Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Dec. 11, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

57:08

2277 Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio on Rise Up Radio!

Stefan Molyneux, host Freedomain Radio, talks with John Bush on Rise Up Radio about the moral justifications for a free society, how to parent without violence, and the upcoming movie Truth: the Freedomain Radio Documentary.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome back to the show.
	Welcome back to the show.
	Thanks for sticking with us here on the Rise Up Radio Show, where every Wednesday from 7 to 10 a.m.
	Central Standard Time, we're bringing in the news, views, and tools you can use to live a free, prosperous, and sustainable life.
	We're calling on you not just to wake up, but more importantly to rise up, take responsibility and ownership for your life, play a major part in your community, take an active role in creating a more free, prosperous, and sustainable life, And we're doing just that.
	I want to give a quick shout out to Lone Star Libertopia, lonestarlibertopia.com.
	It's a newly launched effort to encourage people to move to Central Texas to take part in the Liberty Evolution already going on.
	Right here, deep in the heart of Texas, there's a bunch of wonderful people that are actively working to create a better world.
	And if you're interested in learning more about that, you can go to lonestarlibertopia.com.
	Again, that's lonestarlibertopia.com.
	Right now, we're very excited to bring...
	Special guest to the program.
	We've interviewed him here on the show before, and it was a smashing hit.
	He is the guy behind the number one philosophical conversation in the world.
	That's freedomainradio.com, podcasts, videos, and much discourse, helping people to Understand what's going on, ideals of stateless societies, interpersonal relationships, nonviolent parenting.
	That's something that sets him apart with a lot of different libertarian philosophers.
	Stefan Mullen really gets down to the nitty-gritty of the social organism and the idea of having successful relationships and applying the philosophy of liberty and nonviolent, non-aggression to your relationships and to your life as a whole rather than just talking about it and how great of a philosophy it is.
	And we're going to chat about just That today.
	Stefan, thank you for coming on the program.
	Well, thanks.
	It's great to be here.
	I just wanted to point out, I think I'm in your third hour, and you said news, views, and tools.
	So I guess in the first hour you do news, second hour do views, and I guess I'm falling into the tools category.
	I can accept that.
	I can work with that.
	I like to know where I stand at the beginning of the show, but it's great to be here.
	Sure.
	Yeah, that's good stuff.
	He's a funny guy too, ladies and gentlemen.
	Funny guy.
	So first, Stefan, tell us about your program, Free Domain Radio.
	What's the goal with that particular effort?
	Well, the goal is to try and draw people's attention back To the morality of the society that we want to live in.
	I think people are very driven by ethics, by the desire, by the willingness, by the need to feel good, to be good, to do good.
	But unfortunately, we've just kind of got away from, or maybe we never even had it fundamentally, this idea of a respect for property rights and the non-aggression principle, which is thou shalt not initiate force against thy fellow carbon-based life form, at least the ones with the frontal lobes.
	And so I'm really trying to focus on building the case for ethics.
	And, you know, you say, well, we already had ethics.
	We've had the Ten Commandments.
	We have six million laws a day coming down from Washington.
	But the problem is they haven't really solved the problem of morality.
	So...
	You know, Christianity and other religions have been working with ethics for thousands of years and it really hasn't worked out that well.
	The 20th century after an ethical project lasting about 2500 years since the days of Socrates, the 20th century.
	It's about the bloodiest and most murderous century in the history of mankind.
	So it doesn't seem like we're quite heading in the right direction.
	Governments, they grow, they prey upon just about everyone they can get their hands on.
	They lie, they cheat, they steal, they murder, they sell off the unborn to foreign bankers for the sake of bribing constituents in the here and now.
	So I don't think we've seen really the ethical peak of human potential coming out of government.
	So I think we've tried just about everything else.
	I think it's really time to go back to first principles, to go back to philosophy, to build up our conception of what on earth we should be doing with our time and our virtue and how we should be spending our precious energies in the pursuit of virtue.
	So I've really tried to work with defining virtue, making a secular, rational, philosophical case for virtue and how it can be applied in our daily lives.
	So if religion is not the foundation for your system of ethics, tell us more about the secular rationality you're speaking of.
	Well, ethics is differentiated from other things by its very universality, right?
	So if I like, you know, peppermint patty ice cream, that's something that is a preference for me, but it's not imposing.
	I can't impose it on you.
	I can't rationally say, and therefore that is the moral ideal and everybody should and everyone who doesn't like peppermint patty ice cream has to go to prison and all that.
	So there's something about ethics that is universal.
	It has to be independent of time, of place, of circumstances.
	You can't say, you know, rape is immoral in Philadelphia, but it's really virtuous in Kabul.
	I mean, you just can't Make these kinds of subjective statements.
	It's a kind of science.
	I think we should be relating it to physics, right?
	So in a physics experiment, you don't say an object accelerates towards the earth at 9.8 meters per second per second.
	In Istanbul, but over there in Cairo, it goes in a spiral, spouts rainbows, and turns into unicorns.
	So there has to be something universal around ethics.
	And without making the case from a philosophical standpoint, if we just accept the non-initiation of force and a respect for property rights, and we universalize that, Well, society becomes an enormously different place.
	We can't spank our children.
	We can't intimidate our spouses.
	We can't have a Federal Reserve.
	We can't have a government.
	We can't have police.
	We can't have a military, at least in their current form.
	We can't have taxation.
	I mean, these are just the natural domino consequences of having a universal standard of the non-initiation of force and respect for property rights.
	It's startling.
	It's weird.
	It blows people's minds.
	Trust me, it blew my mind for the first couple of years I was working with it as well.
	But if you go back to first principles and just work with those, you end up not only figuring out how society should look, but you also end up figuring out why society is so messed up at the moment because we just keep violating and violating and violating in an ever escalating way these fundamental moral rules.
	And then we kind of look around days saying, well, why are things going so badly?
	Why is there inflation, debt, war, imprisonment, deficits?
	Why is there massive youth unemployment?
	Why is there intergenerational conflict?
	Why do we have a Ponzi scheme called Social Security?
	It's because we're violating these basic moral rules.
	Everything that goes wrong can be traced back in a fundamental way to morality and that's my goal is to really clarify that morality and urge people to examine society through that clear lens.
	Excellent, excellent.
	So tell me, what exactly, when using your philosophical and ethical analysis, what exactly is incompatible about the institution of government or the state or that institution which holds a monopoly over a certain geographic area on a quote-unquote legitimate use of force?
	I'm not sure if you agree with that definition, but what is incompatible about that particular institution with your idea of ethical relationships?
	Well, I think it really comes back to the modern philosophers, Depeche Mode, who sang, people are people.
	And, you know, that basic, I won't sing it for you out of respect to your listenership, in fact, the very nature of music itself, but people are people.
	Creating artificial divisions among people with opposing moral rules is recognized In the realm of race, it's racism.
	In the realm of gender, it's recognized as sexism.
	I can't just say, well, white people should be allowed to do this, but black people can't be allowed to do that.
	That's clearly racist.
	Creating separate and opposing moral categories of human beings is prejudicial and disastrous.
	It creates a huge amount of problems in society and those problems always tend to get worse.
	So we create this group called the government.
	It's this massive sticky label that we throw all over these people and we imagine that when we apply this label to people, they gain opposite moral properties.
	It's insane.
	It's like me saying, here, have this hat.
	Now you can fly because I wrote the word fly on the hat.
	Well, we know that doesn't happen in reality.
	And so you and I are not allowed to initiate the use of force, no matter what our stated intentions are.
	Let's say I want to go give 20 bucks to a homeless guy.
	I don't get to pull a knife on you and say, give me 20 bucks.
	Actually, give me 50 bucks.
	I'll keep 30 and give 20 of it to the homeless guy, which is closer to the welfare state.
	I don't get to do that, but we create this separate category of people called the state, politicians, cops, prison guards, soldiers, who have completely opposite moral characteristics.
	I can't go to Afghanistan, and fortunately, as they're doing now, targeting children as legitimate targets to kill.
	But if you're the U.S. military, you can say children are now legitimate targets to kill, and you can call in airstrocks on little kids picking up dung to burn in their home, and you get a medal and a pension.
	So if we keep creating these opposing moral categories, we are completely schizophrenic, in fact, downright psychotic in our view of the world.
	And it's time to break down these barriers and recognize that people are people.
	We cannot create a category of opposite moral realities.
	We can't say it's evil for you and I, but it suddenly becomes good if I put on a green or blue costume or a bunch of people vote for me so that I can bribe them.
	If I want to get my kids educated, I can't walk up and down my neighborhood with a gun demanding money.
	But property taxes which pay for public schools is exactly the same scenario.
	So it's just around universalization and recognizing that there is no such thing as an opposite moral category we can stuff a whole separate group of people into.
	That's right, and it goes back to the objective foundation of the ethics that you laid out, that these rules need to be applied universally.
	And the Declaration of Independence, of course, states that all men are created equal.
	Of course, they're probably talking about white male property owners.
	But nonetheless, when the Constitution, you know, speaking of the American tradition, the Constitution actually empowered a certain class to have the ability and the privilege to tax the rest of everybody, to take out credit on the rest of everyone's backs, all the taxpayers.
	So that's not exactly an equality of power when one class can tax the other class.
	We're going to go and open up the phone line here, 512-829-4680.
	That's 512-829-4680.
	If you're carrying and watching along on Facebook, you can also post questions either on my personal page, John Bush, or on the Rise Up Radio Show page.
	You just go to search bar and search Rise Up Radio and like the page there.
	And Stefan, just to let you know, for the calls, We're having a little problem here with the calls going in through to you.
	So the people that call, you can relay your question to me, and then through me, I'll try to convey it exactly with your intentions and convey it to Stefan, and we'll do a little telephone there, and hopefully we'll be able to keep the meaning.
	So what do you say to those people that say, but Stefan, absent some government institution, some social contract, won't the rich and powerful in society rise up and dominate the rest of us?
	Right.
	Well, first of all, that's assuming that isn't happening right now.
	Of course, the rich and powerful are dominating us already.
	And, you know, the whole purpose of Lyndon Johnson's great experiment, the Great Society, the welfare state, the war on poverty, and so on, the whole purpose of that, starting from the 1960s, in fact, you could go back to starting from the mid-1930s with Social Security, was to smooth out the disparities in society.
	Violence always achieves the opposite of its stated or intended goal, right?
	And it's like, oh, I'm so afraid my girlfriend is going to leave me that I'm going to start stalking her and checking her voicemails and checking her texts and it's like, hey, she left me.
	I knew it was going to happen, right?
	I mean, the paranoia, violence, dysfunction always produces the opposite of what you want.
	Since the 1960s, the income inequalities have risen in the countries which have implemented the welfare state, particularly in the United States.
	So right now, more and more wealth is being accumulated among the rich and powerful than at any other time in American history.
	So the idea that, oh my goodness, as we've had more government, we get more control and power from the rich and powerful.
	I mean, there's six million examples.
	I won't bore everyone with them, but, you know, I mean, we all know that big corporations like to push for a lot of regulations because they have the legal department to handle it, and small companies can't even enter the marketplace because they can't even figure out which of the 6,000 books of rules they have to follow.
	They love to put tariffs and taxes on people, right?
	So one of the reasons Americans are getting fat is because...
	The sugar industry raises these huge tariffs on sugar coming in from overseas, makes them millions of dollars.
	The problem is it makes people who sell sugary stuff turn to fructose glucose, also known as the Satan of your belly.
	And so there's lots of things that go on around expanding money for the rich and powerful.
	The rich and powerful get to type whatever they want into their own bank accounts.
	That's right.
	Oh, yes.
	And my daughter also wanted to mention that this is why diabetes is on the uprise.
	Yeah.
	But so all of this stuff is happening already.
	The rich and powerful through the Federal Reserve basically get to type whatever they want into their own bank accounts, pushing inflation down to the poor, and that is all extremely tragic.
	Yeah, and it seems like with this institution of government, of monopoly coercion, Whenever there's actors in society that would seek to exploit others to further their own ends, they naturally flock to this institution because it gives them the power to do so with the veil of legitimacy.
	And I think it's that quote-unquote legitimacy that people view any government agent or anybody with a shiny badge that might be one of the most dangerous aspects of the current state system which people live under, this monopoly system.
	What do you think about this veil of legitimacy?
	Do you think that's a dangerous concept to where just because you're a state agent, just because you have a shiny badge, you can run roughshod over people's lives?
	And if they decide to fight back, they'll likely end up either dead or with a felony in prison.
	What are your thoughts on that?
	Well, it's truly tragic.
	I mean, if we're worried about creating a separate class of people with extraordinary amounts of power, I don't see how we solve that by creating a monopoly of overwhelming force in society.
	It's like I'm concerned about getting a headache so hand me that guillotine and I'll solve the problem.
	So if we are concerned about disparities of power then This monopoly hierarchical oligarchy called the state, which has nuclear weapons, it has the power to make up money, it has aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, it has, I mean, America spends more than half of the world's money on weaponry, and it makes a good deal of money for itself selling weaponry to other countries and then claiming that other countries are very dangerous.
	What a scam that is.
	But if we are worried about the disparity of power, Then the last thing we want to do is create a monopoly of force.
	The only way to balance out power as a whole in society is for there to be no centralized agency that has the final authority to do whatever it wants to the citizens as a whole, which is fundamentally what a state is.
	I don't think there's any other way to do it.
	Now one of the common objections brought up by those who are thinking deeply enough to even come up with a decent objection on this In the absence of a state, there's no institution to ensure that we're all playing by the same rules.
	Do you think that we even ought to all play by the same rules?
	Can there be varying rules?
	What happens in the absence of an institution that levels the playing field as far as what the rules are that people abide by?
	Is this a question that came in from a listener?
	No.
	Well, why does anybody think we're playing by the same rules at the moment?
	Excuse me.
	Let me put my manly voice back on.
	No, I mean, we're not playing by the same rules.
	I mean, Mitt Romney pays what?
	15% tax?
	I mean, the rich pay who get most of their money from investment income tax at a far lower rate than people who actually go to work for a living.
	We're not playing by the same rules.
	I mean, the people on the inside in Washington don't play with the same rules.
	There's a pension scheme and a healthcare scheme for Congress people that would be illegal in the private sector.
	It's so lucrative.
	You and I don't get to create our own currency.
	You and I don't get to tax.
	You and I don't get to run up deficits and sell off the next generation to whoever will give us a six-pack and five bucks.
	So the idea that we're playing by the same rules as it stands is not true at all.
	But to give one minor example, it's like saying, well, if you don't have a central agency to ensure that all the cell phone companies will share each other's signals and data, then nobody will.
	But they do.
	If you don't have a central agency that says anybody who manufactures and builds railway tracks has to build it the same width as everyone else, then nobody will.
	But they do.
	All of this stuff happens if you don't have a central agency that says all internet service providers have to hand back and forth TCP IP packets the same way.
	Nobody will.
	People do it.
	They will standardize because standardization economically is efficiency.
	If you think that there's some better way to build railway tracks but 98% of the railway tracks are already built, that last 2% is not going to be a different width of railway track because no trains will be able to go on it.
	You will simply do that which is efficient.
	And you will standardize if you're not forced to.
	Now, as soon as standardization becomes enforced, then people attempt to capture that standardization for their own benefit through the power of the state.
	So the only way we can really get standardization—I mean— It's through the free market.
	I mean, you can go to an ATM in Zimbabwe or Paris or Moscow and get your money, but you can't use your government money in those places very easily.
	So the free market standardizes all the time.
	The government creates these fences and these monopolies that don't standardize.
	That's right, and the market, the free market, which I simply define as the sum total of all voluntary exchanges amongst individuals, it provides wonderful incentives and disincentives, and it is a regulatory institution in and of itself,
	in that when you're dealing with free markets compared to dealing with government regulations, which operate based on coercion, fear, the threat of violence, With the market, you're operating on the opposite of that, which is voluntary exchange, mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges where an individual wouldn't have engaged in the particular exchange had it not been for their benefit and the benefit of the party that they're engaging in.
	And you often find that actors in the market won't engage in undesirable behavior Because they'll soon find that their profits begin to fall.
	They start to lose favor in the eyes of the community.
	And here's a question from somebody that I often argue with about anarchy versus the existence of the state.
	And he always goes back to the roads.
	But what about the roads?
	And he makes the argument, well, if the roads are privately owned and the hospital is down the road, what if I built a road and only charged $10,000 to you and your hospital?
	And what about the people that couldn't afford to get to the hospital?
	Would they just die?
	Let me say that.
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, these kinds of scare scenarios are, you know, well, you see, if we free the slaves, what if all the crops rot in the fields and we starve to death?
	I mean, these kinds of scare scenarios, you can make up anything that you want, but the reality is that that's really not going to happen.
	It costs tens of millions of dollars to build a road.
	And if you – so you have to go for an investor, so you have to have a whole business plan, and those investors are not going to sign on to a business plan called let's charge $10,000 to build a road.
	People will set up helicopters if that happens.
	People will build another road right next to it and undercut it.
	That simply won't fly in a free market.
	Plus, the free market with the sharing of information that we have about people at the moment, if you're the kind of – I don't know what we can say on air – not so very nice person who's going to charge $10,000 to somebody who's really sick, then you're going to get a very bad reputation.
	People are not going to want to do business with you.
	You're going to be boycotted.
	You're going to be excluded from things.
	Investors are going to pull out and you're going to lose a whole bunch of money.
	And so the other thing too, of course, is that you don't build a hospital unless there are already roads coming to it.
	So when somebody wants to go and build a hospital, the first thing they want to do is make sure that there's easy and free access to get to that hospital and they'll have a 99 or 299 year lease to set all that stuff up.
	Nobody builds a hospital in the middle of nowhere and then says, gee, I hope people build the roads here eventually and I hope that they're not too expensive or whatever.
	This is all part of a social communal plan that people want to make things efficient.
	I mean, how would the hospital feel about having somebody charge 10,000 bucks for a ride to the hospital?
	Well, that would all have to be dealt with ahead of time.
	You wouldn't just build the hospital and then say, well, I hope that some, you know, financial pterodactyl comes along and starts charging people like crazy just to get to the hospital because that That would be really bad for you economically because people just spent $10,000 coming to your hospital, which means they have less money to spend on your operations, so you're going to go out of business very quickly.
	So this stuff all gets dealt with ahead of time through contract, through planning, through all of the interconnections between finance and investors and executives.
	I mean, people just go and make those decisions.
	Setting up these scare scenarios is, you know, okay, well, what if we all get hit by an asteroid?
	Then these questions don't matter.
	It's like, well, yeah, but let's just act as if they do matter.
	Yeah, one of the things I brought up to him to counter that notion, he happens to own his own small business, which gives transportation to passengers in the downtown Austin area on electric go-karts.
	And I asked him, well, are you charging $10,000 for your customers?
	No, you're not, because you wouldn't have any customers and you'd go out of business.
	And the beauty about the market and the price system, why it's so valuable when left to Thank you.
	worthwhile, they're worthwhile, the business man, the price will equal out to what people are able to afford and there'll be a nice delicate balance there where hopefully everybody wins unless the state of course gets involved.
	Now we're going to take a short break here in a sec but I want to get out one last topic before we move on to talking about the social issues that are involved with non-violence and your system of ethics regarding interpersonal relationships and parenting as well, raising up the next generation.
	But back to the stateless society, one of the problems that people have is with the provision of justice.
	So in a stateless society, if actor A goes out and steals from or engages in fraud against actor B, and you don't have monopoly judicial systems or injustice systems, as many people call them, What happens, and more importantly, what happens when one of the individuals refuses to participate or refuses to go along with whatever the ruling was from whatever agency is handling that problem?
	Tell us about your dispute resolution organizations and what happens when someone wants to be stubborn and not comply.
	Well, okay, so we can see these things already in operation among PayPal, among Visa, among eBay, and all of these kinds of things.
	I mean, so if you go to some foreign country and somebody shafts you with some bill that you didn't want, I mean, you're calling the cops in Belize saying, listen, can you go deal with this?
	It's never going to happen, right?
	So the first thing to recognize is the state is not providing justice as it is.
	I mean, if anyone – the only people who think that the state provides justice are people who've never tried to get justice through the state.
	I mean, they're just living in this world of, well, it's written down somewhere and it seems to be true, therefore it must be true.
	But the moment you try to use the government for any kind of justice, you realize that it's a con game, you know, skewed towards the rich and it's going to bleed you dry.
	It's there for the benefit of lawyers and it's there for the benefit of prisons.
	It's certainly not there for the benefit of justice.
	So we're not getting justice through the state anyway.
	We can see tons of ways in which, you know, if you call out visa and you say, well, somebody over – they charged me wrongly.
	I'm going to protest this.
	The visa will go deal with it.
	They'll give you your money back or if you launch a problem in PayPal, they will go deal with it.
	They'll get your money back even if it's 20 bucks.
	The government will never do that for you.
	The reputation system in eBay is very important.
	If you've been doing eBay business for five years, you've got a perfect rating.
	Everybody knows that you didn't do that in order to shaft the next guy out of 100 bucks, So the reputation system is very important.
	You simply deal with this stuff ahead of time.
	If you and I are going to engage in some business transaction, we simply set it up ahead of time.
	We say, look, here's what we're going to do.
	If we don't stand by this, we both agree that this third party is going to adjudicate and we buy insurance in case either one of us welches on the deal, right?
	So if I welch out of the deal, you go to the third party, which we both agreed on, the third party rules against me, sorry, yeah, rules against me and therefore you're owed a million bucks and I don't pay it, they'll pay it for you because that's the insurance that you set up, you pay a little bit ahead.
	Now, what is my result?
	Well, the result is that nobody is ever going to insure me again for any kind of transaction.
	I mean, any kind of transaction, including renting a house, Getting a car, maybe even buying gas or groceries.
	Until I make restitution, until I do something to make it right, it's very easy to exclude me from the economic life as a society.
	And that is much more of an effective way of dealing with things than basically victimizing victims again by charging them taxes to put people in jail who've already victimized them.
	I mean, that's not the right thing to do.
	So all of these things can be dealt with in a much more peaceful manner, in a manner that is much more compatible with the principles of justice and virtue, and which will actually achieve the things which can get done.
	I mean, the only time I've ever contemplated any kind of legal action was about, I don't know, 12 or 13 years ago, and I was told that it was going to cost about $300,000, and it would take about 10 years, and there was no guarantee.
	So anybody who thinks that the government is able to provide any kind of justice at the moment It's ridiculous.
	We ended up going to private mediation, which worked fine.
	So this is just how it's going to work.
	Because it's not working now, right?
	Yeah.
	We recently had an opportunity to venture into the arena of stateless asset retrieval.
	Because when we were out of town in Kansas City, somebody happened to lift our barbecue pit.
	Nice smoker.
	Cost me about $250.
	Had it for about five or six years.
	It's a prized possession of mine.
	I don't have too many nice possessions, but I really love this barbecue pit.
	And we get a call while we're out of town from a friend that was watching the house that says, hey man, what happened to the barbecue pit?
	Did you guys take it with you?
	No, we didn't.
	So rather than calling the police, we decided to put a sign up on the mailbox that said, someone stole our barbecue pit.
	We're offering a cash reward for information.
	Please call this phone number.
	And it also said it in Spanish because in our neighborhood there's a lot of Spanish speakers.
	And it turns out less than five minutes after the sign was posted on the mailbox, Somebody that has been staying with the neighbor walks across the street and says, hey, the guy that owns the house said that we could borrow the barbecue pit, which was, of course, a lie.
	So the person that was watching the house walks across the street and retrieves the barbecue pit.
	I later go back and have a discussion with them in broken Spanish and tell them I don't appreciate it.
	I don't want to be afraid of you guys coming on my property.
	I'd rather us be friends and you watch over my property and call me if something like that were to happen.
	But the point is, rather than calling the police, which likely would have resulted in the person who stole the barbecue pit getting afraid and maybe not returning the barbecue pit out of fear of going to jail, we decided to handle it in a peaceful manner without relying on coercive state institutions, which normally don't even solve the problem, and we ended up solving it in a peaceful way.
	And maybe in the future we'll have a better relationship with the neighbor across the street.
	So yeah, I mean, people find often that whenever they go to the state to solve their problem, they actually end up with more problems than they started with.
	Yeah, I mean, I've had the same experience.
	Loading some stuff into my car.
	When I used to live in an apartment building, I left a vacuum cleaner because I was too full and my arms were too full.
	And when I went back to get it, it was gone.
	And I put a note up.
	Of course, I called the cops because I was concerned about insurance.
	And this is back when I was still a minarchist.
	And they said, oh, it got legs.
	Well, we'll write down that this happened.
	Well, that's great.
	You know, I don't really need a short story.
	I just need a vacuum cleaner.
	So I put a note up and then the next morning right in front of my door was the vacuum cleaner.
	So yeah, I mean there's lots of different ways to deal with it.
	But the problem is when you think you have a solution but you don't, that's really the worst place to be.
	We think we have solutions for the roads, for justice, for national defense, for dispute resolution, for contract enforcement, for protection from aggression.
	We don't have those solutions.
	We only have the appearance of solutions and solutions.
	Once we let go of the idea that these problems are being solved at the moment, we can begin to be creative.
	But right now, trying to sell anarchism is like trying to sell an appetizer to somebody who's just finished a nine-course meal.
	They're like, no, no, no, I'm full.
	I'm full.
	I've got everything I need.
	It's like, you really don't.
	That was just wax food, and now you're going to have horrible gas, and I can sell you some ex-lax, too.
	So that's sort of where we are, but trying to get people out of the idea that we have solutions to these things already is, I think, the first challenge.
	For sure.
	And it's definitely a challenge, especially with public schools, which we'll chat about alternatives to that here after a break.
	But first, somebody asked online if you've heard of the Enneagram Institute, which is an online reputation service, which is already carrying out exactly what you spoke about before with eBay and other institutions.
	Have you heard about these guys?
	No, I haven't, but there's another online reputation system called Google, which also will tell you some things, maybe true or false, about any individual you type their name into.
	And people do this all the time now that they, if you go for a job, people will Google you and so on.
	LinkedIn is another way that people will trade reputations.
	There's clout where people would trade reputations and all that.
	So, I mean, one of the things that's happened with the advent of The internet is the ability to exchange information about people, right?
	So the old thing used to be like there'd be some con man in the Old West with this big oily Salvador Dali mustache and possibly a bald cat in his bag, I don't know.
	And so he'd go and scam people in one town and then he'd just go to another town and pretend he was someone else and so on.
	You really can't escape reputation very easily now with the internet if you have any kind of online presence.
	And if you don't, then that's usually a red flag for people as well.
	You know, we want ethics to be—ethics is like nutrition.
	It's not like open-heart surgery.
	Ethics is all about preventing problems, not—I mean, if you're having a heart attack, you don't call a nutritionist, because a nutritionist is going to say, A, call a doctor, B, you should have changed your diet 20 years ago.
	Now it's too late, right?
	So it's all about the prevention of problems.
	And people who invent these sort of artificial disaster scenarios, you know, what if the druggist won't sell you the drug to save your wife and blah, blah, blah.
	This is all after-the-fact stuff.
	Or what if there are 10,000 axe murderers in a town?
	Well, this is all after-the-fact stuff.
	You know, through peaceful parenting, through non-violent relationships, philosophy encourages us to prevent these problems from coming about.
	But it's hard for people to get to understand because we have a system that's entirely around solving problems that already exist, that makes no money from preventing problems from coming into being.
	In the free market, you make money from preventing problems.
	Under the state, you make money from pretending to solve problems that you have, in fact, created.
	That's right, which merely perpetuates the problem.
	We're going to go ahead and take a short break and hear from some of the underwriters that make this show and everything we do here on KDRP Community Radio Possible.
	And on the flip side, we're going to be getting deep with Stefan Molyneux, On applying this ethical system and applying the philosophy of liberty and non-aggression, not only to the political arena, but what I believe, more importantly, within our own personal lives, within our relationships with family, friends, co-workers, and ultimately, if we are to create a better world, I think it all begins with our children, and we're going to chat about just that.
	Stefan Molyneux of freedomainradio.com.
	I'm your host, John Bush.
	We'll be right back after a short break.
	Welcome back to the show.
	Welcome back to the Rise Up Radio show, where they're teaching kids that George Washington was a good man, that George W. Bush was a good man, and now that President Barry Sortero was a good man.
	And in the public schools, they're teaching people that government is a virtuous and moral institution.
	Which then leads children and whole generations to essentially believe that government is infallible.
	If it has a shiny badge, then we better listen up.
	But thankfully, there's scores and scores and more and more, it would seem, more and more people that are choosing to raise their children in a different way than what society has seemed to make the norm now.
	And Stefan Mullen is doing just that.
	Stefan works from home, and I take it you're doing the interview from home right now, and that's your daughter there hanging out in the background.
	Tell us about your daughter.
	Tell us about your family.
	Well, I have a wife and a spawn, and I've been a stay-at-home dad for almost four years.
	And it's just, I mean, it's wonderful.
	And, you know, one of the things that I think is really fundamental to ethics, to virtue, to doing the right thing is...
	You know, I was in the mall the other day and I was just looking at a bunch of, you know, those Hallmark cards, those greeting cards.
	And, you know, all it really takes for the world to be a peaceful and happy place is for us to bring those Hallmark cards to life, right?
	So you get Hallmark cards, you know, for your kids and it's like, you mean the world to me.
	My life is immeasurably enriched by knowing you.
	You're the best thing that ever happened to me.
	There's nothing I wouldn't do for you.
	Like all those sentiments that we Have in Hallmark cards and we will often say to ourselves and to our children and so on.
	I mean, what if, what if those were just The axioms, the physics, the gravity that we operated our lives by.
	I just think that would be, that's all we need to do.
	Or if we just, you know, we've had thousands of hours of training on peaceful parenting by looking at sitcoms where nobody ever hits their children or screams at them or spanks them or anything like that.
	What if we just stepped into a sitcom or stepped into a Hallmark card and make that stuff come to life?
	I think that'd be fantastic.
	So, of course, as a dad, and this is true of the household as a whole, of course, we don't spank.
	I've never raised my voice at my daughter.
	I've never threatened her.
	Haven't punished her.
	And this is exactly how I think it should be.
	I mean, the extension of full-on personhood to children is, I think, the last great major barrier that we have to the extension of personhood.
	Obviously, we've extended it to slaves, thus making no slaves.
	We've extended it to children.
	So, women making them full participants in society and we've extended it to other minorities.
	We haven't extended it to children and we haven't extended it to government, just making them people, full personhood.
	And in fact, I would argue that children have the most need for personhood because they have the least choice, the least independence.
	You know, I mean, you can choose your spouse, you can choose your friends, you cannot choose your parents.
	And so, where the power disparity is greatest, which is parent-child, is the greatest power disparity in the world.
	That's where we need the most ethical sensitivity and where other people have the least choice, we need the most ethical sensitivity.
	Like if my wife was somehow assigned to me by some horrible social mechanism, if I wanted her to love me as if she'd chosen me, I'd need to be extra super special, wonderful to overcome the fact that she wasn't there by choice.
	And so my daughter is not here by choice.
	She can't leave.
	I have to have the greatest and highest moral standards when it comes to parenting.
	If I'm a jerk to my wife, she can leave me.
	If I'm a jerk to my daughter, she just kind of has to stick it out.
	And so I need the highest moral standards where the power disparity is greatest, parent-child, and where the choice of the other is the least, which is, again, parent-child.
	But we kind of have the opposite in our society, where Parents have the lowest moral standards with regards to their children so often.
	I mean, 80-90% of parents are still spanking, which is just another word for hitting, their children.
	And, you know, deciding to go to work even though the kids really want them to stay home and, you know, basically farbing them off on low rent, minimum wage third parties to, quote, raise.
	And what if, what if we just put children at the front and center of the decisions that we made?
	And what if we had the highest ethical standards with regards to our relationships with our children?
	I mean, I guarantee you within a generation or two, there would be no war.
	There would be almost no crime.
	There would be almost no drug abuse or addictions which come directly out of difficult childhoods.
	And there certainly would be no state because we would not grow up afraid of authority.
	Yeah, people would grow up with love and compassion and incentivization and doing things based on virtue, and they wouldn't grow up with fear and hate and violence and coercion.
	We do have a caller here, and I'm going to try my best to get you to be able to hear the question.
	So, caller, are you with us?
	I actually agree with what he's saying.
	It's something that I've been trying to preach about for a really long time.
	People need to address their own lives.
	you know, like do your own house cleaning.
	I mean, like, you know, I didn't do a lot of the Occupy stuff since it started anything before, but there's a lot of focus on, you know, the banks.
	There's a lot of focus on the corruption on Wall Street.
	And, you know, I'm always trying to get people to look, you know, like, you know, you've got to scale down.
	You've got to scale down to what's right in front of you.
	And, you know, I notice a lot of people, they're not really looking at that stuff.
	You've got to look closely.
	And it's not comfortable.
	So, you know, granted, you know, it's not comfortable for people to look at a lot of this stuff.
	But the family's disability for me has been one thing, again, like my whole life that I've been kind of an advocate for, you know, because the way that we raise our children, you know, like the way that I was brought up, again, was basically, you know, to be a slave and to go along with the system. was basically, you know, to be a slave and to And I tried to kind of, like, you know, like, protest that, you know, when I was really young.
	And I didn't get a lot of support for that at all.
	And, you know, so to me, it was not a surprise that we have arrived where we've arrived, you know.
	There should not just be blind obedience.
	We should not follow authority just because they have the position.
	And I knew that at a really early age.
	And I challenged authority.
	You know, you know what the body knows.
	The body knows.
	And then people need to listen to it.
	You need to trust it.
	And again, not just follow blindly any Yeah, for sure.
	Stefan, what are your thoughts?
	Well, I agree.
	I agree with the woman who agrees with me.
	But what I would say is, and she mentioned the Occupy Wall Street movement.
	And I mean, I appreciate and I understand the outrage at the financial system and all of that.
	And I think that's a good thing to be knowledgeable about.
	It's a good thing to talk about.
	But I would much prefer that these dreadlocked, wearing, semi-stinky hippie types go to every parent they know and everyone they know who's interested in becoming a parent and talk about the facts about spanking, that it lowers IQ, that it increases aggression, that it fractures parental bonds with the child, that it leads to...
	Both social and academic problems down the road and all of this stuff.
	I mean, even outside the ethics of just simply striking an innocent, helpless, dependent being, we understand that we don't hit puppies and call ourselves good people, but somehow we're able to hit human puppies and call ourselves stern disciplinarians.
	Just go to the people around you and get to the facts about discipline as parents.
	Get them the facts so that they have a different choice in how they were raised.
	I mean, if we can cut down spanking from 80% to 90% to 30% to 40% in a generation, then 0% to 5% and then 0%, fantastic.
	But it is a multi-generational process.
	Too many people have been too traumatized by churches, by parents, by public schools, by just the general sociopathy of our society.
	That trying to make a free society with the sort of potter's clay that we have at the moment is like trying to make a nice pot with a bunch of shards of granite.
	It's just not going to work.
	But we can encourage people to raise...
	A generation of children who are capable of reasoning, right?
	So difficulties in childhood lead to a physical incapacity fundamentally, almost near incapacity.
	Some choices can be made, but a near incapacity to process reason and evidence.
	And they can see this in brain scans quite quickly.
	People have impulses, they react to ideas emotionally, and then afterwards they construct narratives as to why that's the case.
	So people are responding to emotional triggers and then Calling their responses some sort of philosophy or some sort of reason or evidence.
	But it's not reason and evidence first.
	It is emotional impulse, emotional reaction, emotional recoil, emotional defensiveness.
	And then, you know, to go back to the guy with the $10,000 roads, then you invent reasons as to why your emotional response to the idea of a free society is so difficult.
	It all goes back to childhood.
	We can't reason with that.
	I sometimes feel like, and this is a reference that will be entirely lost upon your soul patch, But there was an old I Love Lucy episode where Lucille Ball and I think Ethel or whatever her name was, they were trying to get all these chocolates off of a conveyor belt in a chocolate factory and the conveyor belt kept coming faster and faster and faster and they couldn't keep up with all the chocolates coming out.
	And people say, well look, Ron Paul and other people were all converting people to voluntarism or libertarianism.
	It's like, well yes, but there's a conveyor belt called government schools which is pushing out people who are statists far quicker than we can convert them.
	We are losing that race.
	So it really does come down to peaceful parenting, negotiating parenting, respectful parenting, non-violent parenting, non-punitive parenting.
	And through that, we can build a generation, we can grow a crop of human beings who are able to drink in the sunlight of reason without emotional recoils.
	And I think that's the only way that it's going to verifiably win in the long run.
	That's right.
	If you're just tuning in, this is KDRP, The Rise Up Radio Show.
	I'm your host, John Bush.
	We're interviewing Stefan Molyneux, host of the largest philosophical conversation in the world and a strong advocate of the philosophy of non-aggression and peaceful cooperation.
	It's 9.55.
	We're going to go ahead and kick into 10 minutes overdrive, so we'll have Stefan through 10.10.
	If you want to call in, the phone number is 512-829-4680.
	And yeah, the sad thing is, you know, Ron Paul's waking a bunch of people up to the philosophy of liberty.
	You're waking a bunch of people up to the philosophy of liberty.
	All sorts of people that came before you and Ron Paul.
	But I have a feeling that most of these people don't live their lives in a manner consistent with the philosophy of liberty, and I posted something on Facebook, which is probably the most controversial post that, as a result of all the comments and all the bickering and discourse, it was very healthy and beautiful discourse, and I learned a lot from it, but essentially I said...
	You know, libertarians who spank their children are the worst kind of hypocrites because they think it's wrong for government to use force and violence or the threat thereof in order to change people's behavior, but they find it perfectly acceptable to do that very same thing with their own children.
	And the responses from so many people were justifying the spanking, and I asked multiple times for those of you who are making justifications of spanking your own children, Were you spanked as a child?
	Because my inclination is that there's a perpetual cycle that is continued on generation after generation after generation.
	And myself, I was spanked as a child, and I'm very excited to break that cycle and to use alternative methods.
	And most of these people came to the same conclusion, of course, that you always hear when you talk about these things, which are difficult for people to talk to.
	I wish people wouldn't be so defensive on these issues.
	We're all just trying to learn from one another and Create a better world here.
	But everyone says, well, what happens when the kid runs out to the streets?
	We gotta hit them when they run out to the street or else your kid's gonna get squashed by a car unless you use violence.
	It was made to seem like the only option.
	What are your thoughts on that particular thing and how, what tactics do you utilize in order to create disincentives for children harming themselves?
	Well, there's a magical new invention.
	I think it came out of Silicon Valley.
	It's very new.
	I think it's Java-based.
	It's called a fence.
	And these are remarkable wooden shields that can go between children and cars.
	I don't know if they work on electromagnetics or some sort of collar shock device.
	I believe they may have shown up in Huckleberry Finn.
	But these fence things, I mean, I can understand why parents had trouble in the past because they're so new.
	But fences can be a remarkable way to help keep your children safe.
	The other thing, of course, is that if you're...
	One sec, please, please.
	If you're close enough to hit your child, you're also close enough to stop your child from running in the street by just picking them up, right?
	So that's possible too.
	The other thing, of course, is that you don't take your children, when they're too young to understand a road, you don't take your children to a place where there are roads.
	I mean, go to a park, go to a beach, go to your backyard, wherever it is that you have to do, because it's all about prevention, right?
	If you have put yourself and your child in a situation where your child...
	Can expose himself or herself to danger.
	That is your failure as a parent.
	So people say, well, the child is reaching for something on the stove.
	It's like, well, there are these little fences you can have to keep your toddlers out of the kitchen while you're cooking.
	Your child is going to fall down the stairs.
	You can get the same fences for your stairs.
	These fence things are new, but they're quite remarkable invention in terms of parenting.
	Use the back elements of your stove.
	If your child is reaching for something hot on the stove, it's because you have failed to protect your child.
	You have failed to prevent your child from getting hit.
	Why did the child get hit for something that you do?
	That's like blaming the Palestinians for something that the Germans did in the 1940s.
	So the important thing is it's all about prevention.
	I have talked about roads with my daughter.
	We have practiced, you can go here but no further.
	We've talked about why.
	We've talked about, you know, that she's low, that the drivers can't see her.
	And she's never gone anywhere that is dangerous.
	She's never put herself in danger.
	So when they're too young to understand, it's your job to prevent them from getting into dangerous situations.
	And once they're old enough to understand, then you work with them for a long time beforehand.
	And the problem is, of course, if you think that hitting your children is a reasonable and a viable way to solve these kinds of problems, what happens is you spend a lot less time protecting them ahead of time, and you spend a lot less time reasoning it through with them because you have this option called hitting someone.
	And if you have this option called hitting someone, it eclipses or prevents you, really, From doing all of this other kind of stuff that you can do.
	Once you take violence out of the equation, as we saw with the free market over the last 200 years, once you take violence out of the equation, human ingenuity and creativity erupts, it explodes.
	But if you have violence in your tool bag, that tends to pretty quickly become the only thing you have in your tool bag.
	So denying or rejecting the use of aggression in parenting opens up a whole lot of other creative possibilities that are incredibly worth exploring.
	But I agree with you.
	I mean, the people who justify spanking, it's not the people who've been spanked.
	I mean, obviously, I think that it's mostly people who've been spanked, but that's not the true subset.
	It's people who've been spanked who never got angry about it.
	I did an interview recently with psychologist Robin Grill, and he referenced some research which said that the best way to break the cycle of abuse, the best predictor...
	For breaking the cycle of abuse is getting angry at mistreatment you experienced as a child.
	Anger, oddly enough, is the best way to solve the cycle of abuse.
	And so it's people who are justifying the violence that they experienced as children, and spanking is violence.
	It's people who justify it who tend to repeat it.
	The people who get angry at it and recognize that it was wrong behavior, this doesn't mean morally condemning your parents from here to eternity, but it does mean recognizing that it was wrong, bad, immoral behavior.
	Those are the people who can break the cycle of violence, but the people who justify it, then it repeats, it repeats, it repeats.
	That's right.
	And when you use violence as a means of preventing something or changing behavior, the children learn that that's not an activity you should engage in, not because of the intrinsic value or the intrinsic wrong of engaging in certain behavior, but because they're afraid that you're going to hit them.
	And in many instances, it may even increase the risk of them being harmed if they know If they don't go in the road because they're afraid of you hitting them, not because they know it's dangerous to their life.
	But we do have a call.
	We have Mary here on the line, and I'm going to go ahead and rig this up so you can hear the question.
	Mary, you're on the air with Stefan Molyneux.
	What's your question?
	Thanks for the question.
	Stefan?
	I'm afraid that murmuring was as soft as my pre-anarchy conscience.
	Could you just repeat the question?
	At first she was giving you much praise, which I'm sure you love to hear.
	And then she went into some questions, a series of questions.
	What are your views on guns?
	What are your views on protecting your property?
	What is your view on how you engage with criminals, drug addicts that may be seeking to harm you, your property or your family?
	What are your views on self-defense essentially?
	Oh, I think self-defense is perfectly morally justifiable.
	This is why the non-aggression principle is the non-initiation of force.
	Response in terms of self-defense is fine.
	I have no problems with gun ownership.
	And this is just a moral, logical, philosophical thing.
	You can't use guns to say that guns are bad, right?
	It's because...
	To ban guns is to give people a bunch of guns and saying, guns are really bad.
	We should not have them.
	It's like, but you just gave me all these guns and put me in a blue costume.
	So it's just a consistency thing.
	The ownership of guns is fine.
	Certainly the prevalence of guns and particularly concealed carry guns is strongly associated and correlated with reductions of prevention of crime.
	You know, criminals, particularly the sociopaths who have no conscience, they can't be stopped by moral rules.
	They genuinely are not stopped by abstract consequences.
	Their learning rates are very low in terms of their recidivism rate going back to jail.
	But they will be stopped by the immediate threat of force.
	So I think that's a fine thing to do.
	I think that anybody who is against gun ownership is fundamentally quite sexist because it is the great equalizer between a male aggressor and a smaller female.
	So I think that it's important to know this stuff.
	I think it's fine to learn.
	And as far as dealing with criminals and drug addicts, again, I'm all about the prevention rather than the cure.
	And I just say, get thee to a neighborhood where they're not They're not common, rather than walk around in fear.
	And of course, if you get involved, particularly these days, I mean, if you shoot someone in self-defense, dear Lord, I mean, I don't know what happened with the George Zimmerman thing.
	I don't think anyone does, but we do know there was a lot of lying and manipulation about it.
	But it sets you, it's not like then, oh, look, I've protected myself, so that's good.
	It's like you just set yourself up for a whole nightmare of legal complications.
	So I think self-defense is fine.
	I certainly have no problem with somebody who is defending their property.
	If somebody breaks into your house at night and you can't get them to leave, yes, of course, you protect yourself.
	I mean, the sanctity of life is very important.
	I have no problem with gun ownership.
	I don't mind if people want to own tanks.
	That's fine with me.
	I don't really want to live in that neighborhood.
	But if you want to have tank exercises in the park and you own the park or the park owner lets you, go for it.
	I think that not many people would want to do that.
	But I'm willing to let all of that stuff happen rather than create a centralized oligarchy of violence because whatever happens in a free society is never going to be as bad as what happens with this kind of top-down violence that we have with the state.
	Sure, sure.
	Here's a question from online from Justin, who's a big supporter of the local activist efforts here in Central Texas.
	He says, we have recently come into the light of unschooling and using the non-aggression principle in the realm of our parenting.
	We have faced many challenges here with our older children.
	We're also beginning to homeschool our 12-year-old.
	Question, what are ways to transition a child into this new paradigm of non-aggression and unschooling to start fresh?
	Specifically, how do we effectively reverse the damages we've caused our children with our past parenting method of praise and punishment?
	Right, right.
	It's a fantastic question.
	As a four-year-old parent, I hope everybody recognizes that I'm talking a little bit out of my armpits, but I'll sort of give you some theoreticals.
	I've got a whole podcast on this.
	But I think the most fundamental thing, of course, is to do exactly what we would like other people to do who've wronged us.
	To recognize that the wrong has been done.
	To not self-attack, right?
	To not self-attack because if you didn't know, you didn't know.
	Right?
	I mean, before there was antibiotics, you didn't prescribe antibiotics.
	Now, once you found out, unless you've never heard of them, so not to self-attack.
	If you didn't know, you didn't know.
	You know, if society said you send your kids to public school and you spank them and everyone around you said the same thing, then you didn't know what you didn't know, and I think it's important to be...
	To forgive yourself for that.
	At the same time, your children's experience is a little different because your children weren't propagandized and didn't know all of the quote theories around why you treated them the way you did.
	So I think genuine apologies, genuine restitution is really important.
	And then to recognize that you can no longer attack your children or criticize your children for not knowing what they don't know.
	Because you did some things that were not optimal as a parent when you didn't know something.
	So I think it's just having honest conversations about what went wrong.
	Talk to your children about your own childhood.
	I mean, I'll talk with my daughter a lot about my childhood because I want, well, I mean, for a couple of reasons.
	I think it's an interesting conversation topic.
	I also want her to know that I was a child, that I wasn't born six feet tall and 190 pounds or whatever.
	I grew up like she did, and I struggled and had questions just like she does.
	So talk about your own childhood.
	Talk about the childhood of your own parents if you're a parent, so that they can get a sense of the cycle and the continuity and the good and the bad that's in the gene pool and so on.
	And recognize as well, of course, that children, unfortunately, based upon our current idea, I can barely even call it an education model, They're very peer oriented because, you know, it's 30 to 1 or 25 to 1 kids to a teacher, so they're not adult oriented, they're peer oriented.
	And homeschooling and unschooling can create a sort of break in the feeding of the addiction of peer approval, so to speak, because they're not in amongst their peers as much.
	It's almost like a withdrawal.
	If you're just used to working with peers and having peer approval and navigating that social context, if you're then not in that peer situation, I think it's important to recognize that there may be a transition that's challenging.
	I don't know any particular ways to deal with that other than keep talking and keep listening.
	Unpluggedmom.com.
	There are lots of unschooling conferences.
	I'm going to be speaking at one in Texas in August.
	So there's lots of conferences.
	But, you know, plug into the groups around you.
	You aren't the only people to deal with this.
	And make sure you get in with as many groups around you, with as many compatible people as you can find.
	And talk about it with them.
	And talk about it with their kids.
	And talk about it with your kids.
	And I think just keep working through that transition.
	It is, you know, to unplug kids from a hierarchy is tricky.
	For sure, to unplug adults as well.
	You're listening to the Rise Up Radio Show on KDRP, LPFM, Dripping Springs, 103.1, KLZT, HD3, Bastrop, 107.1, K261, DW, Henley, Texas, 100.1, and K256BX, Lupinbox, serving the Fredericksburg area on 99.1 FM. We've got a couple minutes left.
	We're joined by Stefan Molyneux, Free Domain Radio.
	Sovereignliving.com with a bunch of wonderful insights on parenting, interpersonal relationship, and non-aggression.
	Stefan, people can use to live their life in a manner consistent with the philosophy of liberty, and that's called Sovereign Living, and the website is sovereignliving.tv.
	Again, that's sovereignliving.tv.
	I believe both you and I will be speaking at the Anarchy in New York City event coming up in February, right?
	That's correct.
	I already have my balaclava, my garbage can, and I've targeted all the Starbucks that you can imagine, both in and outside the city, so I'm really looking forward to a little bit of upper body exercising.
	Right on.
	All right, Stefan, thank you so much for joining us.
	Again, the website is freedomainradio.com, and it's always a pleasure to have you on the show, and I look forward to having you on again in the future.
	Thanks, John.
	It was a real pleasure, and my congratulations to your listeners.
	They had some fantastic questions.
	Excellent.

▲