Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 13, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:10:58

2328 We Hold in Our Hands the Cure for Evil - Stefan Molyneux Interviewed on the Radio

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Without further ado, it looks like we have Stefan Molyneux on with us.
	Thank you for coming back, Stefan.
	I'm always excited to speak to you.
	I am a big fan of your work.
	I think what you do is important.
	And I'll say this.
	What I think you do better than anybody else...
	And then I'll get done kissing your butt and I want to ask you some hard questions.
	But what I think you do better than anybody else...
	Because you persuade.
	And I don't know, you know, I could take a cheap shot and say, oh, it's just because of your accent.
	I don't think so.
	I think, you know, you are erudite, you do sound reasonable, but you're not abrasive.
	I mean, there's something that's just, if we could bottle some Molyneux and sprinkle it around, I think we could really get to kind of a libertarian utopia a lot quicker.
	And in fact, you just won an award with Gigi Bowman's organization.
	Isn't that right?
	Yeah, that's right.
	It's the 2012 Liberty Inspiration Award.
	And I posted some just wonderful emails that I got from people who listen to the show about how much good the show has done them and how much good philosophy is doing for them.
	And I mean, it's...
	It's gratifying.
	You know, internet media can sometimes feel like a long trek across a hot desert with nearly a waterhole in sight and nearly an oasis in sight.
	But every now and then you do get these, you know, just wonderful feedback loops where you really recognize how much what you're doing affects people positively, we hope, of course.
	So that was really nice.
	Well, and it's interesting, too, right?
	Because there was a day...
	Before you started Free Domain Radio, which again, the website is freedomainradio.com, is that right?
	That's right.
	Okay, so there's a day, you know, Stefan Molyneux is not doing what you do now, and then there's a day after.
	You know, what happened?
	What was it that kind of pushed you or that catalyst?
	Well, I mean, for those who are even vaguely interested in the backstory, I mean, I started in the art world.
	I was a writer, a playwright, an actor, and director, and all that kind of good stuff.
	And then I did some academic work, got a master's in history.
	And then I ended up in the business world for about 10 or 15 years as an entrepreneur.
	But I never lost the bug of philosophy, which I guess I'd started studying with objectivism when I was in my mid-teens.
	And I was having a debate with a colleague one day about the environmental impact of statist policies, and I just had like an epiphany.
	And it was an epiphany for me, though of course I found out that other people had got there first, but nonetheless it was an epiphany for me about how you could run society without a state, you know, with these wonderful combinations of insurance companies and peaceful parenting and raising kids to not be criminals and politicians, not that I want to repeat myself this early in the show.
	I had an epiphany, and that got me really started writing about political issues again, and philosophical issues, social organization issues.
	And I never, of course, had any intent, really, of becoming a podcaster.
	I didn't even know.
	Somebody said, podcaster, what is that, throwing beans around?
	Is that replicating yourself in some invasion of the body snatchers manner?
	I had no clue.
	But I started writing, started podcasting.
	I had a long commute to my job.
	I started podcasting in my car and eventually people said, hey, this is a good show.
	I'd like to donate.
	I'm like, really?
	Okay, how do we do that?
	And so people started donating and eventually it became enough that I was willing to take the leap and the risk to do it full-time and That was, I guess, about five years ago, four years ago.
	And it's just been a fantastic ride.
	I mean, the community is fantastic.
	I really enjoy speaking at events.
	The people I meet are wonderful.
	And it's been, I mean, it really has been a dream come true.
	Yeah, it's like I think Confucius said, you know, that if you do, you follow your passion and do that as a living, then you're never actually having to work in the traditional sense.
	Yeah, I mean, if I had won the lottery, I would be doing exactly what I'm doing now.
	Now, obviously, I'd be doing it in gold underpants and with, you know, massive diamond nipple studs, but basically it would be about the same, and that's a real gift.
	Well, then you would no longer be Stefan Molyneux, you'd be Jeffrey Tucker.
	Well, you may know more about his undergarments than I do.
	Well, I know.
	I don't know.
	I've just seen some...
	The only thing...
	I've never even met the guy...
	Actually, the one thing I will say about this, and he's a very smart guy...
	I actually worked at Laissez-Faire Books back in the late 90s, so even before he ever got involved with the organization, which I'm glad he did, but I saw some, you know, because he dresses in the bow tie and is very well-groomed and whatnot, but I did see the reason it popped into my head That particular imagery of the gold underpants was I did see something of him on a boat or something, and he still, even though he was in his swim trunks, had a bow tie somehow.
	Maybe it's a tattoo.
	We just haven't been able to track that code yet.
	No, Jeffrey brings to the libertarian movement the one thing that I feel that is sorely lacking, which is sartorial splendor.
	The man consistently looks like he could snap a pose and be a centerfold for GQ. And that is something that I can only aspire to since I'm drawn more towards, you know, sweatpants and mesh t-shirts.
	So it's just something I have to kneel before the master to learn and it's a good path to take.
	Yeah, the Liberty Movement, as I guess it's kind of taken on that name, is very amazing.
	And what I like about it is it does represent really what it's about and that is so many different types of people Largely getting along.
	Obviously, part of being libertarian or objectivist or anarchist or voluntarist or whatever is always having this bone to pick.
	Part of our problem is that organizing us is a bit like getting cats herded.
	But I want to come back after the break because I think you've done a tremendous job at doing just that, inspiring and leading.
	Guys, we're with Stefan Molyneux from freedomainradio.com.
	If you've got questions, give us a call.
	801-254-5855.
	We'll be right back after this break.
	break.
	Hold on, Stefan.
	All right, guys, we are back.
	I got the intrepid Stefan Mollen, you on with us right now.
	Stefan, are you still there?
	I sure am.
	Hey, thanks for joining us.
	So, okay, so you started out...
	And then one day you could take no more and you got a podcast.
	And I mean, you're like crazy blown up.
	Something like, I mean, your YouTube page is just out of control too.
	I mean, just rattle off some of the statistics.
	It's okay.
	I know you're not a braggart, but facts are facts.
	It's not bragging if you're speaking facts.
	Alright, so I guess we can haul out the numbers and slap them on the table.
	So we're over 50 million downloads as a whole.
	I don't know, 60-70,000 subscribers on YouTube.
	13 or 14 million YouTube downloads, hundreds of thousands of books.
	And this doesn't count any of the mirroring or other people's sites whose shows are downloaded and so on.
	And, yeah, I mean, I do a lot of speaking.
	I'm the host of Libertopia, a three-day event out in San Diego, which will be Labor Day weekend this weekend at libertopia.org.
	I'm going to be speaking in Texas, in New York, baby, in Las Vegas at freedomfest.com, and gosh, at an unschooling conference run by Dana Martin in August in Texas, and lots of, at an unschooling conference run by Dana Martin in August in Texas, and lots of, And so it's been, yeah, I mean, I think as far as podcasting goes, it's about the most you can hope for, and so I'm very pleased about that.
	Yeah, and now you're doing guest hosting gigs on, you know, kind of big syndicated radio shows, things of that nature as well.
	Is that right?
	Yeah, I mean, I've done a couple on Peter Schiff and hosted a couple of other shows.
	I mean, radio is an interesting format.
	I'm used to not being interrupted.
	And so, I mean, although I certainly respect advertisements, they are the founding drivers for supposedly free stuff.
	It's an interesting format to get used to, to watch the clock and to wrap things up in a sort of short segment.
	So I'm sort of getting used to it.
	And I've been on TV 20 or 25 times as well, talking about various ideas that generally don't hit the mainstream too often.
	So yeah, it's really...
	I mean, I take it very seriously as a sort of...
	Face of the movement, so to speak, that, you know, I try to, you know, take enough medication to not look insane.
	And as long as, you know, I can suppress the facial tics and the random libertarian barking, then I feel I've done the movement a good service.
	Well, and television's even worse because, sure, on live radio, you know, like you mentioned, you have, you know, advertisers and breaks and that thing.
	Then you have callers interrupting you.
	But TV is even worse because you've got to really put complicated concepts into a soundbite, which is an art form.
	Some people are particularly good at it.
	Maybe one of the guys on our team, quote-unquote, I say that loosely, but Judge Napolitano, brilliant at really making that happen on TV. So here's where I want to talk about some of the other things.
	One of the things that you turned me on to that I hadn't really been plugged into Was the whole peaceful parenting thing.
	That, I think, is really fantastic and one of the contributions, I think, that you make that really is exciting.
	And it's also controversial.
	I mean, a lot of people don't want to hear about it because it's such an emotional issue.
	Sure.
	Yeah, it is.
	I mean, but don't you just want to take the values that we all believe in?
	And the non-aggression principle is really foundational.
	That's sort of one side or the other side of respect for property rights.
	But don't you want to have the chance to take these principles I'd love to, love to if we could, wave a wand if I could, but massive social change and the idea of statism versus statelessness is the biggest social change in the history of mankind.
	Even huge but smaller changes like equal rights for women and the emancipation of slaves and so on, they took about 150 years at a minimum.
	We're not even inside of the starting line yet.
	This is not even a debate in society yet.
	So we're not going to live to see a world without a state.
	We're not going to live to see a world where the non-aggression principle is truly accepted in a universal way, not something just used to keep the cattle down so they don't fight the masters.
	So wouldn't you love to see a world without a state?
	Where the non-aggression principle held sway.
	Well, you can see that world.
	You can see that world, you know, south of your north wall, north of your south wall, under your roof, and in your life.
	And so spanking is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
	Verbal intimidation, emotional intimidation, threats of abandonment.
	Because children are helpless and dependent, they're all violations of the non-aggression principle.
	And so, if you want to be a parent who lives philosophically, if you want to be a liberty person who lives his or her values, then yeah, we can't change the rate at which the Fed is squatting over society and pumping out fiat currency from orifices that dare not speak their name, but we can control whether we spank our children.
	We can control whether we abuse people in our life.
	It is the great temptation of people who have ideals to get sucked into the stratosphere of ineffectiveness, to get sucked into focusing on things we cannot change.
	We cannot change people's perception of the value of government, not directly.
	I mean, we can make the case, but it's up to people whether they accept it or not.
	We cannot change foreign policy.
	We cannot change banking policy.
	We cannot change regulations.
	We can...
	Live peacefully within our own lives.
	And I would argue, not only is that a true enacting of the values we all share, but it is scientifically and statistically by far, by far, the best way to bring about the society that we all want to see.
	Yeah, I really like the ideas, and I've actually, because I've got three kids of my own under six years old, so I am endeavoring as best I can to, oh yeah, and I'm endeavoring as best I can to live that creed, because I think it is important.
	I think you're right, and what I like about you is that, you know, I think that we think very much along the same lines, because you're atheist.
	Now, I don't go quite that far, but it has nothing to do with God, because I'm Basically, agnostic atheists.
	For me, the agnosticism is more about claims of knowledge than it is about...
	If I were to bet money, I'd pretty much bet that there was no person in a robe giving commandments from upon high.
	But what I like about...
	We're not talking about the Supreme Court, are we?
	What's that?
	We're not talking about the Supreme Court, are we?
	Robes on high, giving orders.
	Yeah, let's hope not.
	No, you need to interpret the Constitution the exact way we tell you at the end of a gun.
	No, you know, but what I like is that I think you and I have come to, and we talked about this on the last show a little bit that you were on here, that we've come to a lot of the kind of exact same conclusions, because I think we also talked about circumcision the last time, and this kind of, I think, dovetails with the peaceful parenting.
	But I think also, if I remember correctly, and forgive me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but, you know, I'm effectively, I'm an agnostic.
	I really don't believe that there's any...
	I'm a religion that isn't a fairy tale, that isn't just folklore.
	But yet, I am pro-life.
	I don't believe in abortion.
	Now, that doesn't mean I necessarily want the state to stop people from doing it.
	I just don't think that it's right, and I don't think that we know for sure when life begins.
	But if we did find a single cellular organism on Mars, we'd certainly say that life exists on Mars, and I can't see why that wouldn't happen.
	Science can't concede that that's the same in a woman's womb.
	You're pro-life, isn't that right?
	Yeah, I mean, it's a difficult topic, of course, because it's been so taken over by Roe v.
	Wade and other sort of legislative presidents.
	So, I mean, abortion is a disaster.
	Abortion is obviously a disaster.
	Now whether it's a worse disaster than a woman giving birth to a child she doesn't want, I don't know.
	But it is certainly a disaster.
	And in a free society, there would be of course ways to mitigate this disaster.
	So for instance, couples who can't have children would be able to pay For a woman who got pregnant and didn't want it, right?
	So right now, of course, giving a child up for adoption is a horrendously complicated process, and in many cases you can't pay.
	Well, it's called labor for a reason.
	It's a lot of work to grow and push out a kid.
	And so what we want, of course, is a society where there are as few abortions as possible, And we also want a society where children can be easily transferred from a home where they're not wanted to a home where they're wanted.
	Getting the red tape of adoption out of the way.
	Yeah, I mean, kids who are adopted do as well psychologically as kids who weren't adopted.
	Kids, unfortunately, born to single-parent households do really badly on average compared to children born to a sort of stable couple in a home.
	So, yeah, we want to minimize abortion as much as possible.
	It's a heartbreaking thing to do.
	I mean, what a terrible thing to do to have an invasive procedure that kills children A growing child in your own body and sucks out the contents.
	I mean, it's truly science fiction horror stuff, an abortion.
	And so we want to find ways in which to minimize it.
	I mean, just making it illegal is as ridiculous as banning drugs.
	I mean, I think we all would like there not to be drug addicts, but making it illegal just makes it worse.
	The welfare state tends to promote sexual irresponsibility and this tends to really change the kind of traits that are looked for by women and by men in their partners.
	They tend to go for a superficial charm, physical attractiveness, rather than I mean, what a catastrophe!
	So, yeah, I mean, I definitely, gosh, I mean, who wouldn't say?
	All things considered, yeah, let's have as few abortions as humanly possible, and there's lots of ways to get that done, but they all involve dismantling the power of the state.
	Yeah, it's very interesting, too, because, you know, as a libertarian that is pro-life, then you have to come to the conclusion that you realize banning things really is not the way to effect change.
	In fact, if you ban things, it makes it worse somehow.
	I mean, who knows the exact mechanisms, but you ban...
	And then all of a sudden, it just turns it into a bigger disaster than before.
	Well, premarital sex used to be controlled by social pressure.
	I mean, it was disgraceful to have a baby outside of wedlock, and people in good society would have trouble respecting you and your family after that, because it was also a mark of parental dysfunction.
	And the reason that there was so much social pressure put on women to not have kids outside of wedlock, or at least outside a committed man...
	It was because the parents generally had to pay for the child, like the parents of the woman who had the child outside of wedlock.
	She'd come and live with them, they'd be up all night, they'd have to pay a fortune, she wouldn't be able to work.
	And so because the economic consequences of bad family planning decisions accrued to the family, families as a whole put a lot of pressure on kids to not get pregnant.
	And when the welfare state comes in, that all changes.
	That all changes.
	When the welfare state comes in, a woman can make a career out of having babies.
	I mean, I hate to put it that bluntly, but that is the reality, not just of the theory, but of the practice.
	The economic pressure to work as a society to minimize out-of-wedlock births is vaporized, or rather is corroded away.
	By the welfare state.
	And it fundamentally changes people's ethics.
	Now, I mean, it's considered really hostile towards women to criticize them for having children outside of wedlock, despite what all the data says.
	And it changes men's desire to get ahead in life, to get an education, to get a job, because they're not required to pay for kids anymore.
	And it's a catastrophe.
	Yeah, it really institutionalizes the...
	The breakup of the family and the values and the social pressure.
	When you don't have that and you have to bear the cost, freedom and responsibility are effectively the same thing.
	I totally get that.
	And what else that I find that I've seen you talking about, which really, for me, is such a powerful topic and I don't think enough...
	I think people who get turned on to liberty and kind of the big The two gateway drugs, as I've seen it historically, was one, Ayn Rand.
	She was the big gateway for most people to come into liberty, and whether they stay objectivist or move on or whatever.
	And now the second one is Ron Paul.
	And as such, I get it.
	People in the liberty movement are very, very much focused on economics, on politics, and even philosophy.
	But one of the things I've seen you pick up on, and is one of my biggest influences, one of my biggest heroes, It's a cause that was really popularized, especially among those who are concerned with liberty, by Thomas Oz.
	And that is the dangers of the pharmocratic state of psychiatry, of this junk science that passes as psychiatry nowadays.
	I've seen you post some great stuff on that.
	Oh yeah, I mean, this is monstrous.
	Love of children is hatred of the state.
	And anybody who doesn't hate the state, or fear the state, or at least have significant moral problems with the state, is, I would argue, either deficient in knowledge or deficient in affection for children.
	Because the children are the ones who suffer the most under statism.
	The children suffer because the state has corrupted the family.
	The children suffer because they're born half a million dollars in debt.
	They're born owning a house made out of ashes and crushed up bureaucratic retirement plans.
	And they then shipped off to daycare because the state taxes parents so much that they both have to work.
	one for the family and one for the state.
	So we have only half serfdom.
	And they then get shipped off to these absolutely appalling, appalling government schools where their brains are just minced into a Pink Floyd sausage-like goo paste, which is then perfectly able to be ordered around for the rest of their lives.
	And so the children who don't fit into the incredibly boring, incredibly stifling, incredibly conformist, incredibly alienated public school system, well, what do they get?
	They get drugged.
	I mean, isn't that astounding?
	I was just saying this on my last Sunday show.
	Like, can you imagine some entrepreneur saying, well, you see, we've got this great cereal for kids, you see.
	It's made out of broccoli and Brussels sprouts.
	And the people will say, well, I don't think kids will want to eat broccoli and Brussels sprouts for breakfast, however good it might be for them.
	And he's like, no, no, don't worry.
	You see, if the kids don't like my broccoli and Brussels sprouts cereal, we're going to include a drug in it.
	That makes them like it, or at least makes them not dislike it.
	I mean, people would say, are you kidding?
	If the kids don't like the products we're providing, we don't get to drug them?
	That's monstrous.
	That's evil incarnate.
	Well, this of course is SSRIs in the public school system.
	Public school system sucks.
	And what's scarier is with these child protective agencies, if you don't drug your children, then the state will take them from you.
	And if you do, they'll pay you for an additional disability welfare payments because your child is now disabled.
	So, I mean, this has nothing to do with the free market.
	This is trying to get children who are stimulated in the private sector and their brains are killed in the public sector.
	Because kids these days get amazing toys.
	They get iPods, iPads.
	Children's television is very bright and very animated.
	So in the free market, they're incredibly stimulated.
	And then they walk whack into the brain-deadening, gray-paste jello goo of the public school system where it sits still, raise your hand, go to the washroom like a damn prisoner.
	And, of course, they don't have dads.
	They don't have a lot of these kids.
	And so they don't learn focus.
	They don't learn masculine bonding and responsibility and concentration.
	And then it's just toast.
	They drug them because they won't fit into a system that doesn't work.
	Brilliant stuff.
	Stefan Molyneux, check out freedomainradio.com.
	Stefan, hold on after this break.
	I want to get into some other deeper issues, things where we may not agree.
	I'm just curious how powerful your persuasive powers really truly are.
	Come on back, guys.
	Hit me.
	All right, guys, we are back.
	Please patronize our sponsors and keep the lights on.
	By the way, Turtle Tough Shed specifically sponsoring this show.
	I've got my bug out shelter now with those guys.
	I mean, really cool, man.
	Those GZ Domes, totally portable, made out of like the same stuff in the Denver International Airport, those 10 things.
	Tougher than heck.
	We've got Stefan Molyneux with us.
	Stefan, are you still there?
	I am, I am.
	Brilliant.
	Thank you so much again for spending this time with us.
	And yeah, I know it is certainly different than podcasting.
	You've got to keep an ear until these breaks, so I'll try to hopefully feed you cues every once in a while.
	But I really have enjoyed what you're able to do, because you know what I'd like, and I'd like to maybe run through a few of the subcultures within Liberty to see what you're But I think
	one of the ways we could possibly clone you Now, I'm not sure how old you are.
	I'm going to be 40 this year.
	So when I was a kid, there was this TV show that I just adored called Max Headroom.
	And I'm thinking, we need to get somebody who's like a CGI person.
	We need a Max Molyneux.
	Right.
	It's totally doable.
	Well, I am CGI-friendly.
	Look, I am CGI-friendly because without lots of waving golden hair...
	You look like him, man.
	You look like Max Headroom and you sound like him without the stutter except you're real.
	You're not CGI and we could clone you and put you everywhere.
	Right.
	Well, as I said, I am CGI friendly because animating hair is really tough.
	And it takes a strong breeze to get my eyebrows waving, which is usually not the case when I'm in front of the camera.
	So I am, you know, with my sort of bullet East German robot Nazi head.
	I think I'm actually quite CGI friendly.
	In fact, some people have actually animated my head or created sort of 3D animations of my head.
	One guy sent me a very interesting doll that was taken from my photos and recreated, a little mini-me, and he does my shows for the tiny people.
	And so, yeah, I think of all the Liberty activists, I would be pretty much the easiest to animate.
	Okay, so I'm thinking that to get a Max Molyneux out there, though, we're going to probably have to cozy up to the transhumanists.
	Do you follow what they're about?
	Do you know who the transhumanists are?
	I've heard the phrase, and are they robot-melting people, or are they longevity people?
	Yeah, these are the Kurzweil types.
	They do have a strong libertarian flair.
	I knew a number of them when they were back in the Bay Area.
	I was back there when I was working at Laissez-Faire in the late 90s or whatever, and they're Their idea is that man and technology will merge and eventually immortality can be attained by leaving, shedding the mortal coil and uploading yourself to a computer.
	Well, I think that all sounds fantastic.
	You know, I guess the flavor of Mac or Windows would be the question.
	Having just upgraded to Windows 8, I would probably go Mac.
	But, I mean, I think that sounds fantastic.
	I mean, I'm sure it would be quite disorienting, although I'm sure they would try to make the robots as human-feeling as possible.
	But, you know, I'm all for immortality.
	I'm just going to hedge my bets by trying to live each day to the max as I can.
	It's great if we get there, but just on the off chance we don't.
	I don't want to have been twiddling my thumbs waiting for the train that doesn't come.
	Well, my other concern with that is, how do you actually know that you didn't just die and there's this computer that seems like you, and how do you actually know the consciousness actually transformed into this digital format?
	That's what would concern me.
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	What is your take on the tea party?
	Well, the Tea Party is a wonderful instruction on the Lord of the Rings that is politics, right?
	So the Tea Party is a wonderful way of saying intelligent, educated, well-meaning people who have a good, solid set of minarchist ethics attached to their utility belts have been swallowed up by the system without much of a burp and have now become some of the largest...
	Earmark grabbing, trough snouting, entitlement grabbing pigs in Washington.
	And so it's just a wonderful example of how politics just doesn't work.
	The system is incredibly flexible and is willing to accept small government ideologues because it knows that those small government ideologues We'll come into the party and we'll make people think that change is occurring while they're getting swallowed up by the exact same politician-munching Borg beast of the state that everyone before them has fallen into.
	So it's a wonderful way of deactivating people who might actually be advocating for real change.
	And so then, alternatively, Occupy Wall Street.
	Any real difference, or is it pretty much the same thing?
	Well, I mean, they occupy Wall Street.
	You know, I sort of credit.
	I did a show with Tom Woods about this.
	You know, I sort of give them credit for getting upset.
	But, I mean, they're like a blind man at a shooting gallery.
	I mean, they're doing more damage than good because they haven't studied that which they oppose.
	And they're just spouting off the worst excesses of Marxist clichés that you could imagine.
	We want a guaranteed national income.
	You know, we want free nipples for everyone who wants them on their backside.
	You know, it's all just wishful thinking.
	I mean, this big bag of magic that they consider to be the state is not going to produce anything except horror.
	And so everyone tries to grab the ring.
	I mean, we're so conditioned to think that politics, even libertarians are this way, so conditioned to think that only politics will save us.
	Only if we get the ring can we defeat the evil empire.
	But the reality is the ring has to go into the fire.
	Nobody can grab that ring.
	I mean, even Ron Paul is using the power of the state to try and grab back his domain names now.
	I mean, I don't fault the guy for his knowledge of free markets and libertarians, but this eminent domain seizure in the literal sense is really unworthy of the ideals.
	But this is what happens when you get involved with the state.
	Yeah, and go look.
	We maybe have to probably give a caveat here.
	Both you and I are hardcore liberty advocates.
	What we're discussing now when we are critical of stuff, it's like talking about our mom or something.
	Like, we could talk about her, but you talk about her, we'll punch you in the nose or whatever.
	Because, yeah, I think this whole thing with Ron Paul is rather disappointing.
	But, you know, when you really look at Ron Paul, I mean, and again, 95%, 98% of what he's done has just been great.
	But, you know, this kind of, this domain issue, this, you know, his defensive, what is it, Defense of Marriage Act, I mean, he's grabbed earmarks.
	I mean, he's less than perfect.
	But that said, he's done tremendous things.
	And again, I really credit him with being the new gateway drug now that Ayn Rand, I don't think, is the main gateway drug to liberty.
	I look at Ron Paul.
	And as such, I'm curious, shifting to the objectivist.
	You said you were an objectivist, or you started out that way.
	What happened?
	Or are you still?
	What has happened with that for you, philosophically?
	Well, I mean, objectivism is fantastic.
	It's a wonderful, wonderful philosophical framework.
	And I can't find fault with the metaphysics, like the study of reality.
	I can't find fault with the epistemology, the study of the nature of knowledge and its acquisition.
	With ethics, I don't find the objectivist theory of ethics, you know, that which is good for man's survival or man's nature, is not...
	It's not satisfying.
	Because, boy, politics is really good for some people's survival.
	I mean, if you look at the gene spread of Genghis Khan, I mean, he might as well loaded up an asteroid with sperm and shot it at the planet.
	I mean, that's how that success went.
	And, I mean, you know, Barack Obama is doing way better under a status system than he would under a free market system.
	Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, I mean, these were unremarkable people until they grabbed the power of the state.
	And now they've got, you know, postage stamps with their faces on them.
	They're all over the place.
	They'll live forever in fame followed by infamy when a free society comes.
	So I don't think that the ethical theory is particularly convincing.
	And I also find the politics pretty reprehensible.
	I mean, for a woman who said you should never initiate force against others to then defend taxation is such a rank contradiction.
	The only thing that I can excuse her for it is that she lived in a time where The study of anarchy would probably have ejected her from any kind of cultural relevance.
	So maybe it was a strategic decision.
	And of course, the society she portrays at the end of Atlas Shrugged is a society without a government.
	And then they design a society for everyone else with a government, which seems kind of elitist to say the least.
	But I think in politics it was pretty unforgivable.
	Also, the arguments she put out against anarchism were just careless and kind of vain.
	And she just kind of tossed out, well, we've got two competing police agencies and they wouldn't be able to resolve it, and therefore anarchism doesn't work.
	It's like, come on.
	I mean, she was a smoky, brain-fired-up Russian vixen of reason, and so she could have done a little bit better than that.
	She could have engaged, say, Murray Rothbard or some of the other people around her who could have given her her run for her money.
	But she's one of these people who kind of felt she had all the answers and the only thing left was refinement.
	And that's a very, very dangerous position for anyone of any intelligence to take.
	I mean, gosh, I'm six million miles from having all the answers.
	I'll never get there, even with immortality.
	And so I think being still open to question and criticism is something she wasn't able to maintain.
	You know, whether that was a result of a 30-year speed addiction or just surrounding herself with people who didn't challenge her, I don't know.
	I've tried to learn from sort of late-state objectivism in the cultivation of whatever community I'm a part of just to make sure that it stays self-critical and it doesn't harden into having the answers, but really focusing on a methodology for answering questions.
	We want to be the scientific method, not the scientific conclusions.
	Yeah, I think Ayn Rand is a great introduction and also, you know, helps get the pump-primed To think critically.
	But then, yeah, you're right.
	The ethics is really troubling.
	Her aesthetics is laughable.
	I mean, if it's not romanticism, I can't like it.
	I mean, it's just like...
	And some of the hypocrisy you pointed out, one of the things for me that was particularly annoying was the fact that she's talking about promoting independence of thought and all this kind of stuff.
	And yet, the second you exhibited any of that, you were excommunicated from her inner circle.
	I mean, it was rather troubling.
	Yeah, I mean, the idea that she was the most rational is, I mean, you know, a healthy snort of Socrates could have helped her overcome that.
	You know, the idea that we love the most rational, Ayn Rand is the most rational, therefore everyone must love Ayn Rand.
	I mean, that to me is just such a clear-cut case of narcissistic tendencies that it would be hard to argue any other way.
	Well, she was so nasty, she was so nasty, I'm sorry to interrupt, she's so nasty to so many libertarians and so snide that would be allies and anarchists that would be allies and She just makes these brash statements like how Immanuel Kant was evil.
	He was actually quite a genius guy.
	The categorical imperative is basically the golden rule.
	It's troubling because of the ending that does lead to inconsistency, I believe.
	Yeah, look, there's something in business which I learned pretty early on, which is you don't get to the top by knocking your competition.
	And, of course, if Ayn Rand was introducing a new theory of ethics, she was going to have to tackle Kant at some point.
	But simply calling him evil, as she did with, I think, Ehrlich and some other people...
	I think you can make the case against the arguments or the ideas, but to make the case against the person is to miss the mark.
	And of course, if you want to stake your claim out to come up with a radical new ethical theory, you're going to have to deal with some ethical theories that came beforehand.
	But just, you know, calling them evil and so on is not really the way to go about it.
	Because, I mean, you can't call somebody who formulates ideas evil.
	I mean, you can't.
	I mean, evil is fist to the face, knife to the stomach, you know, bullet to the head.
	That's evil.
	Like stuff which leaves permanent physical damage.
	You know, writing a book, no matter how egregiously bad the ideas may be, It is not evil.
	And the idea of a thought crime is something that's very, very dangerous to philosophy because it tends to stamp out inquiry.
	Yeah, I mean, you know, the fact is that I look at these Scottish Enlightenment philosophers like Smith and Hume and whatnot, and they were just so incredibly brilliant, and they didn't have to get nasty like that.
	Stefan, if it's okay with you, if it's not, I totally understand.
	I know you're a busy man, but I'd like to keep you over for one more break.
	Is that okay with you?
	Oh, listen, it's a real pleasure to me.
	It's a great conversation.
	I'm honored by the invitation, and I'd love to stay.
	Okay, brilliant.
	And guys, look, we're coming up on our break here.
	This is a longer break, but if you want to get in and get your calls in, are you okay taking calls as well, Stéphane?
	Yeah, I'd love to.
	If people want to ask questions, that's wonderful.
	Okay, guys, so we have four lines right now, and I'm going to open them up officially.
	8-0-1.
	2-5-4-58-55.
	I'll take them.
	First come, first serve.
	Normal caveat, if the line is busy, call back.
	If it's ringing, we'll get you right on.
	And I'll put you on with Stefan Molyneux from freedomainradio.com.
	Come on back after the break.
	Jake Shannon Radio Program.
	Ladies and gentlemen.
	The Revolution!
	Dear beloved, we are gathered today to give you this place called life.
	Electric word, life, it means forever, and that's a mighty long time, but I'm in a second.
	It's something else.
	This is the James Shannon Radio Program.
	He's the man to see when you are ready to be free.
	He is your salvation from social engineering.
	Wrestling historian, raconteur, provocateur, entrepreneur.
	He's the libertarian hypnotist, Jake Shannon.
	This is the end.
	Hold your breath and count.
	All right, guys.
	Welcome back.
	That is the new...
	Welcome to my show intro for the second hour.
	Yes, it's over the top, but if you can't have fun, I mean, what the heck is the purpose of anything, really?
	We've got with us today, and this is an exciting day.
	We're starting our third year right here on K-Talk, third oldest talk radio station in the country.
	So kind of exciting to have a foothold for libertarian radio over the radio waves, but we're also online and Podcast, all that kind of stuff.
	And speaking of podcasts, I've got one of the biggest in the business with us, and that would be Stefan Molyneux.
	Are you there, Stefan?
	I am.
	Listen, I'm afraid you've given me a severe case of Princess Interruptus by playing the beginning of his song and not the bit.
	Well, my favorite bit.
	When you call up that shrink in Beverly Hills, you know, doctor, everything gonna be alright?
	Instead of asking him how much of your time is left, ask him how much of your mind is left.
	There we go.
	Things are much harder than in the end of life.
	In this life, you're on your own.
	Not only do we agree on a large number of things, you've got excellent taste in pop music, I have to say.
	Love that song.
	Um, okay, we've got a couple callers here been patiently holding.
	Are you okay taking notes?
	Hit him.
	Let's do it.
	Okay, okay, let's go to the phones.
	Uh, caller, you're on the air.
	What's your name?
	Stefan?
	No, no, what's your name, sir?
	I'm glad.
	How do you want to ask?
	Uh, what part of Ireland is Stefan from?
	Uh, I am from a town right in the middle of the south called Athlone.
	South, uh...
	So you'd be Catholic, right?
	No, we were the ruling class, surf-beating bastards, frankly.
	Protestant would be my side of the tree.
	Tell me, when I was in the Air Force, I spent about three years in England, and when I was there, a Vietnam War was going on, and the Pope, he lambasted the United States every day about the violence in Vietnam.
	He said nothing about the violence in Ireland, And they were killing each other, bombings right and left, and I'm thinking hypocrisy in this world is immense.
	Yeah, I mean, obviously in Vietnam, two to three million Vietnamese died, I guess 70,000, 80,000 Americans.
	The death count from the Irish, the troubles, was not quite so bad.
	But I distinctly remember as a kid, I don't know how old I was, maybe six or seven, but being expressly told at school to look out for unattended shopping bags in bus shelters and so on, and that Stuff was getting blown up.
	People were getting blown up.
	I think it's one of the first times where I really thought, I don't know that adults really have a handle on this planet if this stuff is going on.
	There must be something that they're not doing that's right.
	And then I learned all about the First and Second World War, and then I'm like, I definitely know that the adults do not have their handle on what needs to be done on this planet, because things seem to be quite a mess.
	Well, I'm an agnostic, just like the host here, the owner of the show.
	But Eileen...
	He leans, but there is no God.
	I'm a proud agnostic, but I'm leaning the other way.
	But I do not want to be converted to north, south, east, west, and I'm, like I said, a proud agnostic.
	Northern Ireland, what's the percentage of Catholics in Northern Ireland, would you say?
	Religion is a ruination of mankind.
	That's why I like Ayn Rand.
	The percentage of the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland, what would they be?
	Three-fourths, one-fourths, or what?
	Two-thirds, one-third.
	I couldn't even pretend to make a good guess at that, but there's enough of them that there's two sides of a firing line, and that is really tragic.
	Anyhow, I'm a libertarian.
	Ron Paul.
	I think his son, Rand Paul, I would vote for him, President of the United States.
	I think he's more pragmatic.
	We need a Tea Party president, let me tell you.
	Now you say, I hear what you're saying.
	You want everything all at once, but in gradual stages and steps, I get it, man.
	You get somebody in and we can change them later on.
	Everything's an evolution.
	You can't have your whole cup of tea all at once.
	It's a gradual process.
	Now Rand Paul would be beautiful.
	And I'm going to chip off the old block.
	I have a problem with libertarians.
	I am a libertarian, but their immigration policy is come one, come all.
	You hold up a sign.
	There's only 310 million.
	Hold up a sign and advertise for a month straight.
	Boy, it's throughout the world.
	Just get here.
	We won't send you back.
	And we'll have a billion people here in 10 years.
	We've lost our birthright.
	Okay, sir, you know, you kind of opened up like 10 cans of worms.
	I'm going to try to let Stefan squish all those worms back in the can.
	And do you mind if you can maybe listen to his response on the radio?
	All right.
	Alright, I appreciate it, just because I've got a switchboard lit up of people, and I want to get to everybody to get a chance to talk to Stephon.
	I'm sure I'd cause more and more callers to call in.
	Possibly.
	I appreciate the call, and we'll tune in, because we want Stephon to answer that directly.
	Alright.
	Thanks, sir.
	Stephon, so, I don't know which one you want to tackle first.
	I'm, you know, the idea that I want everything all at once is not true.
	As I said, it's 150 years or more, probably at least a couple of generations.
	And the way we start is by raising children peacefully.
	Most people are raised too brutally.
	80 to 90% of parents are still spanking their children.
	People are raised too brutally to be rational.
	I've got a whole series on YouTube called The Bomb and the Brain.
	People can look at the science behind that.
	So yeah, patience and progress is the way to do it, but it ain't going to happen through politics because politics has been tried for about 2,500 years.
	About 2,500 years we have tried to use politics to control the state and look where we are.
	We're the very biggest state with the most destructive power in the history of the known universe.
	So let's at least be skeptical.
	Libertarian Party founded, what, 41 years ago?
	How's controlling the state?
	The state is not even counting deficits and debt, five times the size it was when it started.
	So it ain't working.
	Let's just look for alternatives.
	As far as immigration goes, look, if you're going to have a party...
	It's one thing to lay out vegetables and cheese, and it's another thing to lay out cocaine and hookers.
	And so the problem is, with immigration, if you have a welfare state, then some, though not all, immigrants are going to be drawn to come for the easy life of feasting off the welfare state.
	If you don't have a welfare state and there's sort of cold-eyed skeptical charity that requires able-bodied people to get a damn job, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
	America was founded by people who were fleeing tyranny and coming to the land of opportunity where there was no welfare state.
	There was charity, there were churches, friendly societies, all kinds of things to make sure people who deserve charity didn't fall through the cracks.
	But unfortunately, we have a cocaine party, and because we have a cocaine party, a lot of people come for the cocaine.
	It's not really the best sort, and so we have to put up lots of barriers to keep these sorts out.
	But if you get rid of the cocaine and put out your vegetables and dip, then a whole different kind of people are going to come to the party, and that's what we want.
	So you can't have open immigration when you have a welfare state.
	That's my basic point about that.
	So if we could move on to another caller.
	Sorry, I didn't get to all of them.
	Yeah, yeah, no worries, no worries.
	Let's go to John.
	John, are you there?
	I am.
	Okay, so yeah, you had a question for Stefan.
	I did.
	Hey, guys.
	It's a pleasure to talk to you both, and Jake, as always.
	I've seen you on the Internet in some videos, Stefan, and I've seen the one where you were talking about the gun control, and it was incredibly persuasive, and I really just kind of want you to kind of talk about what your views are on the recent government, or our government's recent debate and discussion about gun control, because you're really, really good at it.
	Well, thank you.
	Look, so this is gun control, the history, and you can have a look at it on YouTube.
	I'll try something new.
	Basically, the argument is that it controls crime, and you can't look at gun control as the difference between US and UK crime.
	US has been a frontier society since its inception.
	England has been a feudal society, really, from the Romans onwards through to the modern era.
	And so you want to have people settling a frontier have guns.
	You don't want to let your serfs have guns.
	So there's a historical imbalance in that.
	And that's where you look for it.
	Because the differences in homicides between England and America were the same in the 1920s before any kind of gun control.
	But the reality is of gun control.
	Look, the people in charge are not stupid.
	They may be evil, but they're sure not stupid, because otherwise we are even more stupid for letting them be in charge.
	There is a huge change coming to America.
	The government is going to run out of money.
	Repeat after me.
	The government is going to run out of money.
	Hold on, Stefan.
	John, do you have your radio on in the back of your router?
	Are we on speakerphone or something?
	No, I had my headset, and I'm having a hard time hearing him over my phone.
	I'll just hang up and listen on the radio.
	Okay, I appreciate it.
	Sorry, guys.
	I didn't mean to interrupt.
	It's just there was a lot of crazy feedback.
	No problem.
	So the government is going to run out of money, and we've got about half the American population is dependent to one degree or another on government handouts, and the government is about to run out of money.
	When you're about to run out of money, and you have a whole bunch of people dependent on that money who've adapted themselves for that, who've bypassed education, who've bypassed stable families, who've bypassed skill acquisition and a job history, you're going to have a very freaking restless population on your hands, to say the least.
	When people can't get food, they tend to get quite irate, as we found in Egypt recently when the price of wheat doubled.
	So the government is not stupid.
	They're about to run out of money, and this is why you see this concerted push towards gun control.
	It is, of course, not with the idea of getting guns out of the hands of everyone, because criminals will always be able to get us.
	There's 300 million guns in America.
	They're not going anywhere anytime soon.
	But they do want to try and get guns out of some people's hands, because when the system changes to adapt to the reality of running out of money, there's going to be a lot of restless segments of the population.
	I like the one argument I've seen of yours that's kind of turned into a Facebook meme, and that is that advocates of gun control actually aren't advocating gun control per se, as they are really just advocating only certain people having guns, and that is the state.
	Yeah, that's the reality.
	Gun control sounds good, but of course the reality is what they want is a centralization of guns in the hands of our political masters and their minions.
	And Lord above!
	Can we ever imagine a time in history when that went badly?
	Well, I think we can.
	Okay, so here's where I want to, and maybe tease it a bit, because we've got another short commercial, but one of the things that I wanted to get to was that for me personally, and I'm asking this In all sincerity, in the spirit of not debate so much, I would love to be persuaded of it.
	Because I agree with you that I think that we will none of us see this voluntarist, this anarchist utopia or whatever.
	We won't see that in our lifetime.
	And I'm wondering if we ever will.
	So I used to be anarcho-capitalist.
	And I have then come back to more of the classical liberal minarchist or whatever.
	And I'm curious on your perspective on that, because I know you think about these things quite a bit.
	But, you know, we're...
	And honestly, I don't take anything personal.
	Where am I going wrong?
	Why?
	Because I'm persuaded mostly, really, by Nozick's argument that when we have competing, say, organizations, that if they're corporations or businesses, they may very much do what corporations do, and that is centralized.
	And there may be mergers and acquisitions.
	And that there is this kind of tendency for it to begin to create a state, even though we may not call it a state as what we know, but basically have the guns and the jails and the people don't.
	So, you know, and we've got a minute.
	I hate to do this too, because we've got a minute to maybe tease it.
	And then, you know, a good minute break for the commercials.
	And then afterwards, maybe if you can go in depth a little bit.
	I would love to come back to anarcho-capitalism.
	I just, I'm stuck on some issues.
	I just can't quite get my head around it.
	Well, look, before we had the polio vaccine, polio was a huge health crisis.
	You know, put people in iron lungs and wheelchairs and you could get it from public swimming pools.
	And I mean, it was just a monstrous mess.
	Same with smallpox and other diseases that have been eradicated.
	And so if you're in the midst of these kinds of health care crisis, then you say, well, goodness, how could we have a society...
	Free of polio, how could we have a society free of smallpox or tuberculosis or malaria or whatever it is that's been gotten rid of in various places in the world over the years?
	And so if you look forward in society, we have a plague called evil.
	We have a plague called evil.
	And people say, well, we need the government to fight evil.
	Because there are people who rob us, and if there isn't a government there to control the corporations, there's all this evil.
	Evil will overcome us like a black tide and wash us away to the tides of blood or whatever it is.
	And so what I'm going to make the case for when we get back is we already have the vaccination for evil.
	We do not have to live in a society where evil is prevalent, where evil is even in the majority or even in a tiny minority.
	We can almost completely eradicate evil in about five years.
	But it's going to take a very specific series of actions.
	Once we get rid of evil, we don't need a government.
	Of course not.
	I mean, even the justifications for a government vanish and vaporize, and we can cure evil in about five years.
	It's not the easiest five years we'll have, but we will not need a government after this five-year period, and we can talk more about that when we get back from the break, if that works out for you.
	Yeah, stellar.
	I'm very excited because I want to kind of bounce my ideas or my challenges that I'm having into seeing where you're at as well.
	Guys, we've got Stefan Molyneux, freedommanradio.com.
	Check him out.
	He's got tons of great stuff.
	Really persuasive.
	A guy to share his videos with your friends.
	Come on back.
	Call the number 801-254-5855.
	Come on back.
	All right, here we go.
	More Libertarian Radio.
	The Jake Shannon Radio program got Stefan Molyneux online on the phone here.
	Stefan, you still there?
	I am, I am.
	Okay, so eradicating this virus that is the state that is violent within five years, a rough five years.
	For me, as I said, the sticking points, I used to be very anarchic capitalist.
	I'm fairly familiar with a lot of the arguments and sympathetic to it.
	I mean, look, from a negotiation standpoint, I get it, man.
	I use it because, like, you go in and you want to get a used car and you bid low and they bid high and you meet in the middle.
	Well, you bid zero.
	They've got to really come down.
	And so I get it strategically.
	But the sticking point, the actual truth of it, the philosophical part of it that boggles my mind, is that, you know, as Nozick mentioned, and I've kind of in my own head kind of updated it.
	We look at some of the work of these guys.
	like in psychology, Dr.
	Hare, and a few others looking at psychopathy, and that it's 1% of any given population.
	That doesn't mean violent psychopaths, but those people who have no empathy for Which, for me, is the base of my understanding of morality.
	Even those in religion who think it came down from on high or whatever, I think that empathy is the real reason why we are good to each other, because I could put myself in your shoes, that kind of thing.
	You know, a theory of mind, if we will.
	But with psychopathy, there's these people who have no empathy, and they do whatever it takes to rise to the top.
	And they're I think you're onto something there, but what is this five-year plan that will hopefully put my mind at ease?
	Well, you know, I love the Stalinist overtones.
	We will have a five-year plan, everybody!
	Right, right, right.
	Of course, yeah.
	This is all theoretical and hoping, yes.
	I'm with you.
	Well, not too, too theoretical.
	So, in the human brain, as it develops, and I'm talking about from even pre-inception, but definitely through conception and the fetal stage and in the first five years of life, there are about ten areas of the brain that coordinate to produce empathy.
	Empathy, of course, being basically putting yourself in someone else's shoes, understanding that we all share a common humanity and, you know, what hurts for me hurts for you, that kind of stuff.
	What feels good for me actually feels good for you.
	And these centers of empathy within the brain develop as a result of empathy in the environment.
	Empathy is like a language.
	You don't learn English unless you're exposed to English, and you don't learn empathy unless you're exposed to empathy.
	That means a caregiver who's emotionally available, who mirrors back the child's feelings, who negotiates, who doesn't promote win-lose situations.
	So the state is the ultimate win-lose situation, right?
	I mean, the state wins, you kind of lose.
	You win, the state loses, and so on.
	And so why are people addicted to win-lose negotiations?
	Because that's all they've experienced in the home.
	Do it because I'm telling you to do it.
	Do it or I'll hit you.
	Do it or I'll send you to bed without supper.
	Do it or I'll ground you.
	Do it or I'll put you in the naughty corner or the time-out corner or whatever.
	Children are not reasoned with.
	They are often, right, and for the most part, really, around the world, they are ordered by authority who is bigger and stronger.
	And so is it any surprise that we grow up thinking that we need a central, coercive, organizing organization Ordering entity within society.
	Well, it's come perfectly natural because that's what so many children grow up with.
	If we raise children with empathy, with peace, with no threats, no punishments, right?
	I've never yelled at my child.
	I've never threatened her in any way.
	I haven't punished her.
	And we make negotiations.
	We make deals all the time.
	We've been doing it since she was about two years old.
	If we raise children, and it's the first five years of a child's development that is the most crucial, And this is not my theory.
	This is not my opinion.
	What the heck would I have to say about brain science?
	You can read The Sociopath Next Door.
	You can read Sacha Baron Cohen, cousin of Borat, his book, The Science of Good and Evil.
	You can read Robert Hare's work.
	Almost everyone who is...
	Delayed or handicapped in the empathy centers is so as a result of abuse or neglect in childhood.
	If we stay home with our children, if we raise them peacefully, if we forego threatening them, if we simply adhere to the non-aggression principle, which is what we're supposed to do as freedom activists and decent human beings, then we raise children who are measurably smarter, measurably Smarter.
	Negotiated children have an IQ points about eight higher.
	Eight IQ points higher than threatened children.
	They have a greater sense of morality.
	They have a greater sense of social cooperation.
	They do not have the desire to dominate other people because they're used to negotiating with them and trading with them.
	And so if we raise children peacefully, then we will have a society that will have virtually no criminals, right?
	So some guy might have a brain tumor and become a mean guy or whatever, but virtually no criminality.
	And no conception that the state is a necessary entity.
	I mean, any more than an atheist feels the need for an exorcism.
	I mean, it's not part of the belief system.
	So if we were to just sit here as a society, even just within liberty activists, and say, okay, if I'm going to have kids, or if I have kids now, I'm going to stay home with them, I'm going to take that financial hit, I'm going to raise them peacefully, no aggression, no violence, no telling them about...
	Terrible things like hell or whatever.
	No threatening with the punishment in the afterworld, no circumcision, no injuring their bodies.
	I mean, it's so weird in the 21st century to say, stop hacking off the ends of your children's penis.
	It's a weird thing to have to say, but we do still have to say it.
	If we raise them peacefully, they're smarter, more cooperative, they will...
	I mean, these are all studies that are done and dusted and all very clear, and they will not want to dominate each other, and the problem of evil will be solved through peaceful parenting.
	And then we will look back and say, well, what a ridiculous thing it was to ever have a state, because we have the antidote, the inoculation, the immunization for evil.
	It's peace and love and intimacy for children in the first five years of life, and in the prenatal situation as well.
	And we get that, and we can have the world that we want.
	If we don't get that, we're never going to get anywhere.
	And the idea that we can save the world of traumatized children through political manipulation is worse than diluted.
	It's a huge waste of resources that could be better applied to peaceful parents.
	Okay, I'm getting it.
	So again, the peaceful parenting, the thing that I actually really like about what you talk about and advocate the most, is really central to your overarching kind of theory of a voluntary society.
	But it's It's a battle of attrition.
	We've got to wait for the boomers and possibly this generation to die off, assuming that this generation is a generation of peaceful parents.
	Well, I don't know about waiting for people to die off.
	We can all start peacefully parenting tomorrow.
	Look, the studies are also very clear that most people only pretend to think, right?
	I mean, sure, you've had it when you try to talk to people.
	You bring reason and evidence to them and they just shrug it off.
	This is all studied in the brain.
	People who've suffered trauma, and public school is a kind of trauma.
	I'm not just talking about stuff that happens in the home.
	Religious instruction is a kind of trauma.
	People who've suffered intellectual, emotional, physical, sexual trauma, Trauma as children, what happens is, and they've studied this in the brain, they can see this firing in sequence like dominoes rolling over.
	They get information that triggers the trauma, and what happens is they have an emotional reaction first, and then they make up an intellectual reason as to why that information is not true, right?
	So you say, well, we can have a society without a government.
	That provokes people's anxiety.
	They feel the anxiety.
	They feel a rush of...
	Adrenaline, they feel.
	A rush of cortisol.
	The stress hormone, they...
	And then afterwards, they make up some reason as to why that information could never be true.
	And this is...
	I mean, so the trauma is what's driving most people's ex post facto justification for whatever nonsense they were fed as children.
	And again, this is not my opinion.
	You can just...
	Don't accept anything I'm saying.
	Just study the science.
	And a lot of...
	The thing that's great about your podcast, especially the ones that are on YouTube and whatnot, you post all the references and whatnot.
	Not only in the comments, but burn them on the screen as well for people to read, right?
	And I interview the experts, right?
	The people who've done these studies, right?
	So Elizabeth Gershoff has done the biggest meta-study of spanking studies that has ever been done.
	You know, I post all of the results and I interview the expert.
	And, you know, because I'm just some idiot...
	Talking on a mic.
	Nobody should take anything I say seriously, but if I provide good reason and evidence behind the arguments, then I think that should be worthwhile.
	So, yeah.
	So, I mean, once you understand where evil comes from, where sociopathy comes from, where psychopathy comes from, where narcissism and borderline and all these other kinds of—and they're almost all—I mean, the almost is—I would eliminate, but the experts say almost all of it comes from childhood trauma— So if we start treating children better as a society,
	if we start treating them like human beings rather than as hostages and poison containers and places we can vent on and places we can stuff into public schools to pacify the teachers and have a place to stick them so we can go off and work for the man, if we start treating them...
	First and foremost, as human beings and as the most important human beings in the planet, as the people we need to treat the best in the planet, well, then we get a peaceful and positive and trade-based and progressive world where we'll all get jetpacks and teleporters to Mars.
	If we don't, we're going to do that.
	Now, I get various messages on social media.
	People that are interested in learning more about peaceful parenting, they can go to freedomainradio.com And you have resources there.
	You have a forum.
	You have articles and things of that nature, right?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And there's a whole feed of Peaceful Parenting podcasts, which was sort of my journey as a dad.
	Okay.
	And then I also got a nice little...
	I got a note here from Dan McCall.
	I don't know if you know who he is.
	He's the proprietor of LibertyManiacs.com.
	So if you've seen any of this incredible artwork of a libertarian flair, it's Dan McCall's work.
	Brilliant stuff.
	But anyway...
	He posted on one of my social media feeds.
	He said, great show, Jake.
	My two favorite bald guys of liberty.
	That's right.
	So maybe, Stefan, if you and I show up in the same place at the same time, we can bow our heads and crowd them in together and moon the state, as it were, with our bald heads at the same time.
	Yeah, we'll put our two heads together and make an ass of ourselves.
	Brilliant.
	Let's go to the phones.
	I've got another caller for you.
	You okay taking them?
	Yep.
	Okay, hold on.
	Caller, you're on the air.
	What's your name?
	This is Mike Stoddard, am I on?
	Oh, hey, what's up, Mike Stoddard.
	You've got Stefan Molyneux.
	What did you want to ask him?
	Well, first I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you to Stefan for all his incredible proselytizing.
	Yeah, I mean, he really is an incredible speaker and very persuasive.
	The one thing I worry about is a lot of the libertarian movement, Stefan, is intellectual.
	Sharing ideas, but it's disjointed.
	And I don't see enough of a real sense of community.
	I mean, they get together, we get together at conferences, you know, like I just posted the Freedom Fest, I know you're going to be there.
	That type of thing.
	But as far as a sense of community like religions used to provide, local small communities used to provide, is there any way we can use that, those concepts, you know, our tribal nature to start building a culture of freedom?
	Yeah, I mean, that's a great question.
	I mean, one of the answers is the Liberty State Project, right?
	As you know, in New Hampshire, right?
	You can move there, and there's lots of liberty activists there.
	So that's sort of one answer.
	I think because it's, you know, in every revolution, it's always earlier than you think, right?
	I mean, because we are so far and steeped in the ideas, and we're ready to go.
	But of course, it's earlier than we think in society as a whole, as you go by, you know, as you'll know, just by going to a sports bar and talking about freedom, people are like, oh, why are you...
	So, it is earlier than we think.
	I think we're going to have to satisfy ourselves with internet communities and maybe meet some people locally.
	I certainly think face-to-face is very, very important.
	I've tried to make contacts with people around here, most of whom I've met through the show, and we sort of try to have some face-to-face meetings.
	That's really important.
	But it is pretty early, you know, so if we can get internet communities and get face-to-face with people around, it doesn't take a lot.
	I think it's really worth pursuing.
	I mean, don't just sit behind the computer.
	Just go out and, you know, into the big blue room and meet the flesh people of liberty.
	I think that's a good idea.
	I think we need to do more in that regard.
	Stefan, have you read or are you familiar with Bill Bonner's new book, Family Fortunes?
	I'm not.
	You ought to either read it or listen to it.
	The reason I'm saying is one of the things he pushes that I agree wholeheartedly with is, and the book is about having family fortunes last over 100 years, and a big part of that is not about the money.
	It's about creating a family culture, a tribe, so to speak, of a specific culture, and he doesn't set out what your specific culture should be.
	But if more of us as libertarians started to take this concept and build it into our extended family networks, you know, so that it was there, you know, for our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren going forward, the very concepts of having open minds, of this type of parenting that you sponsor and promote so much, that is a good start, I think, in building these communities.
	At least that's one It's a potentially really powerful vector, especially if you build in a building of wealth, which is one of the things that Doug Casey mentioned at Libertopia.
	One of the problems with libertarians is they're all a bunch of poor people.
	Right, yeah, he was big on go make some money, yeah.
	Yeah, exactly, but that builds power into the movement too.
	So it kind of satisfies both, starting to build community, starting to build tribe, and looking forward.
	So in fact, I'd like, it would be great if you'd read that book and then give your thoughts on building those type of communities.
	Well, thanks.
	I mean, one of the things that I talk about that some people like, some people don't, is I think that building a community is all about connection, but it's all about pruning.
	So, for instance, I don't have people in my life who advocate the use of violence against me.
	I don't do it.
	I won't do it.
	And this is a long tradition.
	We believe that ostracism has great power in society.
	So people in my life, I have to ask them, listen, do you support the use of violence against me?
	Are you willing to drop your support for the state?
	Because I want to follow my conscience and not support wars and not support destructive welfare programs and not...
	I support the enslavement of my child through debt to foreign banksters.
	Do you support my right to live according to my conscience and not be subjected to violence?
	And if they won't do that, then I'll be patient.
	I'll give them a little while to sit with the idea and sort it out.
	But if they're unwilling To drop their advocacy of violence against me and against my daughter, well, sorry, I don't break bread with people who have blood on their hands, particularly when it's my blood and the blood of my offspring.
	So I think that community is all about connection, but we have to as a community, I think, stand by our values enough to reject those who want us thrown in jail for disagreeing with them.
	That's ugly.
	And that comes right out of the abolitionist movement.
	They didn't associate with slave owners or those who advocated slavery after a while, and that's how a movement gains real power when people put it into practice in their relationships.
	Does that help you, Stoddard?
	We're running out of time.
	We've got to take commercial here.
	No, go ahead.
	Go to commercial.
	I appreciate your response, Stefan.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Hey, Stefan, thank you so much, man.
	I know that you've spent, I'm looking at the clock here, almost 90 minutes with this.
	I really appreciate all your time.
	Oh, thank you.
	Great show.
	Thanks to your listeners as well.
	Okay, guys, Stefan Molyneux, check him out, freedomainradio.com.
	Download his podcast, read his stuff.
	The guy is very sharp, very persuasive.
	If you're having a hard time with your friends and family, turn him on to Stefan.
	And hopefully we'll get that Max Headroom, the Max Molyneux going.
	Thanks, Stefan.

▲