorts of philosophy.
	But what particularly interests me, probably because of my own history, is relationships, right?
	Of all kinds, whether it be like familial, friendships, or romantic.
	And I especially enjoy all the podcasts and stuff that you've done on that topic.
	And I was talking with my good libertarian friend of mine, and we were discussing when you are a parent or you have children, right?
	And if you take your children to see your parents, it's certainly been kind of like my experience that when I was younger and I was a child and taking into my grandparents, there was really nothing off limits that I couldn't do as opposed to when I was regularly at home with strict rules, right?
	When I went to my grandparents' house, the grandparents usually says, oh, no, he's fine.
	Let him do it.
	It's no big deal, right?
	And thinking about the family, and maybe we were thinking about if that maybe has something to do with guilt on the grandparents' part of how the parenting took place to their children, and that now that grandkids are being brought to them, they kind of maybe see hope for redemption in a way or a way to make it sorry I had a brain
	I had a brain fart at the moment Or to make it somehow right.
	This is a cliche, but a useful cliche about grandparents, right?
	Which is that...
	The parents themselves, they set a lot of rules.
	They make, you know, you got to do this, you can't do that, eat your vegetables, sit up straight, turn off the TV, go play outside.
	And what did I see?
	I saw some video where some dad was saying to his kids, they were playing Wii, and so he said, go play outside.
	So they sat outside the basement window and controlled the Wii from outside.
	And so there is this general idea, of course, that when you get to be a grandparent, then you just spoil the kids, you know, and you don't have to have rules.
	And You did that when you were a parent, but now that you're a grandparent, you could be super indulgent and all of that kind of stuff.
	And I think that it's an interesting question.
	I think, I mean, I can tell you what I think it is, and then you can tell me if it makes any sense.
	Do you know, let me first ask, do you know if your grandparents were strict with your parents when your parents were children?
	Oh, yeah.
	My grandfather on my mother's side, which this is the only family I really know in any sort of detail.
	He was...
	Let's just say their relationship between the grandmother and grandfather wasn't productive or positive really in any way.
	And he was very strict.
	I mean, he had his things that he liked to do, and it was kind of like his way.
	But he also wasn't around a lot also.
	So when he was home, it was like a strict environment.
	And then...
	For my grandmother, she was a closet alcoholic.
	Talking to my mother about that after we had a truth conversation, I kind of talked about it and see that it kind of affected her also.
	There was a huge gap between my mom and her siblings.
	Like a 10-year gap from when the youngest of her siblings and then she came about.
	It was almost like an oops, a surprise, you know?
	So she was at home by herself pretty much from the age of like eight all the way until she graduated from high school.
	Wow.
	And there wasn't a whole lot of involvement on the father's side.
	Was he traveling or?
	Yeah, well, he was a truck driver for a good, say, 15 years, I would say.
	Right, so he's gone like five days a week kind of thing?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	When you come home, days off would be like erratic.
	And it seems, this is kind of a word from my mother, when he got home, everything changed, like the dynamic of the family.
	It was like, it would just, it switched from, it became more, okay, watch your step because dad's here, you know?
	Playtime's over.
	I consider it's never too late to rule by fear.
	I always keep that in my back pocket, but I'm suspecting that it may be.
	Anyway, go on.
	As early as I can remember, I remember sitting on my grandfather's lap.
	He was a smoker.
	I remember pulling out a pack of cigarettes that he kept in his flannel shirt pocket in the left breast pocket.
	Because he was having a conversation with my mom who wasn't really paying attention to what I was doing.
	So I pulled the cigarette out and broke it in half, right?
	Now to my mom, that was like, I believe you just did that.
	Oh my goodness, what's going to happen, right?
	But then his reaction, he just laughed, looked at me and said, oh, that's all right.
	That's no big deal.
	And I think about that.
	It's like, well, what if that would have been her when she was young?
	Would have the reaction been the same?
	Right.
	And I'm thinking that maybe that's why she was like, oh my goodness, I can't believe you did that.
	Almost like a, not necessarily fear of him, but fear of the consequences of that action.
	Right, right, right.
	I don't know if that helps you.
	Yeah, no, it does.
	I mean, so I would have a theory that the grandparents were harsh when they were parents because that was sort of what was expected of them.
	And They are now not harsh when they're grandparents because that's what's expected of them, so to speak, right?
	Like, they sort of have, like, in a weird way, they kind of have social permission.
	Does that make any sense?
	No, yeah, I see that.
	I see what you're saying.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it's interesting to me because people parent by narrative.
	I mean, in general.
	I was having a Debate, an argument or whatever with a woman yesterday about spanking and she was saying that she had spanked her child because the child, she was taking the child across the street in a sled and the child was upset with her and then the child had jumped out which was dangerous and so she spanked her and you know it's fairly blunt and I said I don't see why the child gets hit because of your failure as a parent.
	I mean if you're If your child is in a situation where they're going to jump out in the street, then you fail to protect.
	I don't see why you get to hit the child for your failure, blah, blah, blah.
	But then she created a narrative which was, you know, you either spank or you're wildly permissive and have no rules or limits or standards of any kind.
	And so there's a false dichotomy and all that.
	Sorry?
	That's a huge junk from not spanking and then all of a sudden if you can't spank, there's no rules whatsoever.
	That's kind of a big leap.
	Right.
	Or, you know, you start philosophizing in midstream.
	So you say, well, what if my child is having a tantrum in the middle of a restaurant because they won't give her more ice cream?
	Right?
	And that's something that is...
	You know, you just can't start in the middle and say, well, the question is, why is the child having the tantrum?
	Why is the child that does not have limits enough to know when it's appropriate to have more food or not?
	You know, like, so people just say, well, let's just say my child is behaving really badly, right?
	And there was another story about a boy who, you know, the dad said, don't shut the car door because your baby brother is in the car seat and all that.
	And he shut the car door and it caught the little baby brother's fingers in the door and all that kind of stuff.
	So the kid got spanked.
	And it's like, well, I don't see how you Teach a child not to harm another child by harming a child.
	That doesn't make any sense.
	Complete contradiction.
	Yeah, and of course you have to ask, why is the child not listening?
	Why is the child doing the opposite of what the parents do and so on?
	And so I'll tell you what I think happens in general, and you can tell me if it makes any sense in this situation.
	So, for example, I just did a podcast on this, so I'll just keep this really brief, but I got an email from someone who's saying, look, I'm a libertarian parent, I'm down with no spanking, I'm down with the gentle and peaceful treatment of children, non-aggression principle, but I cannot get my toddler to leave the playground when it's time to go.
	And we get into these big fights and all that, right?
	What should I do?
	And I generally believe, like when I hear that, it's like me hearing someone saying, you know, I just, I suddenly wake up and I'm at the top of an Olympic gold level ski slope and I don't know how to do it, so what do I do?
	It's like, well, what you should have done is prepared for years beforehand for that moment, what to do in the moment, you know, because to me, parenting is all about the preparation and it's all about conflict avoidance, right?
	So, just a very brief example, if you want your child to To leave the playground, like you go at four and you've got to leave at five.
	If you want your child to leave the playground, you have to work that all out ahead of time.
	Wear an analog watch so they can see the things going from four to five or whatever.
	And then you make the promise ahead of time, right?
	You get your child to say, okay, we can go to the park, but you have to We have to leave at five and give them a good reason because mama's food will be ready or whatever or daddy's food will be ready.
	And you get the promise and the child makes the promise.
	You have the agreement.
	You continually remind the child of the agreement while, you know, you just lay down the foundation so that the child knows that that's the deal.
	And you get the promise.
	And how does the child know to keep a promise?
	Well, because you've always kept your promise to the child, right?
	And so it's all in the preparation for those kinds of conflicts and then you can avoid those conflicts.
	So, that is, to me, it's all in the preparation.
	Now, if people don't do that preparation, if they think that just saying to the child out of nowhere, you know, we got to go, without preparing them for that and getting a promise and a commitment and all of that sort of stuff, that that's somehow going to do anything other than just make a massive amount of conflict, well, that's not going to work.
	And so, what I think happens with a lot of parents is they just, they don't prepare their children, they don't explain what a promise is and demonstrate what What a promise looks like by continually keeping promises to their children.
	And what happens is they end up just trying to impose their will in the moment on the child.
	Like, now we've got to go!
	But without all of this preparation that makes the conflict avoidable and really doesn't end up with a lot of conflicts at all.
	And what happens is they then don't end up preparing more.
	And so they continually, like the day is like 20 conflicts with their children.
	And they feel that they have to do it that way because, you know, they have to get their kid home and so on.
	And they get, it becomes a battleground.
	Their family becomes a battleground.
	And, you know, it's not because the parents are trying to be mean or the kids are trying to be defiant or anything like that.
	It's just that people somehow think that if they simply get, the solution to conflict is for the parent to impose the will or whatever, but without preparation.
	And so parents get exhausted with all of these battles all the time with their kids.
	And the kids also get frustrated and exhausted.
	And so what happens is, you know, parents may start out with a desire to have some of these rules, but they sort of do a cost-benefit analysis on the imposition of rules on their kids.
	And they recognize that it's just this endless battle.
	And so everybody gets worn down or worn out.
	And that's oftentimes how you sometimes go from strictness to laxness.
	And then I think what happens is when the grandparents don't feel that they have to impose any rules and they also kind of avoid it because they remember as parents the endless battles that I really think it eats away at the joy of family life to just have constant battles about everything all the time.
	I mean, we started doing this with Isabella when she was, I think, 15 or 16 months.
	And I mean, I've got the podcast on, so I'll keep it brief.
	But I think what happens is grandparents are like, I'm not going back to this constant battle thing.
	And I don't have any other way of doing it.
	So I'm just not going to impose any rules.
	Does that make any sense?
	No, yeah, definitely.
	No, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
	I don't have any disagreement with that right off hand.
	What you were saying about trying to get a child out of a playground with no warning.
	It's like if someone was watching their favorite movie or a new movie they hadn't seen but they're really excited about, right?
	Then all of a sudden, right when they're going to have the climactic ending or something, you come up and say, all right, that's enough movie.
	It's time to leave.
	Kind of like the outrage or anger is the same.
	I can picture myself in that same scenario like in a playground.
	All of a sudden...
	Now we just have to leave?
	That really doesn't make any sense.
	It's quite honestly a little bit unfair, you know?
	Yeah, I mean, to take an entirely inappropriate example, right?
	Parents are having SEX and the kid walks in, they're like, hey, wait.
	I mean, no preparation, no, right?
	That's not good.
	But it's the same thing.
	I mean, I was actually at a playground with Isabella.
	We went to a play center and it was like, The Play Center of the Gods.
	I mean, it's just fantastic.
	It's like an indoor one.
	Might as well have helicopters and rocket ships and dragons and all that.
	Unicorns.
	And we were there for about two hours and I was getting hungry and I wanted to go.
	And I hadn't sort of prepared all of this sort of stuff ahead of time because we didn't have any particular schedule.
	And she really wanted to stay.
	And, you know, I told her I was hungry.
	We worked out a deal.
	We'd stay for another 40 minutes or whatever.
	And we ended up staying for an hour.
	I mean, deals don't mean...
	You can't be flexible.
	I mean, since we had a soft reason to go, which was I was getting hungry.
	And, you know, daddy with a carb crash is not necessarily the best combination in the world.
	But we did end up staying.
	But, you know, in the end, I basically just had to say, look, I'm too hungry.
	I'm not having fun anymore.
	And she sort of understood that.
	But I think, you know, what parents, as a whole, fail to take advantage of is the opportunity for You know, teaching valuable life skills around these kinds of things, right?
	Obviously, I want my daughter to know how to negotiate.
	I want her to know that her needs are respected.
	I want her to know that other people have needs that should be respected.
	All of these great things.
	And, you know, people think it's a battle about leaving the playground.
	But no, it's an opportunity for teaching essential life skills.
	So Isabella knows how to negotiate.
	You know, we say let's have a deal or let's make a deal.
	She, I think with only one exception, has kept her word.
	When she makes a promise, you know, sometimes she'll make a sound like, when she knows she has to keep her word.
	But she knows what keeping her word looks like because she, you know, I've kept my word at all times.
	And, you know, in the odd once a time or not where I've, you know, I say, let's go to this restaurant or whatever.
	You know, and it turns closer to renovation and I can't keep my word or whatever, and then I sort of explain it to her and all of that.
	But, you know, if you want everything that you want from your child, you first have to give to your child.
	I mean, that's just a basic rule of parenting or anything, right?
	If you want your child to listen to you, you first have to spend years listening to your child.
	If you want your child to respect you, you first have to spend years respecting your child.
	If you want your child to keep their word, you have to first spend years keeping your word to your child.
	Or, you know, years, maybe sort of 12 to 18 months at the very minimum.
	And if you do all of that, if you make all of that preparation, then you can go down the ski hill very fast and with a good chance of landing not on your ass or your head.
	If you don't do that preparation, then you're going to mess up going down the ski hill.
	You're going to go off the side.
	You're going to face plant and you'll be like, oh man, I don't know how to do this ski hill.
	I keep falling off and hurting myself and I have to do it 20 or 30 times a day.
	Well, that's not anyone's idea of fun, right?
	So it's all about the preparation.
	So I think that's probably what's happening.
	Again, I want to get your feedback on whether the theory may fit any of your situations or circumstances.
	I believe...
	It was certainly my experience.
	The only thing that was a limitation when my grandparents was just the implicit agreement in regards to safety.
	I'm not going to be climbing on the barbed wire fence that kept the cows in the pasture, or play with the electric fence, because that could hurt me.
	But other than that, I pretty much had free reign on this farm, pretty much to do whatever I wanted.
	And it was only when my mother was injected into a situation where my, I guess, freedom to choose from myself became less, if that makes sense.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it does.
	It does.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	So I just thought that was interesting because we were talking about that and trying to understand.
	Because it was – I don't know if this has been anyone else's experience, but it was certainly mine.
	Like whenever I visited with grandparents, it was, hey, just go have fun and no worries versus, all right, you can't do this, this, this, and this.
	And if you can work within that, then we're okay.
	Yeah, I think that it's – It's not necessarily the best thing for the kid to have two different planets of authority physics, so to speak, right?
	Yeah.
	So, yeah, it's, you know, that's a conversation to have with the grandparents, I would say, and just try and figure out.
	I mean, kids are very good at...
	Trying to square the circles or manipulate the differences in rule sets.
	I mean, that's what they should be doing.
	That's entirely healthy and right for them to be doing.
	But...
	I don't think it's very good for the child.
	Because whatever one authority figure does, if it's the opposite of what another authority figure does, there is a criticism that is embedded in that, whether you like it or not, right?
	Yeah.
	So...
	Yeah, so I would definitely have the conversation and try and figure out some common rules and standards.
	And of course, if the grandparents need some help in this laying down the foundation, I mean, they're going to have to, they have an uphill battle to climb because they've put different standards in place.
	But if they need help in, you know, here's how we do conflicts, you know, I mean, I had a chat with a parent the other day.
	He was trying to get his kid to leave.
	At Playcenter, the kid was just sort of running around.
	The parent was getting more and more frustrated.
	The kid wasn't listening.
	And, you know, he was reaching into the really desperate, bottom-shelf crap of parenting by saying, well, that's it.
	I'm just going to leave and leave you here.
	And it's just like, oh, man.
	Like, dude, it's really not the way to do it.
	I mean, I just said I don't mean to be all kinds of interfering, but...
	If I can make a couple of suggestions.
	We had a little chat and he seemed to feel better.
	Because if you don't know how to do stuff, then if you don't know anything about antibiotics, you reach for your bucket of leeches.
	It's really just about a knowledge sharing.
	And people somehow think that because they've been parented, they know how to parent.
	Which is sort of like saying, well, I was given a Commodore 64 when I was a kid, so I won't need to upgrade until I'm dead.
	Well, no.
	No.
	We upgrade.
	There's new technology.
	There's new theories, new facts, new understanding, new knowledge, new techniques.
	I mean, you keep learning as a parent.
	You keep reading.
	You keep trying new things.
	And you keep staying in conversation with your kids about what works for them.
	But you don't just say, well, I'm going to raise how I was raised.
	It's like, okay, then you can't buy a computer or a car or a cell phone that's newer than you were when you were raised.
	Because clearly you don't like anything that's new and improved and upgraded.
	And so that's...
	You know, it's funny, when I've talked with other parents and experienced this myself, when I raised a question, I was like, wait a minute, has anyone asked what the kids think or what they want, right?
	And it's like, for the most people, other than the one good friend that I have, someone, they looked at me like I just sprouted horns and started speaking a satanic something like, that's unimaginable.
	Why would we ask our children how they feel Right.
	Or how they feel about moving.
	And it's just like, well, if you're moving, right, and you would obviously talk with your spouse about that, right, to just use it as a plain example.
	So if you would talk logically and get his or her feelings on it, it just seems totally fair and just to have those same sort of conversations in all aspects with your children as well.
	I mean obviously age-appropriate, right?
	Right.
	Yeah, I mean, I said this on my conversation with Loretta Lynn recently, that if society cared about children to the point where the children's wishes were important, then society would look completely different.
	And people still make this mistake, you know, what are you going to do about Isabella's education?
	I mean, like, it's up to me.
	I mean, come on, that's like, I mean, that's, you know, what are you going to do about getting your wife into the right career that is helpful to you?
	I said, I would not want a wife who would even consider that a possibility.
	So, you know, exposure to things and see what she likes.
	It was so funny yesterday, too.
	We were talking yesterday about, because I gave the speech and Isabella came to see the speech.
	And then she said, Daddy, your speech would be way better if you had frogs and toads and snakes.
	No, no snakes.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So and then so this morning, you know, I was asking her, well, how should I use frogs in my speech?
	And we had a great conversation about how I can, you know, insert more amphibians into my philosophy.
	And I think that's very, very important and helpful.
	So we may have an entirely different kind of speech.
	Real frogs.
	Real frogs.
	Yeah, not fake frogs.
	Good heavens.
	That's awesome.
	Yeah, so I mean, that's just, to me, that's just a lot of fun.
	And I want to get her feedback continually about what it is that I'm doing, from speeches to parenting to, you know, everything that's going on.
	How was your day?
	What was your favorite part?
	What was your least favorite part?
	What did you like?
	What did you not like?
	What could we do better?
	And all that kind of stuff.
	So basically what I'm saying is for my next speech, you might need to wear rain gear galoshes and stand on the chairs if you don't like amphibians, but we're going to find a way to work them in.
	Excellent.
	Well, thank you for your time.
	As always, I appreciate it.
	Well, I appreciate that too, and great questions.
	I really, of course, appreciate the sensitivity that you're bringing to these issues.
	I mean, I think it's kind of good for kids.
	You obviously don't want to turn your grandparents into a photocopy of your parents, because it's good for them to have a variety of people in their life, but at the same time, it is an implicit criticism of rules to go to a place where there are no Rules are no standards.
	That's the cliche of anarchy, right?
	No standards, no rules or anything like that.
	But I think that you need that some.
	Well, thanks very much.
	Do we have another call already or what am I doing?
	Yep.
	Up next we have John.
	John, speak to me.
	Breathe.
	Hey, Steph.
	Hello.
	So I called in last week.
	And you invited me to call back.
	But I had made a thread on the board after we had talked.
	Was that the thread that said that your conversation with me was fundamentally unsatisfying and unhelpful?
	I don't mean to laugh, but is that the thread?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, it was.
	But I've thought about it a little more and...
	So maybe you can help me out a little more today.
	We just didn't have much time last week, but it just feels really silly to me being stuck on this when there's a lot of better things I could be learning about here.
	Oh, there's the assumption.
	I make it all the time too, which is if I get stuck on some topic that I know what topic I should be stuck on and I'm not willing to learn from my unconscious.
	So, okay.
	Let's pretend that there's a really fantastic reason that you're stuck on this topic.
	Okay.
	So you said it might be something from my childhood that's got me stuck on this.
	And just remind me, sorry, not me, but remind the listeners who may not be listening in sequence, can you believe it?
	But just remind me what this is, like what the topic is.
	Basically that a human being is just made up of a bunch of individual parts, DNA. Bag of blood.
	Yeah, ones and zeros, and just how that puts me in kind of a Depression and just logical thought trail that I try to work myself out of, but I keep on sinking back into it.
	And I just can't seem to really figure it out how I can be happy knowing that that's true.
	Alright.
	Do you want me to ask questions or give you a theory?
	I can answer questions.
	So, would you say...
	Who was your primary caregiver?
	Mother or dad or someone else?
	My mom.
	Right.
	And would you say that your mom was, to use the phrase, emotionally available?
	Warm and spontaneous and affectionate and funny and sensitive to your thoughts and feelings, curious about your emotional state?
	At times I have memories of her being like that.
	Memories of her being the total opposite.
	Which was, at least according to your memory, which was more common?
	Are we talking just throughout childhood or sort of earlier?
	Earlier, you mean before childhood?
	I'm not asking you to gauge your mom's emotional state while you were a fetus, but in your childhood as a whole, was she generally more emotionally available or was she generally more not emotionally available?
	More not, I'd say.
	More not.
	And what was the ratio, if you had to guess?
	Maybe 80-20.
	So 80-20 emotionally available?
	Sorry, 80-20, 80 being not or 80 being available?
	80 being not.
	Not available, okay.
	So, just so we can put that in context, so Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, one of those days she'd be emotionally available for the whole day, and four days she wouldn't.
	Just, I know it's not that simple, but that's the proportion that you're talking about.
	Yeah, about like that, yeah.
	And was it, because these are very different personality styles, right?
	So, was it a sense of being a different person?
	I mean, how was that, how could you reconcile that?
	That your mom could be sort of one way that was, of course, valuable to you and useful and good, and then another way that was not, right?
	Did it feel like she was a different person?
	Yeah, I sort of feel like there's two different moms I have.
	I've always felt like that.
	All right.
	And did her change from...
	I'm just going to use cold to warm, if you don't mind me.
	I know that's a simplistic way of putting it, but just so we don't have to repeat the whole definition every time.
	Was her change from cold to warm dependent upon your needs, or was it dependent upon something else that you didn't know what caused it?
	Like, in other words, after four days of her being cold, would you say, Mom, I really need you to be warm.
	I feel lonely and upset and all that.
	And she'd say, Oh, I'm so sorry.
	And then she'd be warm for a day, and then she'd go back to being cold.
	Was it in response to something that was a preference to you?
	Or was it something that occurred for reasons that you couldn't figure out?
	Usually reasons I couldn't figure out, or even if I could figure them out, just something that didn't really have anything to do with me.
	Right.
	And was it, because we talked about sort of one day out of five kind of thing where she'd be warm, were there longer stretches of time?
	In other words, was it sometimes one month out of five that she'd be warm and four months out of five she'd be cold, or how did it sort of spread that way?
	Yeah, if I... Made her mad for some reason.
	It might go on for a couple of weeks.
	And then she'd decide to be nice one day and sort of forget what had happened.
	So for a couple of weeks she would be cold.
	Was it a sort of punishment, did you feel, for something that you had done?
	I mean, kids don't make their parents mad, right?
	I mean, parents are not just these big giant buttons that children push and parents have no say in the matter, right?
	I mean, that's just not how it works.
	My daughter doesn't make me mad.
	I mean, that's not...
	Accurate, I mean, because that means that the parent has no free will, and it's just a big, giant reaction button that children can push, because children have a choice, but parents don't.
	If you say, well, my child is responsible for making me upset, then you're saying my child has choice and could choose differently, but my upset is absolute and irrevocable, and I have no choice in the matter.
	That's putting more free will on a child than on an adult.
	It's a terrible argument, and I think a pretty horrible paradigm to inflict upon kids, but let's just maybe put that aside for a second.
	But it could go on for weeks.
	And was there a sense that it was punitive?
	Was there a sense that, I mean, how did you experience that coldness that resulted from your mother being upset?
	Yeah, I experienced that as a kind of punishment, that she just didn't want to talk to me.
	Okay.
	And was your father around?
	He was, but not a whole lot.
	He'd be gone pretty much the entire day.
	And when he got home, I just remember him not being really happy.
	And then he'd be gone weeks at a time.
	Why was he gone weeks at a time?
	Just his job.
	And did your father ever Did you notice about your mom running hot and cold and talk to her or to you or do anything about it?
	Yeah.
	It wasn't just toward me, the warm and cold thing.
	They had a lot of issues.
	They almost got divorced when I was one.
	And that's been going on ever since.
	Oh, you mean they've been hovering in divorce land?
	Yeah.
	That's even up until recently.
	They were about to get divorced last year.
	Nothing has really been fixed, fundamentally.
	Right.
	Right.
	That's just terrible.
	And you said that they would fight?
	Did you see those fights as a child?
	Yeah, I remember one really specifically.
	I was probably three.
	My dad was just screaming at the top of his lungs and he broke a mirror.
	God, how terrifying.
	Yeah, it was pretty bad.
	And how often would those kinds of fights occur?
	That was the worst one, but I don't know.
	There was a fight where they'd yell every couple of months, at least.
	So not constant, but certainly not one time.
	Yeah.
	So let me, I'm trying not to, obviously I try always not to ask leading questions, but sometimes, right?
	What is your perception of your parents' capacity for exercising choice and free will?
	Like, have they ever talked about their choice?
	No, what I mean is that...
	Okay, so what are some indications that someone is exercising choice and free will?
	Well, choice and free will has a lot to do with knowledge.
	So if they have a particular problem in their life...
	Are they researching to find out more about that issue or that problem?
	So, for instance, if your parents are having marital problems, are they educating themselves about the principles of a better marriage?
	Are they going to marriage counseling?
	Are they trying different ways of resolving conflicts?
	Are they exercising choice and free will in attempting to improve their situation?
	They did see a marriage counselor.
	My mom is seeing a therapist right now.
	I don't know how much it's helped her.
	When did they see a marriage counselor?
	At the same time when I was three or so.
	Two or three.
	And do you know how long they saw the marriage counselor for?
	A year or so.
	And then later on my mom tried to do a group therapy thing.
	I don't know that She really had the goal of fixing things, just that she sort of got caught up in the whole medication thing now.
	She's on antidepressants, and she put all the kids on antidepressants or some sort of medication.
	Oh, you as well?
	Yeah.
	Gosh, I'm sorry to hear that.
	Anyway, we all know at least the research that I've done on that, so I won't go into that here, but...
	But it doesn't seem to have really taken, right, whatever they did in marriage therapy since they're still, you know, what, decades later threatening divorce and this and that, right?
	It doesn't seem to have...
	Either they got bad advice and implemented it or they got good advice and didn't implement it.
	But either way, the marriage didn't substantially improve, right?
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Now, the second way...
	So, the first thing is the person is gathering knowledge.
	And that's necessary but not sufficient for change.
	The second is, and this is even tougher, the second is that they internalize responsibility.
	In other words, they don't blame circumstances, they don't blame the other person, and they don't even blame their own history.
	They may assign responsibility to difficulties within their history, but their history is not running their life, right?
	It's not an excuse.
	And what that means, of course, is the person stops blaming others and accepts responsibility for what they're doing in their life.
	Because, you know, blaming others is a fantastic drug.
	It's as addictive, I'm sure, as a drug.
	And it gives people momentary relief from what is for many people the horror of self-ownership, the horror of self-actualization, the horror of responsibility.
	It gets you off the hook in the moment.
	With the not insignificant problem that it paralyzes you from the capacity to change.
	You can't change.
	If you blame other people, you can't change.
	So you get relief from responsibility, but you are trapped in your circumstances.
	So with your parents, did you see them take responsibility for their own choices, their own actions and stop blaming others?
	No, I don't really think so.
	My mom, I don't think I've ever heard her accept responsibility for something that's gone wrong.
	I remember when I would do something to make her mad, she'd get mad and then my dad would say, look what you've done.
	You've made your mother mad?
	Yeah.
	So you have a choice in the matter, but your mother has no choice in being mad, right?
	Yeah.
	Right.
	And see, this is why a lot of people have a problem with free will.
	A lot of people have a problem with free will because free will is used to humiliate children.
	And because they haven't processed their childhood, when you start talking about free will, it provokes how free will was used when they were children to humiliate, to punish, to Heap the moral bricks on their back, right?
	All right.
	And this is, you know, I mean, and imagine saying this as a child, right?
	When someone says, some parent says to you, well, you just made your mother mad, that's bad, and you shouldn't have done that.
	And you say, well, why doesn't she just, if I can choose to make her mad, why doesn't she just choose to not be mad?
	Or choose to deal with it in a different way.
	How am I the one who's responsible for all this?
	And mom has zero responsibility in how she responds.
	Well, imagine what would happen, right?
	Free will is nine times out of ten, if not longer, or more.
	Free will is a term of verbal abuse.
	And this is why people have such strong emotional reactions to free will versus determinism.
	It's one of the many reasons.
	But you see, children are blamed for what they do.
	Because children are given free will, but adults are absolved of what they do because the children are causing the adults to behave in a certain way.
	In this way, the adults can take zero responsibility for what they do and what they feel while giving 100% responsibility for what the children do and feel.
	Children who have no freedom, no independence, no economic or political or biological independence, they're 100% responsible for their choices, but the parents who have All of these independences and freedoms and are there by choice, where the child is not there by choice.
	So the person who has the least choice and the least freedom is 100% morally responsible and has free will, whereas the parent who has all the choice and all the freedoms has no responsibility and is not free.
	You get how crazy that is, right?
	Yeah, I do.
	I didn't want to bring up the whole free will determinism thing so much.
	But you have.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	The reason I'm bringing it up is because you have.
	Because if you're saying, we're a bag of bones, we're a bag of muscle, we're a bag of meat, then I think what you're fundamentally talking about is choice.
	Yeah, that was definitely bugging me for a long time.
	I think I see the contradictions in determinism, though.
	I know that's not something we really want to Talk about, but...
	Your analytical side does not need any food from me, right?
	So I don't want to get into an abstract discussion, but I will say this.
	I mean, if you...
	Do not mistake imprinting for philosophy.
	Do not mistake imprinting for philosophy.
	I will tell you with near eye-rolling certainty...
	And I don't mean that I'm bored, it's just it means that it's very predictable.
	With near eye-rolling certainty, when people are talking about human nature, they're talking about mom.
	When people are talking about free will versus determinism, they're talking about their parents.
	When people talk about society, they're talking about their family.
	When people talk about government, they're talking about their authorities when they were children.
	When people talk about the law, they're talking about the rules that were imposed on them when they were children.
	When people say, well, without government we'd have anarchy, what they're repeating is their parents' belief that without strict rules, children will run wild.
	Because there's no empirical evidence for that.
	Empirical evidence is quite to the counter.
	And so...
	This is why I'm asking so much about your history.
	Because when you talk about self-alienation or when you talk about us just being machines, you're talking about your childhood experience.
	You're talking about your parents.
	You probably don't know that you're talking about your parents because it's a lot easier to take the essence of our parents and abstract it into human nature and then pretend that we're being philosophical rather than deal with our actual experience with our parents.
	If your parents lacked self-knowledge, if your parents lacked the capacity to choose and the drive to know, the drive to understand, the drive to expand consciousness, the drive to accept responsibility, then they were a kind of machine.
	Input, output.
	Input, output.
	This can be traced within the brain.
	Sensory input leads to base of the brain response, bypasses neofrontal cortex completely because the will has not been exerted to strengthen the neofrontal cortex and to intercept impulse and response with evaluation.
	Stimulus response.
	Stimulus response.
	That is being a machine.
	That is being a bag of blood.
	But that is not human nature.
	That is your parents.
	I get angry, I scream.
	I get upset, I threaten divorce.
	My child upsets me, I am cold.
	This is just input-output.
	It's a machine.
	Soulless.
	If I feel happy, then I will be happy.
	If something upsets me, I will be upset.
	It's just a big giant series of buttons that events push to produce an unthinking automatic response.
	That itself cannot be questioned.
	I mean, we all have unthinking automatic responses, but do we question them?
	We think about them.
	Right?
	Now, if you mistake your parents' personalities for human nature, you gain relief from having to deal with your history.
	But the problem is that you become trapped in that history because if it's human nature, If your parents' personalities are human nature as a whole, then you will never be free of your parents because they will be everywhere.
	It's like saying, I will be happy when I meet a race of human beings who are 18 feet tall.
	Well, you can't be 18 feet tall.
	Every time you took a stab, you'd break your thigh, bone.
	And so this would be my strong...
	And when I say free of your parents, I don't mean physically, I just mean sort of...
	Having a true understanding or nature of their history.
	It's so essential to denormalize our history.
	And every instinct sometimes is to normalize our history.
	And we normalize our history by saying, this is human nature.
	My parents didn't make the choice to become machines.
	We are all machines!
	And my parents were just an example of that.
	But if we denormalize that and we say, my parents' choice to be machines was a choice.
	My parents' choice to avoid self-knowledge was a choice.
	My parents' choice to avoid responsibility was a choice.
	My parents' choice to not do research and implement that research on how to better parent, how to better partner in a marriage, how to take responsibility.
	My parents' choice to take medication was a choice and is a choice.
	That causes a lot of pain because then we get a sense of what we have lost.
	If it's human nature to do what your parents did, then we haven't lost anything.
	And it would be absolutely immature to want something different.
	It would be like saying, my parents were deficient because they didn't have fairy wings.
	Well, that would just be a false statement, right?
	Absent being the spawn of Tinkerbell.
	But if we denormalize our parents' choices and the choices of other authority figures in our life when we were children, then it's painful because then we experience Because our parents could have done better, but didn't.
	So we experience loss.
	But if we say, what my parents did is human nature, is philosophy, is true, is the essence of what it is to be alive, we avoid the loss.
	But we mistake the world for our own personal experience.
	And I would really strongly urge you to not Extrapolate your parents' personalities to humanity or philosophy as a whole.
	It will give you some immediate relief from grieving, but it will trap you.
	Does that make any sense?
	I'm not saying you agree with it, or even if it's true, but does the argument at least make some sense?
	Yeah, it does.
	That really struck a chord with me.
	So basically, to protect my parents, I'm just saying that everyone's a machine.
	Yeah, I mean, to be more accurate, it's probably your parents' view, right?
	It's probably your parents' view that has come into you, right?
	Yeah.
	And, yeah, denormalizing stuff is so essential.
	It's very painful, but it is the only way to make different choices, because if you define human nature as what your parents did, then your parents are off the hook, but you're on the hook, so to speak.
	Then I think, isn't it somewhat true, though?
	I mean...
	Is what something somewhat true?
	Aren't we a kind of machine?
	Go on.
	Like, I mean, even if we say that we have choice, aren't we still a kind of machine?
	Well, of course, technically, we're not any kind of machine.
	Machines are made, right?
	Machines don't evolve.
	Machines don't give birth, right?
	I mean, no animal is any kind of machine, right?
	A machine is a human construct.
	It's not an appropriate...
	But a biological one.
	It's not even an appropriate biological metaphor, right?
	That would come from...
	I'm not saying you are a perceptionist, but that would come from the creationist side of things.
	But my answer would be, to take your metaphor, some human beings choose to remain machines.
	And some human beings achieve or earn choice.
	And this is, I mean, again, this is not all just my opinion.
	And people who go through therapy end up with a strengthened neofrontal cortex that has the capacity to intercept impulses from the base of the brain before action occurs.
	So if you never go to a gym and if you never exercise and then you say it's impossible for human beings to run a six-minute mile, then you're actually just talking about yourself and the result of your own choices or avoidance of choices or whatever it is, right?
	But if you exercise, you gain capacities that you didn't have before you exercised.
	So it's true, a person who sits on the couch and eats potato chips and never exercises cannot run a six minute mile, probably even a 10 minute mile, maybe not a mile at all, right?
	But a person who gets off the couch and goes and starts exercising and eats better and all that will, with the appropriate age range, be able to run a six minute mile, right?
	It's the old Henry Ford thing.
	He said, if you think you can or you think you can't, you're right.
	But go back to the science.
	If people make the choice to start exercising their minds, then their minds strengthen.
	Their willpower strengthens.
	Their capacity to make intelligent choices strengthens.
	Now, you could say, why is it that somebody chooses to do that versus somebody doesn't choose to do that?
	That's a mystery.
	And if you accept that, see, if you accept that human beings are machines, you still haven't solved the problem of your own suffering and your own need to grieve.
	Let's say that we accept your principle that human beings are machines, right?
	Then anybody who blamed you morally as a child was wrong.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, I agree with that, yeah.
	Tell me why it makes sense.
	If you'd be seconded.
	Well, they're...
	You know, if I'm a machine too, then they can't really say that what I'm doing is wrong.
	Right.
	Yeah, so even if everyone is a machine, you still haven't solved the problem of grieving.
	And of course, if everyone is a machine, everything has to change.
	Everything has to change, right?
	You can't have passing or failing grades in school.
	There'd be no such thing as punishment.
	Everything would change.
	And society would still be way different than it needed to be if everybody were a machine.
	So even if we were a machine, we would still have good reasons to grieve for being treated as a non-machine, of having been injected by the fantasy ghost of free will by those people in order to hurt and punish us for things that they didn't like.
	But see, there's this legal theory of estoppel, right, which I'm no expert in.
	Look at Stephan Kinsella for that.
	But estoppel is basically the idea that if you go steal from something, something from someone, you can't really complain morally if it's stolen from you.
	If you break the law, you can't invoke the law.
	If you deal with other people through force, you can't go running and bleating that people are being horribly unfair and unjust if they treat you with force, right?
	Right.
	And so, your parents believed in free will.
	Because they used it to add extra spice to the punishment of you, right?
	Right.
	So if your parents believed in free will for you at the age of three or four or five or six or wherever it started, it starts pretty early.
	I mean, the woman I was talking to yesterday believed that her daughter had the choice of free will at the age of two and could be punished accordingly.
	So we know for sure that your parents believed in free will.
	and moral responsibility and that you were responsible for your actions because your mom would get cold and not talk to you or be warm to you for weeks, right?
	and so naturally you as a child are expected to do different in the moment and not displease your mother but your mother over the course of weeks is not expected to get over herself and be back to being a decent mother so it's just horribly unjust And even if we are machines,
	you certainly did not experience machinehood as a child because you were treated as an autonomous, independent, free choice moral agent, right?
	So your experience of being a child was of being treated as an agent of free will with moral responsibility, right?
	Certainly by your teachers and by your parents and I don't know if you had priests or whatever, right?
	In which case, even if we are all machines, you still need to go back and experience what it was like to be treated as an autonomous moral agent for the purpose of punishing you.
	That's still pretty horrifying, right?
	Right.
	And that's, I think, the challenge.
	Denormalize it.
	It was messed up, man.
	It was messed up.
	And wishing away free will will not wish away your experience of having been punished on the basis of free will, while your parents escaped punishment or moral responsibility while inflicting it on a helpless, independent little child.
	And that's, I think, the fertile ground to free you from this alienation.
	And I think, I mean, as I've always said, I think a therapist is a very important person to help you with that.
	Is there anything else that you wanted to add at the moment?
	Um, just one more thing.
	Uh, maybe you can help me with, um, Well, let me just ask first, have I been helping you so far?
	Yeah, that's definitely connected to Bridge, explaining it to me like that.
	All right.
	Then the thoughts just pop.
	I'm in the tech industry.
	I see technology stuff all the time.
	Basically, they say that they'll be able to replace everything that I am with silicone parts in the future.
	I get a glooming depression from that.
	I don't see other people getting depressed from that.
	It's just never something that I really dealt with, I guess, that there's not really a me, there's a me now, but that all of my parts can be replaced, that they'll be able to keep me alive in 80 years, but it won't be me.
	Well, look, I think that you're Going into abstractions, of course, it won't be you as if your cells all get replaced every seven years or something like that.
	But this is why I think this has resonance for you.
	So what you hear in your industry is that you will be replaced by a machine, right?
	Yeah.
	And I will submit to you, my friend, that this is not a fear about your career, but about yourself.
	That if you don't deal with your history if you continue down the alienated path of we are all machines that you will in fact lose the capacity to choose and you will become a machine as your parents did before you as their parents did before you and the curse of machinery will land upon yet another generation and if you have a child it will continue that it is your future unchallenged that creates the fear Of this statement that you will be replaced by a machine.
	Because I would argue that if you don't pursue self-knowledge, if you don't work on this stuff hard and strong and quick and fast and now, that you will become a machine.
	Irrevocably.
	And there's a panic when you hear that because it is a prophecy.
	As surely as a rock bouncing down a hill will reach the lowest point it can reach.
	Without intervention, so will you.
	We don't have forever to change.
	Freedom and choice is not a lifelong privilege to be invoked at any time.
	Nobody starts to become a gymnast at the age of 40, because all you do is injure yourself.
	And so I think that part of you is saying, now or never.
	I Strongly argue for now.
	I had someone once tell me, we're avoiding self-knowledge for quite some time and we're pursuing activities that were a clear avoidance of self-knowledge.
	And his life was stalled.
	He wasn't dating.
	He was doing the same job year after year.
	And at one point he said, I feel like I'm getting colder and colder.
	I feel like I'm turning to stone.
	I feel like my heart is turning to stone.
	And then there was a pause and he said, actually, I think my heart has turned to stone.
	We calcify.
	We're like trolls at dawn.
	What we don't work hardens.
	What we don't flex stiffens.
	And every muscle We don't use atrophies and eventually and finally disappears.
	As does opportunity for rekindling our heart, as does opportunity for a warm and loving connection with others, as does the opportunity for spontaneity and joy, love, attachment.
	Do not expect these muscles to live forever in your heart without ever taking them out for a run.
	So, I think that when you hear this about your career, your unconscious hears this about yourself.
	So, I think go call a therapist and get to work, brother.
	Because it's not inevitable unless you believe it is.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, it does.
	Okay.
	Well, we have another caller, so I do want to move on, but I really do want to...
	I massively appreciate and applaud you for the courage that you have in talking about these things.
	It's magnificent.
	It's fantastic.
	And you should be enormously proud.
	This is not an issue that is solitary to you.
	It is a very common issue.
	And I really appreciate you having the balls, frankly, to talk about it so openly.
	So thank you.
	All right.
	So if we move on to the next caller, Mr.
	Jay, that would be fantastic.
	Yes.
	Next up, we have Alex.
	I can.
	What's up, my friend?
	Okay, great.
	I just have two questions, and I thought maybe you could pick which one that you prefer to cover.
	Let me just start off by saying that whenever anybody says the word just, they have the most complex, deep, and mind-boggling questions.
	When they say, oh, I just have two questions, and they are about the nature of life, the universe, and everything.
	So I will try to avoid the speechifying, but I'm bracing myself for something incredibly complex.
	So go ahead.
	Well, I'm not totally sure.
	I think the first one, I think, is somewhat related to the content of the previous caller.
	But the first one is, what are the contingencies of a moral agent?
	And what are the means by which we can determine what a moral agent is?
	I must first ask for your definition of a moral agent.
	Okay.
	And a moral agent, a definition, I think that that would be Someone where ethics are applicable to.
	All right.
	Okay.
	All right.
	That's fair enough.
	Did I just say a tautology?
	Because that's kind of saying...
	I answered your question by saying a moral agent is someone where morality is applied to.
	I don't know.
	No, I'm fine with that.
	I think that's a fair definition.
	It's not quite a tautology.
	A tautology would be a moral agent is an agent who is moral.
	That would be a tautology, but you're saying any entity that we can justly and fairly apply ethical considerations to.
	Okay, and then the second question is, it's the same question, but I have it phrased in two different ways.
	The first way is maybe you could correct or Say that the proposition is true or false.
	Truth is a quality and universality is a quality of truth.
	What do you mean by quality?
	Meaning that it is a part of that which...
	See, this is the part that I'm really grappling with.
	As I'm in discussion with other individuals, they say that truth is a quality of what exists.
	Okay.
	I don't know what the hell that means, but okay.
	Yeah, I know.
	And that might be my limitation, but all right, let's keep going.
	Okay.
	And anyway, the individuals that I am discussing with, they say that and then conclusively go on to say, we can only believe things...
	To be probable, not certain, because we do not know what we do not know.
	Now, that is the conclusion that they arrive at by using the second question.
	Does that make sense?
	I know I can try to...
	Well, it makes sense.
	I mean, I've heard the argument before.
	It's an emotional defense because it's too obviously false.
	Okay.
	Right, so omniscience is not required for certainty about specifics.
	Right.
	I mean, to know that two and two make four does not require that we know every conceivable mathematical possibility and equation that the universe will ever produce or discover, right?
	Right.
	And that's kind of the distinction I'm having a hard time understanding, is what is the difference?
	This is the same question, essentially.
	The second one is, what is the difference between a categorical truth and a universal truth?
	It's all coming down to Yes, there are contingencies for certainty in this category.
	And, for example, you know, if we have a category and there are contingencies that define that category, then we can know for certain what is inside that category, given those contingencies.
	But the – and I was – because I'm saying this is what – I was trying to make an argument for universal truth.
	And they replied with, well – That doesn't mean...
	Okay, why don't we just, rather than you reporting the conversation, let's do a role play and you be them?
	Oh, okay.
	Okay, gotcha.
	Okay.
	Okay, so I believe in the validity of universal truth.
	Okay, well, that's fine, but you may believe in the validity of universal truth, but in reality, all truth is merely contingent on other...
	On other truths.
	And you're making a truth statement.
	What truth statement?
	So you're not making an absolute and universal truth statement now, right?
	Because you're saying that they're not valid?
	I'm saying...
	I mean, you just made an absolute universal truth statement, right?
	Are you aware of that?
	I would say I'm not performing contradiction because I can say that only given within...
	Because you can...
	Yes, okay...
	Okay, I see what you're...
	Okay, this is...
	And look, I'm not trying to catch you.
	I'm just, are you aware that you just used a universal truth statement to say that there's no such thing as universal truth?
	I mean, are you aware of that?
	And that's important, right?
	Right, it is, yeah.
	It doesn't mean you're right or wrong.
	I'm just asking, are you aware that you did that?
	Perhaps I'm only using a...
	Maybe it's only a categorical statement.
	When I say that everything is...
	We cannot be certain of anything.
	We can only be categorically certain.
	We cannot be universally certain.
	Yes, but the very statement you're making is not a categorical certainty, but a universal certainty.
	Are you aware that you just did it again?
	I see, yeah.
	Yeah, I know that was the case.
	Now look, again, sorry, this doesn't mean that you're right or you're wrong, but if you're not aware of it, it means that you have not thought critically about what you're saying.
	Hmm.
	And what that means is that you have a bias towards this idea.
	Like, it seems true to you because it serves some need in you, obviously, right?
	Because I just, I mean, it doesn't take a lot of thought, and obviously you're an intelligent guy, right?
	So I'm not saying that you're dumb at all.
	But it doesn't take a lot of thought to see the flaw in this, right?
	Because the first thing, if you're going to make any kind of truth statement, the first place you need to apply it to is the statement you're making.
	So people who say, well, there's no such thing as truth, they're making a truth statement that there's no such thing as truth.
	But they're not applying their standard to their own statement, right?
	Right, I absolutely agree.
	And that doesn't mean that they're wrong, but it means that they have a bias towards believing this particular proposition.
	It serves some need, and therefore they're not being critical of what they're putting forward, they're not reading counter-arguments, and they're not applying the standard that they're creating to what it is that they're saying, which means that they really, really want it to be true.
	That's right.
	And the way I was thinking, I know I'm stepping out of roll here, but what I was thinking is, it's the nature of truth to be universal.
	It's not the nature of any given fact to be universal.
	Like, for example, the temperature which water boils at is not the same everywhere, but that doesn't mean that When water does boil with these given contingencies that it is not universally true, right?
	Yes, and it is universally true that there is a difference between water and vapor, or water and ice, or ice and vapor.
	Yeah, the transition changes on altitude and all that, right?
	But that doesn't mean that everything is subjective, right?
	I mean, the fact that the Japanese use a different word for tree doesn't mean that the word changes the object.
	The object remains constant, but the word changes, right?
	Yes, and he wasn't saying it was subjective.
	He was just trying to deconstruct the universal quality of a true statement.
	Okay, so do you know why I asked the person, the role-playing person, if he knew that he had just violated his own standard?
	It wasn't to win the argument, because it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
	But what it does do is it explores the person's capacity or interest in self-knowledge.
	Right?
	First commandment of philosophy is, know thyself.
	Because if you don't know yourself, you're subject to endless prejudices that are going to lead you in the wrong direction, and lead others in the wrong direction, which is even worse.
	Right, so if somebody, like if I say to someone, you get that you have a bias towards believing this.
	Because you haven't applied even the most cursory criticism to an idea that you accept as true, which means you are biased in believing this or wanting to believe this.
	Now, somebody who's interested in self-knowledge will go, wow, why on earth wouldn't I have applied even the most cursory criticisms to this?
	Why do I need or want this to be true so badly that I will spout it off as true without even having the most cursory examination as to its truth?
	And that would be a much more interesting topic than truth.
	Okay.
	Does that make sense?
	Because you can't get to the truth if the person is not interested in why they're biased.
	Right.
	Then you can't have a productive philosophical conversation.
	Because without self-knowledge, bias cannot be uncovered.
	If bias cannot be uncovered, in other words, if bias remains unconscious, then the truth cannot be achieved.
	That's insightful.
	I appreciate that.
	And what I was trying to do is, that's why I came up with that statement, truth is a quality and universality is a quality of truth.
	Because I think the person is receptive to putting his ideas under scrutiny.
	So I was trying to come up with an argument other than, hey, are you...
	Because I'm somewhat familiar with performative contradiction and what that entails.
	Yeah.
	But like you said, it's not like necessarily a strict counter-argument to say that yes, universal truth exists and that not all true statements are just merely contingent.
	Right.
	Yeah, and of course, a statement that is true within a particular circumstance is true within that circumstance.
	Right.
	Right, if that makes sense.
	Right, so there's no epistemological reason why the capital of France is called Paris rather than Hottentot, right?
	But the fact is that it is true that it is called Paris, right?
	It is true in the nature of reality that objects with mass attract each other through gravity, right?
	That is true.
	Whether we define it or not, it was true before we named it, it was true before we discovered it, it would be true if we're wiped from the face of the universe tomorrow, right?
	Yes, yes, and...
	There are different types of truth.
	There's analytic and synthetic.
	Synthetic, yeah.
	Got it.
	And all of that stuff is important to explore, for sure.
	So there's stuff that's true by nature, there's stuff that's true by convention.
	A tree is a tree, whether we name it or not, but the name for a tree, it is true that in English a tree is called a tree, but that is not a truth that is innate to reality.
	It's still a universally true statement that in English you call a tree a tree.
	But it is not embedded in the nature of reality in the way that physics and biology is, right?
	Yes, that's right.
	Yes.
	And see, that's what I've been grappling with.
	It's just, you know, after reading UPB and then after reading, I've been trying to look for other material on universality and its importance because to me, like, we've already covered it, and that is that That is the nature of truth, is that when we say stuff, we're ascribing a universality to it.
	Like, that's the point of language.
	But I guess that these other debating, these conversational opponents, they are saying that, well, this is just because you're just using language.
	Language by its intrinsic quality is...
	It may rely on universality, but that doesn't say anything about...
	Just because you use something that relies on universality does not mean that you're describing the way reality is.
	Does that make sense?
	Yeah, so there's the gap between language and reality.
	Yeah, okay, but...
	The person is relying upon language to describe the gap between language and reality.
	So if he's able...
	No, listen.
	So again, you turn the statement on itself.
	So if somebody says to me, language doesn't describe reality perfectly, right?
	Then I would say, what part of your statement is imperfect?
	Ah, okay.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes, it does.
	That's a very good one.
	I'm going to have to keep note of that.
	I appreciate that.
	And this, again, I've said, you know, what's my only real contribution?
	It's that The content of the argument includes the argument.
	Yes.
	Right?
	So if somebody says to me, language is meaningless, it's like, okay, which part of your sentence there is meaningless and which part of my sentence is meaningless?
	That's it.
	Is it all meaningless?
	Yes.
	You're trying to isolate which part...
	Yes.
	You're trying to...
	You deconstruct it and say, okay, so you deconstruct the meaning and you separate it into two parts and you say, identify, please, which...
	Which is which?
	Yeah.
	If this is true, the first place to start is your statement.
	Yeah.
	Because, you know, just like everybody in the government wants to create a rule called don't steal and then an exception for themselves.
	This is a universal phenomenon.
	It's not related to statism.
	It's just tangentially statism is part of the whole process.
	Everybody wants to create a philosophical standard or rule and immediately exclude themselves and their own statement, right?
	Yes.
	And ultimately, just to be frank, there is a lot of intellectual energy that is poured into putting emphasis on categorical truths so that exceptions are made.
	If you do not fit in this category, then this rule does not apply to you, or it does.
	And that's what I'm running into.
	There's an enormous amount of intellectual effort that's put in direct opposition to universality.
	We know why that is important for status interests, but that's just what I'm discovering.
	I'm not even talking about UPB at that point, or maybe I am.
	I'm not sure, because I don't fully understand UPB. That is what we're talking about, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I mean, UPB is, okay, if you're going to make an assertion, the first test of that assertion is your assertion.
	Yeah.
	Right, so if you're going to say, language is meaningless, the first test of that is not some other thing, but what you're saying.
	Yes, okay.
	And the reason, and the other question...
	The reason I think it's important about what determines the contingencies of a moral agent is because I honestly think that some people strive to escape that binding reality.
	They want to redefine either their biology.
	I know this sounds kind of nutty, but they want to redefine their biology and their relationship with other humans as, like I said again, In a different category.
	It's back to that same...
	Well, you're kinder than I would be.
	I may make a case for being harsher.
	I think that people are trying to perpetrate a con.
	Okay.
	They're trying to pass off counterfeit money.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	And there are ways to know when people are trying to...
	So when someone says to you there's no such thing as truth, they're trying to gain control over your integrity and diffuse it.
	They're trying to take control over your moral courage and defuse it and frankly enslave you.
	Because if there's no such thing as truth, then there's no such thing as virtue, then fighting for anything is immaturity, right?
	It's like two kids squabbling over a dinosaur.
	And so they're attempting to defuse the energy of your moral integrity.
	And to say, or to get you to believe, that any assertion or standing up for virtue is ignorance and immaturity.
	Oh, that's no doubt there's malintent.
	But, I mean, these are intellectual types, and they keep pushing out all this literature, and they have to be—I'm trying to confront them on it.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Yeah, so look, I mean, you can also say, if there's no such thing as truth, then we have to get rid of the government.
	Because the government is about imposing will on others.
	And if there's no such thing as truth, then it's immoral to impose your will on others, right?
	Then everything is censorship.
	Well, they would just say, well, everything is will.
	Whatever succeeds in imposition of will is that which is.
	I mean, that's essentially the logic I'm facing.
	Or illogic.
	So, if the government can achieve power over others, then it is justified in doing so.
	That is virtue.
	That's right.
	That's the argument.
	Okay, then obviously the government cannot prosecute rape because the rapist is merely successfully asserting his will over another, right?
	Right, and don't get me wrong, I'm just like, yes, that's the thing is that we're talking, they think in categories, they don't think in universals.
	So, Yes.
	Sorry, they are accurately describing what they are trying to do, which is to exert willpower over your moral integrity.
	That's interesting.
	When somebody is trying to put a con over on you, their reaction on the exposure of the falsehood is when you know.
	So if I pass to you a $20 bill, And you put it through a counterfeit detection machine and it beeps that it's counterfeit.
	My reaction in that moment tells you everything you need to know.
	Right.
	If I say, oh, that's bullshit.
	Your counterfeit detection machine is broken.
	This is a perfect dollar bill.
	I made it myself.
	Whatever, right?
	This is a perfect $20 bill.
	And they attempt to fog or diffuse or they just run out the store or something.
	Then you know that they knew it was counterfeit, right?
	Yes.
	Whereas if they're like, you what now?
	Oh my god, listen, I just got this from the guy across the street.
	Let's go over right now and see if we can find out where he got it from, and then we can trace this down.
	And I'm so sorry, I will go to the ATM, get another $20 bill, but the most important thing is we figure out how on earth this came to be, because this is not good, right?
	You're saying as soon as there's evasion, then it's over.
	It's revealed.
	As soon as there's evasion, as soon as they're, if they attempt to move on to another question, oh, here's another $20 bill.
	Forget that one.
	Burn it.
	Let's burn it quick.
	Right?
	So when somebody says to you there's no such thing as truth and you point out that they're making a truth statement, then their reaction in the moment is essential.
	If they're trying to put a con over you, they'll just change the topic or they'll argue or they'll redefine or whatever, right?
	Or they'll avoid the conversation.
	Then that's a con.
	Then they're part of the machinery of crushing the natural ethical spirit of mankind.
	And they're hypocritical, dangerous, slippery, electric yields in the service of hierarchical violence.
	Yes, I know, and they're everywhere.
	They are everywhere, absolutely.
	They are everywhere, I agree.
	That's why we have hierarchies, right?
	Because our natural outrage is continually diffused by these mind-buggery squid heads.
	Well, fuck that.
	And if these people want to grease the wheels of power and subjugate mankind to the most brutal and murderous among us, That's their business.
	But it's pretty easy to expose them.
	What do you think?
	What is better than pointing out self-contradiction?
	Is that all that's really needed?
	Because it seems like if I do that and I say, look, you're performing contradiction, what is the statement that you're making?
	Do you not see the universality packed into your...
	If we unpack it, do you see the universal quality of it?
	And they still manage to...
	And they say, oh, well, that's not a counter-argument.
	And they still manage to evade that and slip, like, you know...
	They're just slippery and they just somehow manage to get out of that.
	What can I do?
	You can't do anything.
	You can't do anything.
	You can't provoke integrity.
	You can't make other people want to serve truth rather than power.
	You can't make other people want to arm citizens with the weapons of truth rather than disarm them with the weapons of intellectual obfuscation and intimidation.
	You can't.
	But let me ask you this.
	If a guy keeps handing you Counterfeit $20 bills and pretending he's doing something economic with you, what do you do?
	You stop accepting.
	You stop interacting.
	Of course.
	You stop pretending that there's anything economic going on.
	If somebody tries to get you involved in the pursuit of truth, and then they won't admit basic contradictions, and they redefine, and they avoid, and they confuse, and they change topics, and so on, I'm not going to pretend with them.
	I'm not going to collude With them in the fantasy that they're interested in anything other than controlling and disarming and subjugating me for the sake of serving me up as a tender bound lamb to the powers that be.
	I will not participate in that.
	I'm with you there.
	It's just that at times it becomes frustrating because There's so much material that keeps getting...
	There's so much production, I guess, of this same kind of nonsense that it has...
	Oh, human beings need to be continually disarmed because we're all born armed with moral outrage.
	And we're all taught moral outrage because we are punished as children by ethics and universal ethics.
	Not, in this room, we don't hit other children.
	Not, on Sunday mornings, we don't hit other children.
	Not, when there's a full moon, We don't hit other children, but it is universally true and it is absolutely immoral to hit other children.
	Right.
	People attempt to correct with the thought that correction is possible.
	Right.
	And so we are filled full of moral absolutism and moral outrage and punishment and reward and virtue and good and evil and blah blah blah blah blah.
	We are filled full of that all the time.
	People even say to kids who say, that woman's really fat, don't say that.
	That will hurt her feelings.
	Right, so we are filled full of all of this moral absolutism when we are children, and we are punished for violating these moral absolutes, right?
	And so that's how we are controlled and humiliated and punished as children.
	Ah, but then you see, the problem with the powers that be is that we become adults, and we are full of moral absolutes, and good and evil and right and wrong and universals, right?
	So then what?
	Then we've got to be disarmed.
	See, it's useful to control.
	Morality is a useful tool to control and punish us as children.
	Only if it's absolute and universal and all that, right?
	But then when we become adults, we have to be disarmed of all of that.
	Which is what college is for, right?
	Which is why college is so relentlessly lefty and so relentlessly subjectivist and relativist.
	Because all of those moral absolutes need to be undone within us.
	Where before, we were punished for violating morality.
	In college, we are punished for invoking morality.
	And we are considered to be rubes, or simplistic, or immature, or unwise, or unsophisticated, or whatever, right?
	Yes, that's right.
	That's the most popular facade.
	It's a lack of complexity that you bring to the table.
	You're a utopian.
	That's right.
	Oh, look at that.
	Over 1,500 guests on the FDR board, isn't it nice?
	Anyway, sorry, just made some of that in the chat room.
	But this is the challenge that those powers that be have to control and crush children.
	You have to inflict morality on them, but then you have to take that morality away when they become adults and might have the capacity to inflict it on the powers that be.
	Well, here's a last-hand question, if you don't mind, just conclusively.
	Is there any way for them to succeed if they come out and say, we're going to come up with either an intellectual way or a way to modify our biology to not be universally held accountable under any kind of ethical rule?
	Is that possible?
	Sorry, say that again?
	Sorry, I just want to make sure I understand the question, if you can repeat it.
	Okay, sure.
	Is it possible, if their goal, for example, It is explicit that they want to change either themselves or their biology or whatever it takes.
	What is it possible for whatever would need to be changed for them to not be held accountable under ethics?
	And that's why I was asking, what are the contingencies of being held accountable by ethics?
	Because can they achieve that goal?
	Well, that's their holy grail.
	What can they do to change themselves or parts of reality or whatever they...
	to not be under the binding universality of ethics?
	Will they ever be...
	Well, they can't.
	There's nothing...
	Look, other than jumping off a cliff, there's nothing they can do.
	There's nothing...
	Because if they use language, they're accepting universality and truth.
	What about reduced cognition?
	Can we not say, for example, like, if it's...
	And this is my argument for why it may be certain living things...
	Oh, sorry, you mean if somebody is mentally handicapped?
	Or, yeah, or if it's not a human.
	Yeah, yeah, of course, yeah.
	Look, anything that doesn't understand universality and cannot process ethics and never inflicts a moral statement on anyone else is not bound by virtue, right?
	Of course, yeah, and this is true of people who are...
	You know, far down the scale on IQ and so on, I mean, yeah, I mean, they can't process universals, they can't process necessarily, they certainly can't process the ethical consequences of their actions and so on, which is why there's an insanity defense and why there's a sub-intelligence defense and so on.
	But that's one out, isn't it?
	That's one way out of the binding nature of ethics.
	And so it is possible to get out of that.
	Obviously, that's not a I'm sorry, I'm just not sure.
	I mean, nobody's going to give themselves a frontal lobotomy to escape ethics.
	I'm not really sure what the point of this is.
	They're either born that way or they have an accident or a disease or something like that.
	That's right.
	But some of these people, what if they achieve some kind of, what if they modify their biology, their brain, What on earth are you talking about?
	I don't understand.
	Tell me what the emotional point of this is, because I'm not sure if they become cyborgs.
	I know that sounds silly, but I want to make sure that...
	I want to understand the universality of ethics to know that as I defend it, that there will be no...
	if cognition increases No, no, no.
	Forget that.
	Look, sorry to be annoying and interrupt, but anybody you're debating ethics with is not outside of ethics.
	Okay.
	You never have to worry about that.
	Like, you're not going to go debate ethics with a snake, right?
	Right.
	And you're also not going to go to somebody who has got an IQ of 50 and can't get a spoon to their mouth and debate universality, right?
	And if their IQ is triple mine, and their brain is completely different, they're still...
	Wait, wait, wait.
	How is being more intelligent making their brain different from yours?
	I mean, look, Arnold has bigger muscles, but that doesn't mean that I don't have muscles.
	It doesn't mean I can't lift things.
	He can just lift more.
	It's not completely different, right?
	It's not like he now can reverse gravity.
	Right, that's very true.
	So it's just argumentation.
	As soon as you engage in argumentation, it doesn't matter what the composition of the brain of the agents are, what their brains are made out of.
	It doesn't matter what their IQ of either of the participants are.
	The bottom line is if they are arguing, they fall under the umbrella, the universal umbrella of ethics.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	As far as I understand it, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has a whole theory called argumentation ethics, which I'm no expert in, but I believe it's something along these lines.
	All the things that you need to have implicit if you're going to have a debate, and people always try and exclude their own arguments from what's implicit and so on.
	But I just wanted to mention one last thing before we, I think, James, do we have another call?
	Nobody on the line.
	We have a few text questions, but if we're...
	Okay, we can do this very briefly, but I just wanted to point out, so if you really want to get what I'm talking about, about how we are punished with morality and then punished for having morality when we get older, so if you put in a term paper arguing that there's no such thing as universal truth, you will not fail because of that argument.
	In fact, you will probably get a very good mark if you argue it with expert counterfeit elegance.
	And so you will do well in college if you argue that there's no such thing as truth.
	But if you are in grade 7 and you get an answer wrong in a test, that answer will not then be corrected if you argue with the teacher that there's no such thing as truth.
	If you say, Clinton delivered the Gettysburg Address and then you get marked for zero, And then you say to your teacher, you can't give me a zero because there's no such thing as truth.
	In some alternate universe it could be true, you can't prove for sure you weren't there, right?
	You will then be, he will say, no.
	Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, not Clinton, you're wrong.
	100%, no doubt, no question, no argument about epistemology or metaphysics.
	But then, if you take the same absolutism that the teacher punishes you with as a teenager, and you take that to your college professor, you will get an F. Right.
	Do you see?
	Yeah.
	So I just really want to sort of point out that this is a very interesting thought experiment, which I think everyone who's been to college can really understand.
	All right.
	Well, thank you.
	Great question.
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	And listen, sorry, let me have one other thing, too.
	If you want one of these people to call in and have a debate with me, I would love it.
	Okay.
	I'm seriously going to consider that.
	That's great.
	Yeah.
	Love it.
	I would love it.
	And tell them that they can get their arguments out to hundreds of thousands of people, and I debate honorably.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right, James, we've got a couple of questions.
	So, Robert?
	Yeah, hopefully...
	Oops, sorry.
	Hopefully we can...
	Knock them out quick!
	Yes, knock them out quick.
	Hopefully you'll be able to address them.
	So, first question here is, I've spent the past six months or more, more or less...
	I beg your pardon.
	Let me start again.
	I spent the last six months more or less isolated and working through my childhood.
	I currently don't have any close friends or acquaintances.
	Now I feel I want to, quote, get back to society in terms of meeting people, maybe trying to find work, finding friends, but I feel kind of strong anxiety as well.
	I feel somehow torn between wanting to go out and meeting people and feeling anxious being more vulnerable now that the false self-defenses have mostly gone.
	Do you have any advice or insight on that?
	Yeah, I mean, I understand this.
	You know, when you rip off the armor, it takes a while for the skin to grow.
	We feel like an exposed bag of nerves when we get, when we deal with our history and our childhood, there's a rawness.
	And that rawness, to my mind, is actually very helpful because the rawness is hypersensitivity towards dangerous people.
	A lot of people in the world are very dangerous.
	They will, you know, whether it's conscious or not, it doesn't matter, right?
	A lion is dangerous, whether it has conscious intent or not, as is a falling rock.
	So, conscious intent, who cares?
	But the reality is that a lot of people in this world are very dangerous.
	If you bring truth to them, they will undermine it.
	If you bring certainty to them, they will attack it.
	If you bring ethics to them, they will derail it.
	They will do anything to protect their delusions, and they will attack the truth teller and reward the liar.
	This is just the way things are.
	It's not human nature.
	It's the scars of statism and authoritarianism and spanking and aggression and abandonment and single parenthood and blah blah blah blah blah.
	All the mess that we have.
	So the rawness that you feel when you bring your defenses down is very important because it will help keep the dangerous people away from you because you have a great deal of sensitivity to that which is harmful to you And thus you can make relatively quick decisions about that and keep yourself more secure.
	So I don't think that the fear should, or the sensitivity should keep you from going out and talking in the world, but you just need to really respect it, not override it, not look at it as a flaw or a problem or a weakness, but as an essential guiding mechanism to get you to boon safe, positive, and moral companions.
	So that would be my suggestion.
	Okay.
	And hopefully, if this person has more questions, they can bring them up on the boards, or bring it to me, and I'll bring it to the next show.
	We have another one.
	Take a crack at this one, maybe.
	Are dystopias economically viable long-term, or are they always inevitably doomed to failure due to economic reality?
	Well, it depends what you mean by sustainable and it depends what you mean by the long run.
	I mean, for most of the, you know, 10, 20,000 years of relatively civilized human history, things were pretty messed up, but they were sustainable.
	I mean, China lived for thousands of years under a brutal hierarchical dictatorship and was somewhat sustainable.
	I mean, there were the usual dynasty overthrows and so on.
	And this is one of the reasons why The Chinese take such a long view of things, right?
	So someone asked the Chinese potentate a little while back what he thought of the French Revolution, and he said it's too soon to tell.
	It's only been a few hundred years.
	So things can be sustainable, even if they are brutal and dysfunctional and so on.
	They are sustainable.
	What's happened, of course, is since the rise of the free market, the rise of voluntarism in various aspects of life, The standard has been raised, and now everybody wants to reach that standard, and in reaching that standard, they tend to provoke collapse faster than otherwise.
	So, you know, if you're just stuck in some dismal, grinding, horrible marriage, and you don't know any better, then you just kind of plunge your way through it and then welcome the grave that swallows up your unhappiness.
	But then if you come across a couple or You know, brush past a couple or sit at a table with a couple who are, you know, happy and vibrant and positive and genuinely in love and so on.
	Well then suddenly what seemed inevitable is not inevitable and you see something higher and better and what's going to happen is your misery is going to increase to the point where you may actually take a stab at improving your marriage.
	Now if you take a stab at improving your marriage, you're changing the fundamental patterns and it's either going to get better or it's probably going to end.
	It's not really possible to go back to a state of ignorance once you've achieved some sort of knowledge or some sort of Understanding of difference.
	And so maybe your marriage will improve, or maybe you'll get a divorce.
	But when you see a higher standard, you can't remain as you were before you saw that higher standard.
	And so people see the standards of living in the West, and they want to get that, and the sort of grinding universal poverty that was the human lot and provoked a lot of, dear God, I can't wait to get to heaven nonsense in human history.
	That's been broken.
	And now people get that they can have A middle class lifestyle that they can improve and therefore the you know the cattle are getting restless and the tax farmers are changing their pattern right which is why you see in India and in China and in other places in Vietnam and other places that they're experimenting with a free market they're experimenting with voluntarism and in many ways outstripping the voluntarism that's available in the West and they're seeing a concomitant rise in
	Incomes and wealth and so on.
	And of course there's all the usual mismanagement and crap, the ghost cities and all that that goes on with centralized planning still being there in a situation of a free market, but there is obviously some improvement.
	So they've been destabilized.
	Now what happens in the future?
	Well, that has a lot to do with the degree to which we put our muscle to the wheel of spreading moral clarity around the world.
	It's not a good metaphor, but fix it as you see fit.
	And so societies have become less stable Because there are examples of much more successful societies than have occurred, and they're only a few hundred years old.
	What is humanity going to do with these amazing, impossible-to-ignore standards of living and possibilities and technologies and so on?
	Well, like the Chinese say, it's too soon to tell, but we have a huge effect on how it goes.
	So I hope that helps.
	And, documentary update, we're doing well.
	Luke is doing fantastic stuff.
	We have a fantastic musician on board.
	And so, it's coming along.
	Sorry it's taking longer than I thought, but it's taking longer than I thought.
	Thanks everyone for your support.
	FreeDomainRadio.com forward slash donate.
	I really do, you know, everything I get, I'm pouring heart and soul into expanding the show.
	We just, I think, hit 50,000.
	We just hit 50,000 subscribers on YouTube and...
	It's just great.
	The show's growing wonderfully.
	And I also wanted to mention that I'm really enjoying public speaking a lot more now, and I think it's going very well.
	So we'll get stuff up from Libertopia soon, and we will get the stuff up soon from Liberty Now.
	And that's it, I guess.
	I don't have any speaking going on in the winter, at least not so far.
	Libertarianism, much like a polar bear, tends to hibernate its conferences in the winter for reasons that make sense if you've ever been to New Hampshire.
	But have yourselves a wonderful week, everyone.
	Thank you for your support.
	I will.

▲