All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 9, 2013 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
45:25
2478 Handling Murder Without Government

How do we deal with murder without the government?

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I've had this question a bunch of times before, but it's something that really is worth going over again, from a slightly, well, from a different angle.
And the question is, basically, how do we deal with murder without the government?
How do we deal with murder without the government?
Storm Clouds Gathering brought this up.
It was the topic of one of my first articles on lewrockwell.com.
Hey, thanks for having me back.
And...
It is a very important question.
Now, the first issue, as always, to understand is that statism does not deal with murder.
Statism does not deal with murder.
I mean, just look at 9-11, right?
2,500 odd people murdered.
Direct result of US foreign policy.
Don't send me those emails.
I don't do that conspiracy.
I mean, look at the 20th century.
250 million people murdered by their own governments.
Not even including war.
Throw in war, probably close to half a billion.
Half a billion people murdered by their own governments.
So statism does not solve the problem of murder.
Statism is predicated on murder.
Every law is a murder threat.
If you don't obey it, they come for you.
And if you resist and fight back, they'll shoot you and kill you.
Statism is a murder-based system.
Every law that it passes is the threat of murder.
And people's compliance with murder doesn't mean that what then results is right.
I mean, a guy puts a knife to your ribs and you give him your wallet, he doesn't actually stab you.
He may not have even threatened to stab you.
I mean, maybe the knife against your ribs is enough.
And so, the governments, I mean, war, police brutality, famine, economic inefficiency, I mean, the people caught up in terrible government healthcare systems where they end up dying are murdered by a system, even if no individual is morally responsible.
I mean, they die just as surely as the kulaks and the Chinese peasants were starved in the Ukrainian and Chinese famines of the 1930s or 1920s in Russia, the kulaks.
It's like saying, well, how do we deal with rape without the state?
I mean, you know that the state is responsible for more rapes than anything else.
And I'm not just talking about the military.
I'm talking about prisons, right?
Men get raped more than women solely as a result of the prison.
There are 200,000 and change victims of rape in American prisons every year.
That's not instances of rape, that's victims of rape, you understand?
How will we deal with theft without the government?
All the government steals and prints and borrows.
It's all theft.
So, it's not like we have 100% efficiency in dealing with murder.
In a state of society.
And therefore, we need to find a system, a free system, that equals the 100% efficiency in dealing with murder.
I mean, arrest and conviction rates for murderers are tiny in certain sections of the U.S., like 20%, 15%.
As Morgan Friedman says in Seven, so many bodies roll away unavenged.
I mean, and if it wasn't for...
I mean, how do they generally catch or pretend to catch a criminal in a state of system, particularly the U.S. system?
Well, they plant evidence or arrest people on non-crimes, such as drug possession or so on, and then they threaten them with massive sentences unless they plead guilty.
You can take two years or you can go to court and you might get 20.
And given that stress kills anyway, meaning they're basically threatening jail and or death or just take two years.
And what they do, of course, is they then say, it's two years, but you'll get a suspended sentence if you name me a killer or name me another drug dealer or name me someone who is responsible for this, this, and this crime.
And so people do.
And then they threaten that person with massive sentences in brutal prisons, unless that person confesses.
And then, it's a miracle how efficient the police work is.
Look at that!
They basically get their conviction.
And the science is really shaky.
Everybody watches CSI and thinks that the science...
Reason magazine or Reason.com has a great article on this.
The science is pretty shaky.
I mean, it's not bulletproof, and it's regularly mishandled or misused or wrong.
You regularly hear about these overturned sentences and so on.
So, you know, even with a confession, I mean, who the hell knows?
I mean, this is the 10%, 15%, 20% conviction rate based on this kind of crap.
So, the problem of murder is not solved.
And, of course, the problem of murder tends to be concentrated where government power is the greatest, right?
This is quite important, right?
Where the government power is the greatest is welfare and the military-industrial complex and subsidized housing and government schools and all this kind of stuff.
Well, that's where murder tends to be The most prevalent, not to mention, you know, say, armies, where I believe murder tends to be enormously prevalent.
So the state has not in any way, shape, or form even remotely come close to solving the problem of murder.
In fact, the state, you know, it instigates far more murders than it solves.
A million dead Iraqis, well, that'll take quite a while, quite a lot of convictions and prevention.
And of course, banning self-defense, which is basically what happens when you ban guns.
Banning self-defense is another way of ensuring that murders occur.
Letting murderers out on parole or early parole, the infamous Willie Norton case.
Where, I guess, Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts signed the release, a weekend release of a many times convicted rapist who then strolled into some couple's house, some white couple's house, a black rapist, and it doesn't really matter, but he strolled in some white couple's house and tortured and raped the wife while tying up the husband and just spent like all day doing this unbelievable evil to these poor people.
Government failure to...
I mean, government sets itself up as the protector of children and the controller of children, right?
The children are all put in government schools and child protective services and government legislation of various kinds, government laws against child abuse.
The government sets itself up as protectors of children, which is really the true source of murder.
It's the violation and abuse of children.
That's how you make a murderer.
You can look at my video, How to Make a Monster, on YouTube or in the podcast stream if you'd like more about this.
The government puts itself forward as the sole protector of children and elbows aside all other agencies, private charities, churches and so on that may have formally intervened on the topic.
So the government has taken over the protection of children.
How well are children protected?
In society.
By governments.
One out of three girls and one out of five boys has some form of sexual molestation as a child.
Ninety percent of children are spanked.
Verbal abuse, neglect.
Physical abuse, rampant.
I mean, if you include spanking as physical abuse, which I sure as hell do, child abuse is almost universal in a society where the state has put itself forward as the sole protector of children.
And I say all of this just because we're not saying, really, how can a free society, which, you know, starts off conceptually black, how can it become as white as the driven snow in dealing with problems, just like a status society is?
But it's like me setting down a cup of government piss in front of you.
And saying, you know, we can only hope that a free society will produce beverages this wonderful.
If only we can get a free society to mirror or approach or achieve the kind of wonderful beverage that the Department of Drink Your Urine comes up with.
If you don't want a free society, you get to keep drinking the pee.
But if you want a free society, you better tell me How pee is going to be drunk by people in a free society.
Because right now, the government makes everyone drink the pee.
Free society, boy, you better get that pee thing sorted out or I don't want any part of it.
Right?
That's all bad, right?
You get that.
So, we'll start from the end, right?
Which is, a murder has been...
You find a body.
You find a body.
Well, people don't want murders to occur.
I mean, we all understand that.
People don't want murders to occur.
And people care about the poor.
They do.
Sorry.
It's a fact.
Charity was huge towards the poor in the past.
And if you say that people don't care about the poor, then you have to explain why Why there is a welfare state in a democratic society.
Why there is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, government schools, all these...
I think the federal government in the US has like 127 different programs to transfer wealth to the poor, to the point where the poor, being on welfare, gets you the equivalent of sort of $15 to $20 an hour, whereas minimum wage is, what, $7 and change, depending on where you are.
That's one of the reasons why the poor get trapped in this stuff.
Can't get out of that, at least not from a pragmatic standpoint.
So, people care about the poor.
And so, if a body is found, there will be agencies paid for by local residents, paid for by insurance companies.
If people don't want murderers around them, then any time there's a murder around them, the insurance company will have to pay each resident $5,000.
Or something like that, doesn't it?
I want murder in my neighborhood insurance in the same way that you get theft for your house insurance, but in a very real scenario, you would want theft in the neighborhood insurance as well.
You understand that, right?
And the reason being that if there's a lot of theft in your neighborhood, your quality of living enormously declines.
If you live in a neighborhood of 20 people and every house has been violently robbed except yours, how comfortable are you going to be sleeping at night?
We're not too freaking comfortable, right?
So, you really, really want to have that insurance.
And even if you don't care about your neighbors, and even if you feel perfectly secure, you get some, you know, laser-guided robot pit bull or something like that.
Well, what's going to happen to the value of your house if there are massive thefts in your neighborhood?
Well, nobody's going to want to buy your house.
The value's going to collapse.
I mean, the city of Detroit will currently pay you To take a house in the neighborhood, right?
In certain neighborhoods.
Some houses in Detroit have been on the market for a dollar for a year or two.
Nobody buys them.
Because the neighborhoods are crap, right?
So, when you buy a house, I mean, if I bought a house, I would want to buy insurance against neighborhood theft, like in a radius of three blocks or five blocks or whatever.
Every time there was a theft, I would want to get paid.
And what a wonderful, delightful, delicious, exciting challenge that would be for an insurance company to figure out.
So everybody would want murder insurance, which means, of course, that the insurance company would not want there to be murderers around.
Right?
Which means that massive amounts of energy, time, and resources would be poured into what causes murder.
Now, I'm not going to go into all of the arguments here.
Lord knows I've made them It feels like a grinding infinity of times before, but I'm going to state, and you can find the proof elsewhere in my work, FDRURL.com forward slash BIMB for the Bomb of the Brain series and other podcasts, but child abuse causes murderers.
So, insurance companies would experience massive losses if child abuse were prevalent.
In society.
Now, here you have the wonderful connection between virtue and economic self-interest.
I mean, that's what you want, right?
Virtue and economic self-interest.
Wherever those things are in opposition, nothing gets done, right?
Virtue is the reduction of child abuse, but nobody in the government has any economic self-interest in eliminating child abuse.
The government profits enormously from child abuse.
If there was no child abuse, there'd be no criminals to scare the population with.
Nobody would want to become police or soldiers or anything like that.
Nobody would want to become politicians.
Nobody would vote.
Nobody would believe in the government if there was no child abuse.
Statism rests on child abuse.
I'll get into that another time.
I've talked about it before.
Status and rests on child abuse.
If there was no child abuse, no criminality, right?
No rape, no theft, no murder, no cops, no hierarchies, no politicians, no, you wouldn't, you'd be able to spot evil a mile away, you would not be taken in by the sociopathic glibness of the fast-talking, sentimentally unemotional but evocative politician types and so on.
There wouldn't be the sensational greed for power, loss, domination, power, loss, domination, control.
And the continued abuse of government programs.
And not to mention the fact that the welfare program designers and managers, they don't want to eliminate the welfare.
They don't want to eliminate the poor.
I mean, nobody works to put themselves out of a job.
And so people who run government programs designed to deal with dysfunction have every economic interest to increase that dysfunction.
CPS in certain areas in the U.S. is paid according to the number of children in its care, which means that kidnapping children from parents is profitable.
I mean, it's a shakedown of the most evil kind.
This is why they just go and take the kids.
Hey, it makes money, right?
Social Security and disability will pay parents whose kids are on psychotropic medications.
They will pay them Hundreds and hundreds or even over a thousand or maybe even fifteen hundred dollars a month for children who are disabled, in other words, children who are on these drugs.
So, drugging children, which would normally be very expensive, is profitable.
You see, normally parents would have to pay for the assessment and the drugs.
To treat their children's supposed illnesses, ADHD and bipolar and depression and anxiety and all this sort of stuff, they would have to pay for this and now, not only do they not pay for it because the government pays for it, but the parents profit from drugging their children.
There are examples in Australia, I think it's the Aboriginal women, if their child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome, they get Lots of extra money.
And so some, not all, not even most, but some women chug alcohol like crazy during their pregnancy as a way of planting an evil crop called government payout.
Cash in.
Ka-ching!
So, when economic self-interest is opposed to virtue, economic self-interest will, in general, win in aggregate, overtime, every time.
Now, if you personally charge cops The price of the speeding ticket every time they arrest someone for speeding and you don't charge, right?
So if you get pulled over you get a $50 speeding ticket.
If the cop personally has to pay that out of his own after-tax salary and you don't pay a penny, even though speeding is against the law, how many cops do you think will pull over speeders?
How many cops will voluntarily pay $60 to warn someone against speeding?
How many people will stop speeding?
This isn't complicated, right?
If each If each police station was charged $100,000 for every successful conviction of a drug crime, their budget was cut or they would receive a bill for $100,000 every single time they had a successful conviction for a drug arrest, how long do you think the drug war would last?
Well, it would be over as soon as that legislation passed.
Because economic self-interest trumps ethics almost every time.
And I'm not talking about giving money to charity and stuff like that.
I mean, that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about specifically being charged for virtuous behavior and being paid for bad behavior.
And it's a highly regressive moral tax because it tends to hit the hardest, right?
So, it tends to hit the hardest those who are the dumbest and the poorest, which is not always the same thing, of course.
I had a friend who took unemployment insurance for summer when he was a teenager.
And he decided not to stay on it, of course, because he's like, well, you know, right now, it gives me enough money to live on, but, you know, in 10 years, I want to be making good coin, and then, therefore, like, I'll do it for now, but my goodness, I certainly don't want to stay on this, right?
I mean, God, terrible.
Whereas somebody who doesn't really think about those consequences or doesn't really even have those opportunities, well, That person is going to want to stay on that.
What do I care about 10 years from now?
I don't even think about the day after tomorrow because I'm not that smart.
Well, that's why you need these kinds of incentives to not be there.
I mean, nobody I knew who had any brains who got on welfare unemployment insurance when they were younger, nobody I knew stayed on it because they all had the smartness to get better opportunities if they let go of that and started swimming for the shore of the middle class.
But the poorer and the dumber tend to stay on these things.
That's why they're a sticky trap for the most needy, right?
That's why it tends to keep the most needy the most needy, right?
Anyway, so if you want to solve a problem, any problem, then you need to clearly define The morality of the problem.
I mean, if it's a social problem.
If you want to solve any social problem, you clearly have to define the morality of the problem and you have to place financial incentives in the right place to ensure that people have the most sustainable value or they will gain the most sustainable value from actually solving that problem.
I mean, the great thing about insurance, I'm not talking about a modern crappy government insurance which is all regulated and crapped out by weird and perverse disincentives.
Like, real insurance, the great thing and the wonderful, beautiful, benevolent, glorious thing about free market insurance is it profits from the prevention of problems.
And we would all rather have a problem prevented than cured, in general.
You know, all things being generally equal.
An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure.
And it is tragic that so many institutions in society, particularly government institutions, profit from curing problems.
Which means they're heavily invested, at least economically, in the continuation of those problems, right?
The DEA does not want to eliminate drugs.
Oh, and by the way, I forgot to mention, of course, when we're talking about state-sponsored murder, the war on drugs is one of the primary causes of civilian murders around the world, let alone the arms trade.
Let alone smuggling or prostitution or gambling or all of that kind of stuff.
I just wanted to mention this is another primary source of murder.
But this is why I talk about a free society being largely protected by Insurance.
Insurance you pay until there's a problem, which means the prevention of that problem, as far as it is economically feasible or possible.
The prevention of problems is the profit motive.
What profit motive do the police have To prevent a crime against you or to solve a crime that was committed against you.
What incentives do they have?
Well, they want to.
Well, it's good.
Well, it's this.
Well, it's that.
Well, I mean, if that's the case, if we are going to say that the police don't need any incentives because they just are all that, then We must forbid politicians from promising goodies to voters and we must also forbid anybody from donating anything to a political campaign.
Because financial motives don't matter.
And we must also pay all government workers minimum wage because financial motives don't matter.
And if motives don't matter, Then we should also get rid of passing and failing grades for students because, you see, students, like in school, whether it's junior high school, high school, college, postgraduate, graduate, it doesn't matter.
Then we need to, of course, eliminate the passing and failing of grades.
Everybody gets an A because, clearly, students would be in it just for the knowledge and not for the marks or the degree, right?
So, if financial incentives don't matter, Then we really need to reorganize and restructure society, make everybody paid the same minimum wage, because financial, like, enough to live on, sure, but after that, right?
What would happen to our economy if that would happen?
I mean, we would instantly be catapulted back to the Stone Age.
And it's all ludicrous.
People can say whatever they want.
The moment they try to universalize it, the foolishness of what they're putting forward is clear.
Most philosophy that you hear is like people staring at helium balloons saying, well, I guess everything falls up.
That's the level of complexity and subtlety and sophistication that's involved.
So, a body is discovered in a neighborhood where there is insurance against bodies being discovered in the neighborhood.
And so, all the prevention has failed.
Prevention measures such as regular interviews with parents, the scanning of children's brains to ensure that the singular and signature patterns of abuse, shrinking of the neofrontal cortex, expansion of the hippocampus, that kind of stuff, Failure of the development of the 13 or 14 odd empathy systems necessary for basic compassion in the world.
You would do the brain scans.
You would measure the levels of cortisol in the child's blood to find out if they were being subjected to undue stress and so on.
These all, I mean, would be just easy-peasy.
They're painless.
They are, I guess, except for the drawing of blood.
But certainly the scans would be painless.
And these are just what responsible parents would do.
Now, why would parents do this?
Well, because if their children were certified healthy, non-abused, non-traumatized, then insurance for their children would be far lower.
Far lower!
And parents without insurance, whatever the children did, I mean, this would be how I would run it, this would be my DRO offering, my dispute resolution organization offering or my insurance offering, would be if your child...
Submits to these painless, very quick tests and is clear, then the insurance for your child is virtually free.
Because then the child is not going to be aggressive or abusive.
The child's likelihood of smoking, of doing drugs, promiscuity, getting pregnant, other forms of addiction and abuse are virtually nil.
Insurance for your child is very cheap.
Now, if your child is showing signs of stress, Then your rates will vastly increase, like by a factor of 10 to 50, unless you attend parenting classes, unless you get experts in to help you figure out what you're doing that's causing your kids stress and how to change that and how to be a good, non-violent, non-aggressive, benevolent parent and all that kind of stuff, right?
When people say, oh, that's intrusive, that's invasive.
No, you know what's invasive is some traumatized, bullying, screwed up kid messing around with other kids, taking their lunch money, intimidating them, beating them up, maybe raping them, and then going on to be a criminal in society.
That's a little fucking invasive, if you don't mind my saying so.
Putting a child in a scan that's painless for a minute or two, not terribly invasive.
Invasive is, you know, a dick up the ass, a shiver in the ribs.
That kind of stuff is kind of invasive.
A scan which is free and results in lower cost of insurance for your children, not too invasive, really.
The only people who would complain about that scan would obviously be the people whose bad parenting would be revealed by such a scan.
Clearly, come on, this is obvious.
The only people terrified of the counterfeit detection machine are the people who are counterfeiting money.
The only people who would rail against that is an invasion of privacy.
Anyway, we don't even need to talk about it.
Now, in a free society, the way it would work, of course, is that until the age of 18 or whatever, I mean, whether it's 17 or 19 or whatever, I don't know, but whatever the free market would decide is the age of adulthood as opposed to just the government.
Then whatever crimes your children committed, if you were not insured, would be on you.
Right?
So, a bunch of teenagers, I think they're 16, 17, went out and shot an Australian...
Baseball player who was jogging along.
I don't know if it was, they claimed they were bored, I don't know if it was a gang ritual and so on, right?
Initiation ritual.
But they just drove by, picked him out, shot him in the back, and he died.
And of course, the parents, naturally, inevitably, the parents say, no, that can't be, he was such a nice boy, he was a wonderful boy, he was a great boy.
Well, in a free society, I believe, the parents would be charged as well.
The parents would be charged as well.
Because they raised a murderer, right?
The parents raised a murderer, then the parents would be charged.
Failure to supervise, failure to instruct, failure to train, failure to raise.
Now, if you had insurance, then you wouldn't be charged.
So you're really risking, really rolling the dice there.
And the reason you wouldn't be charged if you had insurance is that the insurance company would take on the liability.
Because the insurance company would be there to ensure best practices were being followed and so on.
And that the child was not showing any of the clear medical signs of trauma, stress, and abuse, being abused.
I mean, how many parents would take that risk?
Maybe a few.
But at least those parents would then be put in prison, or whatever it would be in a free society.
And wouldn't be making more kids, wouldn't be inflicting their evil on the grandchildren, whatever, right?
So...
Having an agency that is specifically going to profit from the peaceful, virtuous, benevolent raising of children, from the preemptive examination of children to discover any signs of trauma or abuse.
I mean, you're never going to have this happen in a state of society at the moment.
Never going to happen.
Why?
Well, because if 90% of parents are spanking their children and a significant A proportion of parents are abandoning their kids to daycare and yelling at them and all that, then most of the kids are going to show signs of trauma.
And whose healthy brain would we compare children to?
I mean, you know, a guy who was five foot was real tall in the Middle Ages.
I don't even think we'd have much of a benchmark.
We wouldn't have a standard of health with which to compare these kids to, but a significant proportion of children would show up as traumatized.
I mean, abusive parents don't want that to show up.
Of course not.
Any more than a bank robber wants to leave fingerprints at the scene.
I mean, never going to happen in a democracy.
People would just go insane.
If you had a little scan, a little tricorder of recording abuse, pointed at a kid, abuse, abuse, not abuse, abuse, not abuse, really abuse.
I mean, in a democracy, you would just vote to ban that.
It's inconclusive.
It's unreliable.
In the same way that lawyers and cops don't allow for lie detectors in court, even though they're more reliable than eyewitness testimony.
90% reliability.
Eyewitness testimony isn't anywhere close to that because, you know, you get a bunch of lie detectors cranking along and what happens to the skills of lawyers and the need for police?
Well, anyway, we all understand that and how much free market innovation in the realm of status activities is crushed and inhibited by the government.
Well, and the special interest groups and those who profit from government monopolies like lawyers and police and so on.
Alright, so prevention, prevention, prevention, and if a body is found.
I mean, you do understand this is going to be incredibly rare in a free society.
Incredibly rare in a free society.
The numbers of murderers that I've ever heard of that have been committed by happy, healthy people who were raised peacefully is zero.
Go into any murderer, any violent person, you will find a fucked up, violent, abusive childhood.
That's how you make a predator.
You forge them in the fires of destruction.
You harm, violate, rape, abuse, hit, threaten, kill people in front of children, and lo and behold, you raise yourself a killer, or at least a violent person.
So, I hope you understand the astonishing rarity of violence in a free society where every significant financial interest is aligned perfectly with a peaceful, free, and virtuous society.
And violence is very expensive.
My God!
Violence is...
I mean, you think taxes and the fiat money supply are what rob mankind?
No.
It's violence that robs mankind, fundamentally.
It's violence that robs mankind.
The amount of overhead that is necessary to protect your personhood and stuff from violent people and thieving people and all that.
I mean, it's violence, fundamentally, that robs mankind.
Because violence is at the root of criminality and at the root of statism, right?
It's the common thread.
It's violence that...
That robs mankind.
The state is just an effect of violence.
It's one of the jackals that preys on the carcass of peace.
But there are many others.
So, a body will be found.
Guaranteed, bodies will be found.
Because, you know what?
Guys who live alone develop brain tumors which alter their personality and make formerly peaceful men violent.
Or sustain some sort of head injury.
Or have some other Genetic or biological defect that alters their personality.
It could have a virus that attacks your frontal lobes or something.
I don't know.
I have no doctor.
But there would be people whose formerly peaceful personalities would be physically altered through disease or injury who would then suddenly walk out of their house and strangle someone.
They'd hear voices.
They'd whatever, right?
Who knows?
And I'm not even going to guess how crime detection would occur in a free society.
Like, I'm not even going to try and figure that one out.
I don't know.
I mean, I don't know.
I mean, how many specialists would there be?
There'd probably be like five teams for the whole world that would go from place to place to try and figure this stuff out.
I mean, the good news is that people with brain tumors aren't good criminals.
They'll do it in plain sight.
They'll do it in full view.
They'll leave clues.
The professional criminals or the criminals who are really dangerous are the ones who camouflage themselves, either through rhetoric in the form of politicians or with gloves and condoms and all of that in the form of thieves and rapists.
So the people who kill, not out of malevolence, not out of financial interest, not out of the inevitable lack of compassion that forms the empty center of these predators, the people who kill out of deranged impulse from brain damage will be very easy to catch.
Because they're brain damaged.
Because they're not really trying to hide What it is that they're doing, because they're not plotting and planning and preparing.
Or just go out and strangle the guy.
And they'll be pretty easy to catch.
So-and-so didn't show up for work.
So-and-so hasn't paid his bills.
So-and-so hasn't ordered groceries.
So-and-so...
I mean, just because, you know, when you go crazy, you go crazy.
And it's pretty evident all over the place.
Now, of course, going crazy will be pretty visible prior to Actually enacting crazy.
I mean, if you're crazy enough to go out and strangle the guy in broad daylight in front of a crowd, then it's very unlikely that's just going to strike you one morning to wake up from a peaceful, happy, benevolent, loving existence and go strangle the guy.
This is not my opinion.
Statistically, scientifically, psychologically, by far the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Personality, as Carl Gustav Jung said, yeah, human personality is incredibly inert.
It really doesn't.
I mean, anybody who's tried to change, you try and change yourself.
Try and become something or someone different than who you are.
It's incredibly hard.
It can be done.
Neuroplasticity does allow us to reshape our brains, but it's, I mean, it's like pushing rock.
I mean, it's like pushing a cliff of rock.
So the signs of craziness are going to show up and be preemptive.
Now, the other thing that can occur in an insurance-based society is you may want to take out insurance against committing a crime yourself.
If I ever do go crazy, go out and strangle a guy, I want the DRO to take care of me.
I want the insurance company to take care of me.
I just...
I want insurance against...
A brain tumor that makes me go, hurt someone.
I want to get medical treatment, not social ostracism.
So, insurance.
The significant majority of rapists come from single mother households.
So, male sons of single mothers, particularly without siblings, will be far higher to insure.
Against rape.
And if they rape before they're adults, the mother goes to jail, too.
Or whatever it's going to be.
This is how things work when people are actually trying to solve problems.
I mean, if you're actually trying to solve a problem, you try and figure out what the course runs, how the problem runs, and what the source is, most importantly.
What is the source of the problem, and how does the problem run its course?
And you work to eliminate the factors which create the problem, and you seek as much as possible to disrupt the course that it's taking so that you can prevent the problem from reaching some destructive climax before it does.
Do we understand each other?
Now, I can hear you, you nitpicky naysayers!
I love you all!
I can hear you saying, okay, Steph, but what if somebody slips through the cracks?
What if somebody does become this evil genius cat burglar thief of hearts?
What if he does?
What if all of that happens?
Well, so let's say that we have reduced the prevalence of murder in a free society by only 100,000%.
By only 100,000% or 10,000% or 1,000% if you like, I think it'd be far higher.
Eliminating child abuse is eliminating criminality.
And I don't just mean not hitting your children, I mean actively loving, like providing a loving environment, loving them, negotiating with them and so on.
That is great stuff.
My daughter will never ever go out and strangle a guy.
My daughter will never ever become a car thief.
My daughter will never become involved in insurance fraud.
I mean, I'm telling you.
Guaranteed.
Guaranteed.
She will no more do these things than she will spontaneously break into ancient Gaelic having never been exposed to it before.
I mean, assuming no brain tumor or whatever, right?
Assuming no physical or biological or illness-related damage to the brain, my daughter will never ever be a criminal or a prostitute or promiscuous or a teen mother.
It's not going to happen.
And this could be the case with all the children who are raised.
Well, as I've said before in a podcast, we're only ever five years away from a perfectly peaceful society.
the first five years of children's lives.
So let's say that there are in some unfathomable way a hundred master thieves in the world Let them take stuff!
Everybody will still be far wealthier without having all the overhead of protecting all their stuff from all the assholes in the world.
And just let the a hundred master thieves operate with impunity.
I mean, they'll probably get caught and they'll probably face repercussions and so on.
But even if they don't, I mean, what do you want?
A hundred thieves somewhere in the world?
Or central banking?
A hundred murderers somewhere in the world?
Or war?
A hundred thieves somewhere in the world?
Or taxation?
Do you understand?
There's really not other choices or other options.
So, thank you so much for listening.
I hope you're doing well.
Have a great day, everyone.
FDRURL.com forward slash donate.
Love it if you helped out.
▲
Export Selection