Sept. 28, 2014 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:47:11
2805 Slander is the Tool of the Loser - Saturday Call In Show September 27th, 2014
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates Is the non-aggression principle invalidated by the self-defense loophole? I find myself slipping into a state of non-existence, how can I break this spell? Is it immoral to marry a man for utility related benefits instead of love? Includes: The perks of being a murderer in today’s society, multi-generational change, the world of today is not the world of the future, the benefits of the feminist movement, catapulting yourself into the future, pushing your boundaries, striving for excellence means screwing things up, excess empathy as an impediment to moral progress, consistency as a disease, searching for a clean flight, thunderf00t rebutting himself, the war between consistency and exploitation, utility vs. love and the illusion of perfection.
We don't have anything in particular to chat about today.
Nope, no big announcements, but I do have a recommendation I want to make before we jump.
You like that movie, right?
Oh, I love that movie.
You must watch this movie.
This is a formal request.
I will submit it in triplicate if need be.
Now wait, is it available in Canada?
Because, you know, we're crossing our fingers we get Hamlet soon.
That I don't know, but we'll find some way for you to see it.
I'm talking about The Giver, everybody.
Me and my wife went to see The Giver in theaters, and apparently a pretty small release.
And I was in and out of theaters pretty quick.
I ended up having to go to one of the cheap $4 ticket theaters to see it.
But my goodness, I haven't had an emotional reaction to a movie like that in...
I cannot begin to think when.
Really long time.
It is rich with the metaphor.
We'll put it that way.
Anything you want to spoil?
I really don't.
I cannot give a more emphatic suggestion to people to go see this movie.
The Giver with Jeff Bridges.
Fantastic.
There's some obvious metaphors for philosophy in there.
It's a dystopian-style movie that's actually based off a children's book, oddly enough.
I would not have imagined that, but I'm going to read this book now and this whole series of books, children's books or not.
But yeah, someone in the chat just said it got 35% on Rotten Tomatoes.
I'm already interested.
Well, if you watch this movie, given the culture that we live in and the sick society that there is, the fact it got 35% on Rotten Tomatoes should not surprise you.
So, just fantasticmovie.com.
Go see it.
The Giver with Jeff Bridges.
And really good show.
Really good show.
And I look forward to doing a review down the road stuff because, like I said, it had a huge impact on me last night.
Any movie with both Renati Sturman and Sage Fernandez, not to mention Jordan Nicholas Smoll.
I mean, you can.
I mean, what a cast.
And Taylor Swift.
Indeed.
Indeed.
And Meryl Streep as well.
No, I've not heard of her.
I think, yes.
You know, I like it on IMDB when they say, you know, they've got like 50 people listed and then they say full cast.
You know, what does that include?
Like the home addresses of the extras?
Bob the janitor!
Guy with alien claw through his head.
Other guy with alien claw through his head.
All right.
But no, someone in the chat just says, I've never read The Giver.
Apparently a lot of people have read it in high school, but it's not part of my government school curriculum, unfortunately.
So there's an entire guy who does special effects, teeth only?
Wow.
Did his guidance counselor say, hey, you're the guy, what you need to do, special effects on teeth.
No, no, the question goes, no, the conversation goes like this.
What are you passionate about?
Says the guidance counselor.
And the guy says, teeth look too fucking normal.
You know, like what are we just like, chiclets, little tiny tombstones?
I want lasers, disco balls, sweaty tooth, madmen.
I want them to be deflect arrays.
I want them to spin.
So I'm going to be special effects teeth.
I think that's great.
How do you end up in these jobs?
Well, ear was taken, and so I just went straight.
The competition in the ear industry, the ear special effect industry, was just too tough, you know?
For ear reel, right.
Some people in the chat are talking about Snowpiercer as well.
Actually, I did see that one, too, a little while ago.
Another good movie for those interested in philosophy, ripe with metal.
Snowpiercer, also known in Canada as Opening the Door.
Yeah.
That's another one you should definitely check out, Steph.
Snowpiercer.
And the first person to email me and tell me what a Q-Take operator is gets a free book.
Alright, I'll make a note of that.
Should we start the show?
Alright.
But you can't Google it.
I could do that too.
But you have to just know what it is.
I've had some friends who worked in the movie industry.
It's quite exciting.
Very physically strenuous.
And I mean, I'm not a big fan of...
I mean, no government unions.
I can certainly see why there could be some need for unions in the movie industry.
Holy crap.
I mean, they just work those people like dogs.
And Norman Jewison is a pretty famous Canadian filmmaker.
He made films called Ask Your Parents.
You wouldn't have a clue, most listeners.
Anyway, and I saw him and the drummer for The Police...
I give a speech when I entered my film for the Hollywood Film Festival many moons ago.
And he said, you want to know what filmmaking is?
I'll tell you what filmmaking is.
So filmmaking is you take a year or two reading scripts until you find one that really motivates you.
And then...
You spend another six months doing location scouting, and then you spend another six to eight months waiting for all the actors that you want to say yes and be available at the same time.
And then you spend this time and this time and this time.
And then finally, everything's set up, and your cinematographer says, okay...
We've got to do this in one take, man.
We're losing the light.
So that's moviemaking in a nutshell.
It's pretty obsessive.
The makeup on your teeth is running out.
My goodness, we better do this quickly.
That's right.
We've only got one take.
His prosthetic teeth are beginning to eat him.
All right, I'll let you do a show now.
I'm fine.
I thought this was a show.
Well, up for us today is James.
And James wrote in and said, the non-aggression principle states that the initiation of force is unjustified, but the use of force in self-defense is.
Governments already used a self-defense loophole to declare wars on other nations.
George W. Bush did when he declared war in Iraq.
What makes you think...
That will change if governments are taken out of the equation.
People justify their actions any way they can.
If a father with starving children steals to feed his children, is his use of force justified?
In his mind, he could stretch the meaning of self-defense to justify his actions.
The subjectivity of the meaning of self-defense makes it a loophole for all sorts of problems.
Yes, yes, yes, the loophole.
Well, I think that the magic word that you're looking for is liability.
Yes, liability.
And of course, the first word in the statist use of liability, only the first syllable actually matters.
It's just a lie.
So, of course, George W. Bush did say, according to what was it, George Tenet, who was the head of the CIA at the time, he said, George Tenet said, it's a slam dunk that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
Now, first of all, I'm not a big fan of sports metaphors when it comes to the life and death of over a million people.
You may not be taking it with the seriousness it deserves if you are comparing it to a goddamn basketball game.
Anyway, so he had...
This story, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
And as they said at the time, of course America believes that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
They have the receipts from selling them to him.
And the other thing that's, of course, just before we sort of jump into more definitions, just another thing that's important to remember about Iraq is that cultures don't blend too well.
I remember thinking about this when I was a kid.
And, you know, sometimes we'd go to Chinatown, or sometimes we'd go to Little Italy, or sometimes we'd go to Greektown and so on.
And, well, I just really never got the sense that cultures...
certain groups.
It's not too bad, but cultures don't mix that well.
One of the reasons why Saddam Hussein was in a horrible way necessary was that you have these Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and of course the Kurds all jammed together.
Why are they jammed together?
They're jammed together because the British drew all these lines that make no sense whatsoever without any understanding of the local region in any particular way.
So they all hate each other, and they all want to use the power of the state to club each other to death.
And so that, you know, visceral, cultural, cross-pollinated blood hatreds tend to produce a dictator.
And so the question is, I think, in this regard, is what was the liability for George W. Bush to be wrong?
And I mean, I'm happy to hear your answer to that question.
But what was his liability?
What happened if he was wrong?
Am I on?
Yes, you are.
Well, I guess that was the...
Sorry, just before you go in.
Your audio is fantastic.
All the new callers have to come to your house.
I'm sure that won't be a problem for you, right?
Just, you know, leave the key like under a plastic rock in the driveway.
Everybody has to call from your house.
So I just wanted to mention that.
It's my praise to your audio quality, but sorry.
So what were the liabilities for him being wrong?
Yeah, it's one of those things like I don't know.
Sure you do.
Is he in jail?
Yeah, he got away with it.
No, no, no.
He more than got away with it.
He wrote his own history.
He got away with it.
He continued to draw a paycheck.
He now gets a pension.
He gets a presidential library.
He gets a museum.
He gets a postage stamp.
He gets a place in history.
His personal fortune has never been larger.
And you could well argue, since there's that old thing about you don't change horses midstream, if you're in a war...
Then you don't change your leadership.
So he got four more years of political power with which to punish his enemies and enrich his friends and himself.
So he was richly rewarded for making a catastrophic mistake that causes the death of over a million people and displaces two or three million more.
That is so fundamentally staggering.
If you just let that hit you, it goes like a scud into an igloo.
The reason being, if you slip a digit on your taxes, if you speed, like bang, bang, right?
Pulled over, consequences, go to jail, pull out a gun in Washington, kick your door in in the middle of the night.
But that's kind of my point.
I feel like if we have an anarchy, does it solve that problem?
Because you're still going to have people that are going to...
No, no, hang on.
Before we get to that, I'm sorry.
It's worth meditating just on this.
Because this is the current system.
There are answers, right?
But I don't want to rush past this.
If you don't study for the spelling bee in grade four...
Baby, you get an F. Right?
You get negative consequences when you're 8 or 9 or 10 years old.
I climbed a fence when I wasn't supposed to.
To get a ball in boarding school, I was caned.
I was 6 years old.
And...
What was for me a huge, staggering, astonishing, foundational mindfuck was just realizing that the people in charge literally get away with murders on a scale that stagger the imagination.
There's no human being alive who can process what happened in Iraq.
I mean...
You could go visit a grave a day, and your great-great-grandchildren would still be visiting graves.
Like, nobody can process what has happened in Iraq.
And Iraq is just one of, you know, many wars, invasions, unjust murderers that have gone on.
And there are no negative consequences.
In fact, there are positive reinforcements to unjust declarations of war, which is mass murder on a scale that Andres Breivik could only dream about in his most nightmarish fantasies.
So, you slip a digit, you make a mistake, you go a little too fast, you don't signal, you don't come to a full stop, well, your ass is in a sling, right?
You are in trouble.
I want to make it clear, too, before we continue.
I am a proponent of the non-aggression principle.
No, no, I understand.
Look, you and I, I'm sorry to interrupt you.
Yeah, we're on the same page.
I'm not criticizing you at all.
I'm just pointing out that the reason I said incentives, right, Bush, average speaking fee at the moment to get this man who, if he was submerged in the blood of He has brought to the world.
You couldn't find him with a fucking sonar scope.
His speaking fee has been between $100,000 and $150,000.
That's his speaking fee.
I think the most I've ever been paid for a speech, $500.
You know why?
I haven't killed many people.
Don't have enough blood on my hands, you see.
It's a tragedy.
So, in a free society, the DROs have no more rights than the individuals.
So, in a free society, I can think that my neighbor...
Is sending death rays into my house and then I can go and firebomb the shit out of his residence and kill him and his family and what happens?
Can I just say something?
Before I answer your questions, there's just a couple things I didn't get an opportunity to say.
I am a proponent of the non-aggression principle.
But whenever I'm trying to argue the point, the self-defense thing, there's always that annoying thing with the self-defense that comes up because it's never clearly defined.
Sorry, I'm sorry to interrupt.
What's never clarity defined?
I think self-defense, there's a subjectivity when it comes to self-defense.
Sorry, compared to what?
Because if you're saying there's a subjectivity to self-defense, then compared to what?
Is there a subjectivity to theft?
Because you brought up – and I'm not being adversarial here.
I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean because you brought up theft here too, right?
The man stealing just because his kids are starving or whatever.
Well, I mean that's more related I guess to survival.
I guess a survival which is somewhat related to self-defense because you're like a survival instinct.
Like you're stealing to survive in a way.
Well, not really.
No, because if you want to survive, then you should cooperate, right?
You should ask for charity.
You should offer your services for employment.
I mean, to survive and to steal in a free society, it would make no sense.
Because in a free society, there's so much abundance.
I mean, just go ask the guy for some food and say, listen, I'll wash dishes or I'll clean your car or I'll hose out your garage or whatever.
How about this example then?
We'll take that example off the table.
How about this example then?
For example, if someone kills your child and you kill the person who killed your child, Is it the person...
That could be defined as self-defense, but if you killed the person who killed your child the next day after they killed your child, is that self-defense?
There's a point at which it's like, okay, it's justified that you killed the person.
There are gray areas, of course.
Absolutely.
Somebody rushes at me, and I think they have a knife...
And they have, I don't know what, a spoon.
Somebody comes into my store and is playing around and pulls out a toy gun.
I mean, of course, look, but these are two different things.
So the first thing is the principle.
And the principle of self-defense is if you are in imminent danger, you have the right to protect yourself by whatever means necessary.
Right?
So there's that principle.
So there's the principle, and then...
And imminent.
There's the proof.
No, there's the proof.
Now, these are two completely different things.
Imminent is another word that can be subjectively defined.
No, no, I get that.
I get that.
Of course there's gray areas.
Absolutely.
But the principle and the proof are two different things.
And if you try to confuse the two, what you'll say, you'll say there's gray areas in the proof and therefore there are gray areas in the principle.
That is not a valid argument.
Just because there are gray areas in the proof does not mean that there are gray areas in the principle.
The principle of self-defense holds firm.
Oh, yes.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Now, so look, there are examples where it's perfectly clear.
And it's not just self-defense, defense of a third party, right?
So a day or two ago, a black guy who became a Muslim extremist while he was in jail – He was having all these arguments with people at his work, and basically he was arguing for stoning the death of women, and his boss obviously hadn't taken enough multicultural sensitivity seminars and fired him.
So the guy basically comes back a day or two later, stabs a woman, and then hacks her head off with his knife, and then stabs another woman, and then a guy with a gun shoots him, right?
Right.
Right.
Now, I think this is all on video.
So, in this instance, we don't have any problems at all, right?
Mm-hmm.
Wait.
Yes?
Wait.
Repeat that.
My mind wandered.
Okay.
A guy comes into your workforce, stabs a woman, sores her head off, stabs another woman, and you shoot him.
Mm-hmm.
We have no problems with that, right?
I mean, it's horrible.
Okay.
Okay.
It's horrible, but we're not going to say to that guy, well, that's kind of a gray area, right?
No, no.
That is about as perfect a self-defense situation as you could possibly have.
Strange that the anti-gun people aren't commenting much on this.
Actually, not strange at all.
So there's a situation where things are very clear, right?
Right.
Guy breaks into your house, right?
You say...
I've got a gun.
He rushes you.
You shoot him, right?
Right.
Pretty, pretty clear, right?
Right.
A woman about to get raped cuts a guy's balls off.
Yeah.
Okay.
A very graphic and highly metaphorical attack, but...
Now, what if she misinterpreted...
Now, what if she misinterpreted...
Excuse me.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I tried to get to the mute button right before I sneezed.
Again, yeah.
No, no, no.
Wait, wait.
Hang on.
Hang on.
I'm sorry.
So in these cases, self-defense, we have no problem with, right?
And there's no jury in a sane universe that would say to those people, go to jail, right?
The victims.
Right, yeah.
Assuming the information was correct.
Wait, wait, wait.
On the other side… There is a paranoid guy who thinks his neighbor is sending mind waves of control through, say, a philosophy podcast.
I make good arguments on the web.
That's mind control.
So he burns down his neighbor's house, kills his family.
That is not self-defense.
So what I'm saying is that there are situations that are very clear on both sides.
As long as the information they have is correct.
As long as the information...
I got it.
No, I understand that.
I understand that.
Let's assume that...
Right, because it's beyond a reasonable doubt, right?
Right.
I mean...
Maybe there's video, maybe there's...
But beyond a reasonable date.
Maybe the guy was in a Halloween costume with a fake chainsaw when he walked in and he wasn't really...
He was just trick-or-treating.
He wasn't really trying to kill anyone.
Or maybe the guy that was trying to rape the woman was really just...
Was not really trying to rape her and it was all a misunderstanding.
I don't know, but you know...
I gotta tell you that last one is pretty...
The woman says no, the woman says no, right?
Yeah, okay.
Well, I don't know what the situation is, but...
No, okay.
No, no, no, but these are two different things.
And that's what I'm really trying to reinforce.
There's a principle which you can argue for.
The principle I absolutely agree with.
And the principle I've...
I mean, I've got the whole...
When I redo UPB sometime next year, hopefully I will put the self-defense argument in, which I think I've done fairly well.
Lots of people have done very well.
So the principle of self-defense.
Now, what you're saying is there are times when it's hard to know.
Right.
Yeah, so what?
That doesn't touch the principle at all.
I know, but the problem is in the real world, we don't always have all the information.
In the real world, we don't always...
Well, so what?
Hang on.
That still doesn't affect the principle.
But I'm not arguing if the principle is wrong.
I'm trying to apply it.
But then you're in a situation where philosophy doesn't apply.
Because now we're into forensics, we're into criminal law, criminal justice...
Evidence, hearings, right?
Now you're into...
But I agree with the principle.
I agree with the principle.
It's just that when you try to actually apply the principle to the real world, that's when...
Like, when you brought up DROs, like, I don't see the difference between a DRO and a government.
Because a DRO... Wait, wait, wait.
What do you mean you don't see the difference between a DRO and a government?
You know there's more than one, right?
You know, they can't forcibly prevent competition.
You know, they can't forcibly make people pay for their services.
You know, they have to compete and they have to win people voluntarily.
You can cancel, you can switch, you can set up your own.
Tell me how that's the same as a government.
There are competing governments.
What are you talking about, there are competing governments?
Where there's a government in the USA, there's a government in Europe, there's a government in Africa, there's governments all over the world.
No, no, no.
Come on.
Their governments are basically protection rackets when it comes down to it.
They're basically just protection rackets.
That's all they've really ever been.
Hang on, hang on.
So your argument is that because there are many governments in the world, governments are exactly the same as the free market.
I never said they were exactly the same.
You said DROs are governments.
But I think when it comes down to it, I think when you look at governments throughout history, they're basically just glorified protection.
Listen, I'm getting annoyed because you're jumping all over the place here, right?
You said DROs are basically governments, right?
I think that when it comes down to it, when it comes down to it...
No, no, there's no such thing as when it comes down to it.
That is not an argument.
It's a much more complicated answer, but I think when, like, DROs, if DR, like, anytime you have something that, like, a DRO is allowed to use force, if a DRO is competing...
Everyone.
Everyone is allowed to use force.
Yes, but you have a DRO competing in a free market.
If a DRO will dominate the market, it'll grow large enough.
It can grow large to become essentially as big as a government.
It can grow in size like a large corporation and become like a government.
No, that's like saying a man can grow as big as a mountain.
No.
You can't grow something that is free and voluntary and That's rape.
Things don't just magically oppose their own moral properties simply because of size.
If a DRO is successful and it gets a lot of...
If it's a very successful DRO and it grows in size and it has a lot of...
I don't know what would be the word.
It has a lot of customers and it basically has control of a large area.
No, no, no.
Wait, wait.
What's that last part?
Has control over a large area?
What does that mean?
Well, um...
Are you saying that Microsoft has control over America because it's dominant in the operating system world?
Well, it's a security, right?
Like, it'd be like a...
A DRO is like a security agency, right?
Right.
So it'd be...
It'd have to have some sort of territorial interest, right?
It'd have to...
Because you'd have to have some sort of control over some areas, right?
No.
I'm sorry.
Just because I've gone through this so many times before, it's not your fault.
There is no have to.
It's what the customers want.
So if it's way cheaper to have a whole bunch of people in the same town or the same area do the same DRO, fine.
But it won't be because each year they're going to specialize and they're going to interchange information and they're going to cooperate.
It's called coopetition, right, where you have a bunch of cell phone companies all competing for the same customers.
And the only way that they can do that is they cooperate with each other.
Like, all these ISPs are trying to get customers and they all exchange information, which is why you can send an email from here to Timbuktu and back, right?
But don't you think a lot of the DROs will merge and you'll get something that will look a lot like the government?
If the customers want them to merge, then they will.
And as companies get bigger and bigger...
They get harder and harder to manage.
I think you'll get something looking a lot like a government.
As companies get bigger, they get harder to manage.
And there's more places for the deadwood to hide.
And then technology changes.
And then something else changes.
So let's say that DROs are dealing with criminality.
And next thing you know, somebody comes up with a brain scan to figure out who is most likely to be a criminal or not.
And then offers those guys huge cash incentives to go to therapy or whatever it is, right?
And so there's constantly disruptive technology, constantly disruptive and changing paradigms in the free market, which is why big companies love the government because the government compensates for all the inefficiencies of a big company's growth.
And listen, I mean, I've taken a company from two people to 45 or so people, not huge, but, you know, fairly big as far as growth goes, and it's a different planet.
And then if you go from 45 to 450 to 2,000 to 20,000 to 50,000 or whatever it is, it gets really tough and you just become this big old dinosaur and you heavily invest in your existing systems and then some new system comes along.
Who on earth would have thought that Encyclopedia Britannica would have been displaced by Wikipedia or that a free operating system that comes out of Linux would end up in the Internet of Things running billions of devices for free pretty much, right?
I mean there's constantly disruptive technology.
So this idea that there's, well, there's a couple of guys who have great ideas for dispute resolution and preventing problems and guaranteeing people's contracts and so on.
And they get bigger and they get bigger and bigger and then suddenly they're a giant government, right?
That's magical thinking.
Something can be free and voluntary and restrained by individuals.
The companies are restrained by the customers.
You can't force customers to buy your stuff.
I'm sorry.
I'm not saying that it won't be better than what we have.
It probably will be, and it sounds like a great idea, but I feel like it's still susceptible to a lot of the same problems that we have.
It seems like it's...
It's kind of like that great idea that the Founding Fathers has, that you mentioned many times, like the smallest government, the minarchist government, that the Founding Fathers had this great idea that the smallest government wound up becoming the largest government in the world.
And I feel like this idea, this anarchist idea that you have, this philosophy...
Yeah, but dude, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you keep saying things like, I feel and it seems.
Because it doesn't eliminate...
Hang on.
You have to take those words out back and shoot them.
Because this is a philosophy conversation, which you actually have to bring rational, empirical arguments.
I feel, and it seems, it's like a 12-year-old looking at a piece of art.
Well, okay, I'll take those out, because we haven't eliminated the root cause, which is that problem with the self-defense loophole is still not clearly defined.
And that...
What self-defense loophole?
That...
I don't...
I feel like that's...
It's still...
And the problem with the DRO, it's still...
I don't feel like it's clearly been addressed.
I just...
It's still annoying at me.
You're still saying, I've got a feeling, right?
And what that means is that you have an emotional anxiety about a voluntary society.
That is an emotional problem, which is why you're not rebutting my arguments or providing counter arguments.
You're saying, I feel and it seems.
So what's happening is when you think about a completely voluntary society, that brings up great anxiety in you.
And that's perfectly natural.
That's exactly what propaganda is supposed to do.
If you're raised as a Christian, then the idea of a godless universe, as Pascal wrote about and Ponce says, creates the infinite reaches of these infinite spaces terrify me.
Then you look at a godless universe and you see chaos and terror and horror and blah, blah, blah.
I'm not saying it's extreme that for you.
But the way that propaganda works is they get you so used to a particular structure.
And then they say everything that is not this structure is either evil or we'll boomerang back to this structure, so why bother?
I'm not sure about that because I actually do like – I like the idea of anarchy and I think it's something worth trying.
You're feeling talking again.
Yeah.
Like this or don't like that.
If we were talking about your childhood, I'd care a lot about your feelings.
But if we're talking about philosophy, then I make arguments and you accept or reject those arguments based upon rational or empirical or both standards, right?
But when you start jumping into I feel and it seems and my gut sense is… It's hard for me not to say that.
It's just the way, kind of the way I talk.
But I think it was Alan.
No, it's the way you talk, but it's not the way you think.
Right?
You can't.
That's not thinking.
Alan Moore said it.
Anarchy is our natural state.
And in an anarchy...
Also not an argument, but okay.
Stronger parties dominate weaker parties.
And a government is simply a stronger party that society voluntarily grants the privilege of the use of force with impunity.
We allow...
Is that what he says or is that what you say?
I'm quoting Alan Moore right now.
Okay, so Alan Moore considers governments to be The voluntary expression of the will of the people.
Yeah, we allow the government to use force against others for the greater good of society.
We often allow them to have a monopoly on the use of force for this reason.
And how do we allow them?
And by what standards will we not allow them?
I guess by just...
Complacency, I guess, by not...
No, his argument would probably be, we allow them because we submit, and we disallow them by having a violent revolution.
Yeah, well, that was the rest of the argument.
No, but that's insane.
I mean, and, like, if I don't like the restaurant down the block, I don't have to fucking firebomb the restaurant and set up my own restaurant in its place.
I just don't go.
I think his point...
If I don't want to date some woman, I don't have to go kill her.
So the idea that not participating in something requires that you fight overwhelming force in a suicidal manner is literally mental.
And so just to compare that even remotely to a free market and think that you're describing the same things is completely mad.
What I found interesting about what he said is that he compared what we have now to an anarchy.
What he was saying was like, what we have now is like an anarchy, like it's just an anarchy with the stronger parties dominating the weaker parties.
So an anarchy says without rulers, and he looks at society which is dominated by rulers and says, yeah, it's pretty much the same thing.
But he is an...
But, you know, he is an...
Why would I bother listening to somebody like that?
It's like a biologist saying to you, well, you know, mammals are warm-blooded and suckle their young.
And a toad is cold-blooded and doesn't suckle its young, and it's a mammal.
Like, you work with definitions, and this, you know, the strong dominate the weak.
I mean, I don't even know what that means.
This is such an empty...
I'm not criticizing you for that.
It's just people say, the strong dominate the weak.
What does that mean?
Did the strong singers in American Idol dominate the weak singers?
Did the better dancers in Dancing with the Stars dominate the weaker products?
Did the better looking people dominate the dating market?
I mean, I don't even know what that means.
Just tell me, is there a gun or not?
DROs?
No gun.
Government?
No.
Guns.
Well, the DROs have the guns.
Isn't that...
No.
Why do the DROs have the guns?
Aren't the DROs the ones we're voluntarily allowing to keep us safe?
Well, if some guy came to you and said to you, hey, man, give me $100 a month.
I'm going to take all the weapons from your house.
I'm going to be armed, and I'm going to take care of you.
What would you say?
I know what I'd say.
Keep walking, punk, because that's not going to happen, right?
I don't know who the hell you are.
Why the hell should I give you all of my weapons and pay you to buy a bunch of weapons?
Are you kidding me?
I mean, nobody would go for that in a free society, right?
No, no.
Because the first thing that somebody would have to know if they wanted to sell me defense is that having weapons in the house is a pretty good way to defend yourself.
And if they're going to take away my weapons, they have just taken away a foundational aspect of self-defense, right?
of self-defense, right?
Right.
Right.
So anyone who tried that would be laughed out of society, right?
So anyone who tried that would be laughed out of society, right?
Right.
Right.
So of course nobody would accept that.
So of course nobody would accept that.
And everybody would recognize that fear of DROs getting too powerful would be the biggest single objection to overcome when it comes to selling your services, right?
And everybody would recognize that fear of DROs getting too powerful would be the biggest single objection to overcome when it comes to selling your services, right?
Right.
Right.
So you'd say, hey, man, you know, you got to keep your guns because you're the first line of defense.
You know, here's what we do, right?
I mean, if somebody's – if you're away and somebody steals from your house, you know, we'll go and try and find that person and we'll do, you know, the things necessary for restitution and justice and this and that and the other.
And you can pay us, you know, five bucks or ten bucks a month for that service.
You don't have to, in which case you can pay us directly or you can just not pursue whoever steals from you.
But, you know, you got to have weapons in the house because… Our research is very clear that that's a pretty good line of defense.
Secondly, we're going to teach you how to prevent stuff.
We're going to install these little things on everything that's of value that they only respond to your voice or your thumbprint or whatever so that if anyone steals it, it's pretty useless and we'll make that pretty clear to everyone.
And we are going to have independent third parties audit to make sure we don't have a single… More bullets than we claim we have and a single more gun than we claim we have.
And anybody who finds a single more bullet or a single more gun gets paid $10 million directly, no questions asked.
I mean, they'd have to overcome everyone's objections.
And if a DRO did get too big, it would get inefficient and there would be huge incentives.
Because if a DRO is big, it's either inefficient or it's incredibly efficient.
Now, if it's incredibly efficient, that means it's pleasing its customers, which means that they're not worried and it's reassured them in objective, clear ways that it's not going to take over and become another government.
And why would it?
I mean, why would it?
People who run companies, they don't just flip into mercenary mode.
There's not like some bionic switch on the back of them which turns them into the Terminator.
It's a bunch of accountants and business leaders who are really good at figuring out markets and marketing and selling to people and being innovative with products.
They don't just beep, beep, beep, switch over to be like… Infinite ninjas from the future who can now suddenly dominate an entire geographical region which is full of armed people.
It's not the same people.
Not the same people at all.
And why would they?
Look, if you're a big successful DRO, you're making a fortune.
Why would you suddenly want to go shoot your customers and shoot guns at them?
I mean, that would be insane.
Yeah, that's a good point.
You already got a winning gig going here, right?
Yeah.
I... I definitely agree that that would definitely be a better alternative to what we have now.
I think anything would pretty much be a better alternative to what we have now.
Try, you know, anything to what we have now.
And I think DROs definitely would.
I just...
There is still something gnawing inside me that this...
I just did a podcast on this.
Maybe I need to think about it more.
No, no, but I would guess that you're looking at the current world and saying, well, if we just snapped our fingers and replaced governments with the free market, what would happen, right?
And the world of the future is not the world populated by people like we have now.
It's a generational change.
It's a multi-generational change that starts with peaceful parenting.
There's no big revolution.
So what happens is we keep making the case for peaceful parenting.
We keep making the case for peaceful parenting.
Then what happens is...
Peaceful parenting inoculates the world against sociopathy, evil, lack of empathy, manipulation, control, the kind of insecurity that turns people into parasites.
A confident man and a confident woman, they're not parasites.
A confident man and a confident woman bring value.
They don't manipulate and leech off others.
And so peaceful parenting and love and affection and caring and skin contact and breastfeeding and negotiation and all that builds a different kind of human being.
Now, I know that sounds kind of like, well, with a new human being, Marxism will work.
But this is pretty validated scientifically.
So I'm not sort of making things up.
Let me finish.
So in the future, we won't be dealing...
With this twitchy, scurvy, manipulative, frightened, angry, controlling, insecure, power-hungry, insane population.
So it'd be like if I go to the Middle Ages and I say, I want to sell health insurance when like a third of the people are dying from the plague, people would say, I can't possibly afford health insurance, right?
They'd say, listen, first of all, we've got to deal with the plague.
Then we'll look into your free market solutions.
People are currently dying of the plague.
Not a lot of people go into Ebola-affected areas selling a whole bunch of health insurance, right?
So right now, we have an epidemic of traumatized and brutalized violence in the world.
And that violence takes direct forms of crime, direct forms of military aggression, indirect forms of welfare and money printing and regulation and corporatism and capitalism.
So there's an epidemic of violence in the world.
And you think, well, if we introduce a free market to this, well, the free market is just going to end up having to serve a whole bunch of people who want to do wrong.
And I kind of agree with that, right?
And so we have to make human beings better, I think, before a free market can serve virtue.
Right now, it would be a lot better if there was a free market immediately.
Things would certainly improve.
But in the future, there will be less than half a percent or a tenth a percent of evil people that there are now.
In the same way that now, we don't worry about smallpox and we don't worry about polio, right?
Yeah.
Because we got vaccinations, it's been wiped out.
I mean, whereas smallpox and polio...
We're unbelievable disasters for the human race throughout history.
I think smallpox, up until the 20th century, killed more people than wars did.
They say, well, we can't have the society of them dropping dead of smallpox and polio put people in their lungs.
Hundreds of thousands of people in the Americas.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, just because of lack of immunity and so on, and also some bio-warfare.
And so if you're sort of in the middle of the polio epidemic or you're in the middle of the smallpox epidemic and you're saying, don't worry, man.
In the future, there's going to be this little magic potion that we squirt into people through a tiny metal straw that contains bits of the illness but it's going to make them immune to it and nobody's going to worry about these illnesses.
Well, people would say, well, that's great.
And then you can have health insurance, right?
Right.
I mean, I don't know, because of course there was health insurance in the past and so on, right?
But right now, you have a world seething with manipulation and immorality for a variety of reasons, but all tracing back to bad parenting, in my humble opinion, almost all.
In the future, we won't have those people.
There will be the occasional people who are going to act in a very dysfunctional manner.
People are going to get brain tumors, they're going to get other forms of brain degenerative diseases that are going to change their personality, and there's going to be Yeah.
which means that they can stay home with their kids, both people, if they want to for the first five or six years.
Schools are going to be infinitely better if they're even recognizable.
Yeah, definitely.
Right?
So how many criminals are there going to be when everyone is raised peacefully?
Everyone is raised with negotiation.
Society is fantastically wealthy.
People are not traumatized.
They're not told about demons that are going to rip out their eyeballs if they don't obey the sky ghost.
They're not going to be told how government is necessary and, you know, and so in the future… How much protection are you really going to need?
The DROs are going to be like a late transitional thing.
By the time peaceful parenting is universal, I don't imagine there's going to be any need for DROs.
I love the stuff you do on peaceful parenting.
Did you ever read anything by William Strauss and Neil Howe on generational theory?
I don't think I have to.
Definitely check that out because they talk about how, over the course of history, how there's a generational cycle and how parents have raised children, how parents have compensated.
And they talk about how Generation X... Which is your generation.
How they have been neglected and abused and how the following generation tried to compensate for that.
I consider you kind of like the Dr.
Spock of this generation, the next oncoming generation.
How you're trying to change the trends.
And focus it and how change the next coming generation to make things better for the next one, how Dr.
Spock tried to do for the baby boomer generation and improve the conditions.
And you should definitely check those books out because they made some amazing predictions, a lot of which came true.
And they went way back in American history, going way back to the 1500s, and examined these cycles.
And they identified these four archetypes, these four archetypal generations.
And it's really fascinating stuff.
The book was Generations in the Fourth Turning.
And the fourth turning is what we're in right now, this fourth turning, this crisis period of how we're tearing down the old institutions and we're rebuilding anew.
And I think you're a key figure.
I consider you to be a real key figure in building this new world and the way we're going to be raising children in the future.
And I think you're doing great work in that.
Well, thank you.
I really, really appreciate that.
And, of course, as you know, in this show, flattery gets you everywhere.
No, I appreciate that.
And this is the one thing that's been fantastic about feminism.
And, you know, I say that without a trace of irony, is that feminism has blazed the trail for the voluntary family.
Yes, yes, yeah.
Feminism has blazed the trail for the voluntary family.
And that which we grant to women, we must grant to adults.
And to men, yeah, obviously, right?
And children.
Yeah.
So the fact – I mean I don't know if you could have got to kids before women.
But the fact that women – up until the 60s in Canada, you need an active parliament to get a divorce.
No fault.
Divorce was put forward and has been strenuously embraced by women.
Abortion, of course, is the ultimate expression of a voluntary relationship in that you're willing to kill something you don't want to give birth to.
If you don't want to be a mother, well, you kill the fetus.
And that's a pretty solid affirmation if you believe in that and the morality of that.
That's a pretty solid affirmation of a voluntary relationship.
And so bless the feminists for – Did they go a bit far?
Did they use the state?
Yeah, well, the state was around and people use the tools that are around, right?
But they have absolutely enshrined in the human pantheon of ethics the absolute right and demand to break relationships when they displease you.
To break marriages, to kick out husbands, to leave your children if that's your bent.
They have absolutely enshrined in the human constellation of ethics the absolute right to ditch relationships if they're merely displeasing to you.
Of course, the number one reason for divorce is dissatisfaction.
They're just not satisfied.
Now, extending that to the adult children of parents is...
Easy, conceptually.
It's hard for a lot of people emotionally, right?
Because people's capacity for hypocrisy...
See, I'm not good at double standards.
It doesn't mean I don't make mistakes, really.
I'm just not good at them.
Like, when I first started thinking about the voluntary family, first thing I thought about was feminism.
I said, well, you know, can my mom really complain if I don't see her?
I mean, she kicked out my dad.
She chose him.
I didn't choose her.
He didn't beat her.
She beat me.
And it was one of these things where it's just like, ah, okay, well, that's so completely and fundamentally irresistible.
Like, you can't...
I'm not good at twisting myself into those weird double-think modes where women should have the right to leave relationships that they've voluntarily chosen into that are disastrous for children if they leave and disastrous for children if they kick the man out because they just have the right of being a voluntary family and kicking people out if they simply find them Dissatisfying to be around, right?
And we accept that.
And say, okay, well, adult children have the right to do that.
And they didn't even choose the parents, right?
And I mean, to me, it's just dominoes falling.
Now, for a lot of people, and this is something I'm not, you know, this is one of my many weaknesses is mistaking the world for myself over and over and over again, right?
Mistaking the world for myself.
God!
You think I'd know by now, but I'm still working on it.
To me, it's literally like, not you, right?
How can people possibly have any problem with this?
I mean, emotionally, sure, I get it.
It's difficult.
But intellectually, but then, especially when you meet someone who's rational in one area, like the atheist community, but rational in one area, right?
Yeah.
And then you make the mistake of thinking, wow, this little corner is pretty rational, right?
Or, you know, you come across socialists and you see their skepticism towards religion, right?
You can make that mistake, or I can make that mistake, right?
Or you go to the right of the Republicans and say, well, they're really pro-free market, very skeptical of government.
It's like, well, they're rational then.
It's like, nope.
No, they're not.
They just have little pockets of rationality that really are more tumors produced by the irrationality somewhere else.
And...
So, I just sort of wanted to point out that I appreciate the voluntary family stuff I talked about in the last show, too.
It's essential.
It's the only way forward.
It's logically completely unassailable unless you're going to force men and women to stay married and force them to get married.
Don't even have them choose each other because kids don't choose parents.
Therefore, you have to have people assigned to get married who can never be divorced.
And if you Were to suggest that, people would assume that you were morally insane.
And yet, this is what people completely suggest for adult victims, particularly adult victims of child abuse.
Well, you can't leave.
You can't disengage.
You must stay forever until they're dead, no matter what.
It's like, people promise to stay together till death.
Do they part in marriage?
And everyone's like, oh yeah, well, okay, until death or dissatisfaction, do you part, right?
And I didn't make any vow to my parents at all.
So anyway, look, I got to move on to that, Skola.
I really, really appreciate your conversation and your very, very kind words.
And I think it's a great note to end the conversation on.
Please feel free to call back in anytime.
Thank you.
Check out those books, William Strauss and Neil Howe.
It'll give you great insight into your place in history.
Have a great day.
Thank you.
All right.
Thanks, James.
Strauss and Howe Generational Theory, everybody.
Check it out.
All right.
Up now is Andrea.
She wrote in and said, when I'm abroad, I can think clearly and without effort.
When I'm at home...
Wait, what?
What?
When I'm abroad, I can think...
Wait, wait.
Is there a space?
No space.
No space.
Oh, so overseas?
Yes, yes.
Not with, like, attachable, detachable, naughty...
Okay.
I just, you know, always like to be clear.
That is important.
You know, I've been waiting for that joke for about an hour and a half.
Okay.
When I'm abroad, I can think clearly and without effort.
When I'm home, I slide back into a state of non-existence.
How can I break this spell and be productive no matter where I am?
Hmm.
What do you...
Now, is it Andrea?
Or, as a woman I dated in high school said, no, no, Andrea...
It's Andrea, but you can call me Andrea.
Mike, he totally whited that up.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Andrea!
This will not be the first name I butcher in the history of Freedom Aid Radio, I promise you that, but my apologies.
It's okay.
Okay, well what do you think, and just for those who don't know, we've met.
Full disclosure.
Nice to chat with you again.
What do you think the difference is?
I have speculated on that, but nothing has come up on top in my speculations.
At first I thought maybe it's because I'm in close proximity to my parents.
Okay, and what is your history with your parents and thinking for yourself?
Oh, that's a very bad history.
I can't think for myself when I'm around my parents at all.
And, you know, the for myself is kind of redundant, right?
You can't think for other people, right?
Like I can't digest your food.
Yeah, true.
And so, I mean, I just want to sort of point that out.
I can think and reason, but only along the lines of their beliefs.
They like to debate, but they don't like to be contradicted.
They pretend they really like to be open-minded and they really like to hear what you're thinking.
But on the other hand, when you really say what you're thinking and if that contradicts their beliefs or somehow threatening to them, everything is threatening to them, then you have a problem.
And what do they say when that comes up?
They will say that I'm stupid, have emotional problems, don't have a clear view of the world because I'm not right in the head, or some variation of that.
Not that bluntly, but almost as bluntly as that.
But it's basically the Soviet argument, right?
Which is, if you're not a giant fan of communism, You must be mentally ill.
Here's some horse tranquilizers and a padded cell, right?
Exactly that, yeah.
Right, right.
And why do you think they do that?
Because they feel threatened by arguments.
Because they have created this little vacuum universe codependency marriage thing where they don't allow any opinions that might threaten their world and their crazy warp logic.
Right.
And so what do you think is the emotional driver for the aggression of I think fear, especially on the part of my mother.
She's very afraid to lose her system, her way of viewing the world.
In her mind, it's perfectly consistent, but...
It crumbles when you pull at one weird argument or one silly belief or everything comes tumbling down.
So she really doesn't want to be challenged in any way, even the smallest, most stupid things.
Right.
Right.
So I think it's probably fairly clear that she is very much wed to a methodology.
Right.
Sorry, she's very much wed to a set of conclusions rather than to a methodology.
Yes, yes.
Right.
Now that, I mean, this sounds all very innocuous, but it is an incredibly deep and powerful aspect to, I don't know, I wouldn't even call it a relationship, to proximity with people.
Proximity to prejudice is conform or die.
Yes.
Conform or be erased.
Conform or be attacked.
Conform or be insulted.
Conform or be driven away until you do conform, right?
Yes.
And the reason why this is so chillingly common in families is that there's no such power as the power of parenting.
Let's just say I'm some horrible racist, right?
And...
I go around telling people about all these racist ideas.
What's going to happen to me?
People are going to challenge you.
Well, they might, but let's just say, it doesn't matter what you say, this is what I believe, and blah blah, and just keep saying all this horrible stuff.
Then people don't want to hang out with you anymore.
Yeah, like if I say all the problems of the world can be traced back to whites, or whatever racist stuff I'm spewing, right?
Then...
Right?
So then people will reject me.
That's a free market, right?
That's a free market, and then I can have my bigotry, so I can have whatever, right?
And people can reject me, right?
Now, my daughter, my son, can't go anywhere.
And this power disparity is tragic in many ways because it means that because there's no free market in the family, people's Addiction to conclusions is not limited by voluntarism.
Right?
If I'm just addicted to a conclusion that's offensive to those around me, I pay the price for that socially, right?
But, but, my kids can't go anywhere, and I can make the price of survival in my vicinity, psychological survival in my vicinity, I can make the price for that, agree with me or else, right?
I can't do that at work.
I can't do that even at the grocery store.
Because they can ban me.
Restaurants, clubs, friends.
Friends can just...
No, man.
You can't come over, you racist bastard.
Whatever, right?
And dating, right?
My kids have to put up with my BO, but somebody I'm dating doesn't, right?
Right.
And the reason I sort of want to point that out is...
If you have a template of conform to irrational conclusions, and almost all conclusions are irrational because very few people have a strict methodology for processing information, right?
Yes.
Also, Andrea, if you could just back off on the mic a little bit.
Better?
Yeah, it's fine.
Thanks.
So, that is the template, right?
Now, the template then is...
That when you're around people who have historically inflicted their conclusions on you under threat of punishment, then you are scanning for necessary conformity, right?
You can't scan for necessary conformity and think for yourself.
You could do a weird kind of dance to avoid being shot at, But it's not going to be you at one with the music, right?
If you're like on some, people are shooting at you, you'll be jumping around and all that.
But you're not exactly doing spontaneous interpretive dance based upon your passionate connection to the music, right?
Because you're just dodging bullets.
Right.
So, if that's your history, when you're abroad, sort of reminds me of that old joke, Russian kid and a Communism.
What do you want to be when you grow up?
A foreigner!
But when you're abroad, then you are far away and you are in the free market of society, right?
Until we act in families like we're in the free market.
As I said to my daughter, I want to act as if you could at any moment replace me with whoever you wanted and you'll still choose me.
And she will, bless her gorgeous heart.
And she does.
And then I give her candy.
But when you are overseas, you are in the free market.
And when you're in the free market of social relationships, people are there by choice, you can think for yourself, and you can reject crazy people in the free market, right?
Yes.
But when you're at home with your parents, sorry, I shouldn't say you have a home separate from your parents, but when you're with your parents, You are no longer in the free market, right?
Yep.
And all parents who use social pressure, manipulation, guilt, intimidation, getting other people to apply pressure, illness, feebleness, whatever, all parents who use manipulation are confessing that they have not earned their children's love and attention.
Right.
Right.
My daughter proposed to me the other day.
She's actually convinced that how it works is she and I get married.
Because apparently there's just no need to ever get rid of any Freudian theories whatsoever.
And it's lovely because then she's voluntarily choosing me, right?
Yes.
Because she knows that marriage is a choice and she knows that me as a father is not a choice for her.
But if she proposes to me, she is saying to me that she would choose me.
Outside of the bounds of involuntary parenthood, right?
Yeah.
That's a beautiful thing.
I can't possibly...
I mean, I think about it now.
I get choked up.
When you're away, you have the right of choice.
Where you have the right of choice, you have the right of identity.
You have the right of being who you are.
You have the right of thinking and speaking.
And if people don't like it, it doesn't really cost you that much.
If people do like it, there are benefits and so on, right?
Yes.
When you're home...
Sorry, I keep saying that.
I apologize.
When you are with your parents, you're not in the free market, you don't have the right of identity, and rejection is incredibly costly, right?
Yes.
So, doesn't it kind of static and overwhelm?
It does.
I think you're right in your mistake by calling it home, because that's the way I'm acting, as if I'm home when I'm In my own country.
Yeah.
Right.
It feels maybe because of the language and the climate and the visual cues of the neighborhood and so on.
I had a dream the other night that I was back in my old childhood neighborhood.
I swear to God, it's like no time passes at some places in the brain.
No time passes at some places in the brain.
And so if you have those clues, especially if your parents live...
You know, in the house or neighborhood where you grew up, I mean, it's like you walking down the street.
I feel myself shrinking.
Yes.
Getting younger, getting smaller.
Do you think that if you are fully yourself with your parents that there would be any capacity for a breakthrough?
No, I've tried that and we don't have any contact anymore.
So that didn't work.
I'm sorry about that.
Yeah, well, it's better, I think, to not have contact with them.
Yes, I certainly agree that life is too short to turn solid meat into empty water and just pour yourself into other people's prejudices and pretend that you're alive.
I don't think that's a productive way to live.
It may seem okay when you're young.
But as you get older and you realize the time's ticking away, that every time you turn into a ghost, you're just shorter of breath, as the song says, and one day closer to death.
And you also don't have forever to be yourself.
So I'm sorry that that's the way it is, but I certainly understand it.
And other people in your life, can you be yourself?
Can you speak your mind clearly?
Do they support you in your decisions?
Yes, I have a few good friends, and my husband also is very supportive of what I want to do and what I think.
But I still wonder, why do I still act as if I am water being poured into other people's shapes?
Why doesn't the break with my family also mean that I can be myself?
Why doesn't it work that way?
Because that is what I was hoping, but It doesn't work that way.
Yeah, I mean, it's not instantaneous, as you know, right?
Yes.
And, I mean, I grew up speaking English.
Let's say I decide English is abusive, I'm going to switch to Afrikaans or something, right?
Mm-hmm.
Well, how long is it going to take for me to forget English?
All right.
A long time.
And, and, let me tell you this, Andréa.
To, I think, work the metaphor even more usefully.
The best way for me to forget English is spend no time around people who speak English.
Every time I hear English, it is reactivated, right?
Yep.
And so, at least for me, if I want to stop speaking the language of win-lose, subjugation, abuse, control, manipulation, all that crap...
I actually, I just, I can't spend time around people who do that.
Because I'm trying to forget that language.
And to forget the language means trying to just, so if in the environment there are people who you cannot be self-expressed with, I know you're not seeing your parents, but if there are people in that environment, they are going to keep that language alive for you, I would guess.
Right, but I don't have the feeling that I'm in that situation anymore for a long time now, for a couple of years.
But I still feel this really big difference when I'm at home or when I'm in another country.
So, clearly, it's not perfect yet.
I'm not myself yet in wherever I go.
Do you speak other languages when you go abroad?
Yes, I do.
Okay.
I mean, obviously, you can't separate from your language.
But in a different language, we often think differently.
There's a new perspective, right?
Yes.
So it may be the proximity of the language, accents could be the case, music, food, like things that mnemonically trigger memories from your history.
Yeah, I feel like I'm a new person in new environments.
I really feel new and I can react to the situation like I have no memories or I have no prior history.
Right.
Have you ever thought about living abroad?
Yes.
It might be interesting if you can to take some time and live someplace else.
And see how that feels for you.
I, you know, I tell you this.
I grew up in England and when I'm around people with British accents, I'm aware that the accent even can be a trigger for me.
Yeah.
All right.
Downton Abbey is pure torment!
And again, I don't have an answer for that.
I mean, it's not like I'm going to say no to friends from England.
I mean, it's just something that I'm aware of and have to manage.
So, what does your culture as a whole think of your decision, if they know about it at all, to not spend time with your family of origin?
My culture?
Yeah.
Those around you, if they find out at work or social situations with people you're meeting.
I don't think you blarp it out the moment you meet people, but, you know, is it still something you have to hide?
Well, I don't really think of sharing it with people I don't really trust or consider friends.
But the people who are my friends, I definitely can share it with and they understand.
So I don't face judgment from my circle of friends, no.
Right, right.
Well, then the only thing I would suggest, Andrea, is to just continue to...
Unpack your heart with people around you and go against that particular trend until such time as you sort of tip the fulcrum and then your environment becomes that which you are self-expressed in rather than the environment wherein you were not self-expressed in the past.
If I feel myself blocked in particular areas, I just double down.
Right.
To me, that is a spur for deeper and further action.
I'm like, fine.
I'm just going to do better shows.
I'm just going to do...
They are spurs to me doing a better job.
I've still so far to go.
What a great way to sell this conversation to you.
Andrea's going to be so much better in the future.
Sorry you stuck with the present suckiness.
But no, I really want to go further in my capacity to excavate and catapult language.
And...
So for me, where I feel a tendency to fall back in time, I hit the gas to the future.
So for you, if there's something in your environment that makes you feel less self-expressed, to me, that would be a perfect or challenging and therefore perfect opportunity to go further in self-expression.
I've mentioned this a number of times before.
I'll just touch on it very briefly here.
My brother gave me a C.S. Lewis book called The Screwtape Letters, which says, if the devil tempts you with la viciousness, be celibate, right?
If the devil tempts you with greed, be generous.
If the devil tempts you with gluttony, eat less.
And that way, the temptations to immorality in the Christian environment then become spurs to morality.
And if...
A feeling of inhibition with regards to self-expression, where that shows up, you could look at that as, here's where I should really, really self-express.
All right.
I'm thinking about how I could do that.
Because the funny thing is, I'm already pretty active as a writer and as a speaker, by the way.
Oh, good for you.
Yeah.
So, I do feel that I express myself, but it doesn't take or require much effort on my part.
Oh, dear.
Oh, Andrea, don't tell me you don't.
I have been self-expressing myself, lo, these many decades.
I have been running this show, lo, these many years.
Yes.
And I'm openly telling you, by God, I've got so much further to go.
Exactly.
Are you pushing your boundaries, young lady?
No, I'm absolutely not.
I do...
Exactly as much as I have to do something really good.
But often that is not very much time I have to spend to do one thing really good.
So give one really good speech or write one really good article.
But then it just flares out again.
I can't do anything.
Yeah, so you're not willing to make today's gold tomorrow's crap.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I mean, because you've got to keep moving.
I mean, isn't that what greatness always is?
When it comes to language and communication, we're bounded by nothing.
Nothing!
I mean, human beings can only run so fast, right?
Yes.
And then every faster person is incrementally less fast in terms of improvement, right?
There's less improvement, less improvement, because you can only run so fast, right?
Right.
How good a communicator can you be?
I don't know.
You don't know.
Right.
I don't.
You don't, but as soon as you're satisfied, you atrophy.
Yeah, but I'm not satisfied.
Yeah, look, there's only so much you can bench press, right?
But certainly, the moment you say, well, I bench pressed enough, then you start atrophying.
Your muscles start to atrophy, right?
Right.
And even if you get used to a particular – this is my problem with working out.
I find working out pretty dull, so I tend to fall into patterns and then get progressively less benefit, right?
Because I'm not surprising my body with new moves, right?
Except, you know, when I'm teaching hip-hop and breakdancing classes.
Just kidding.
So when you have, you know, well, I can give a good speech or I can write a good article and so on.
No, no, you've got to...
You know, there's no...
You're squeezing toothpaste out of a tube.
You know, we've all done that thing.
It's like, damn, forgot to go to the drugstore, right?
And trying to muscle that last little piece out of a toothpaste tube.
You know, or for a teenager, masturbating for the ninth time that day.
And so you have no...
End to the quality of the language you can emit.
The quality of the words that you can emit.
They get better.
Singers can only sing so high.
At some point you sound like Mickey Mouse on helium or Madonna and you just can't go any higher.
But there is no end to the quality or the capacity of human communication, right?
Right.
And so if you've gone to a particular place and And you just kind of go back to the same place in terms of your communication.
Well, I think you may not be so much unexpressed as bored.
Yes, I am.
So keep going.
Find different and better ways.
You know, just for me, I try not to overuse the same metaphors.
I know I do.
I try not to.
I try never to give the same speech.
I've seen speakers who are like, yeah, I've been giving this speech for 15 years.
I'm like, why?
How can you?
My God!
I mean, I understand 15 years ago there was no YouTube, but it's like now, oh my God!
You know, why would you?
I mean, it's just, you guys watch the damn thing, right?
Right.
It's not like a concert where you want to, you know, as David Spacey says about Radiohead, you know, play that song like it is on the album.
Don't screw it up!
Right?
Don't do what David Bowie did in the Sirius Moonlight Tour and just reinterpret his songs.
It's like, I don't want you to reinterpret the songs.
I'm here because I like those songs.
And if you're not pushing the boundaries, aren't you just falling into nothing, so to speak?
Yeah.
Absolutely.
And I do wonder why I don't push my boundaries.
I feel like it's not welcome.
It's not possible.
And it won't be appreciated.
So if I do something, then often it gets appreciated.
But I feel then, oh, that was good enough.
Or that's as far as it can go.
So I don't follow up on that.
I don't...
It's done for me at that moment and I don't really, rationally I don't really get that because I want to not be bored, to do more, to change the world.
But I can't emotionally.
Something is holding me back and it really frustrates me.
Alright, can I tell you a giant secret?
Go ahead.
Alright.
Excellence means that you're always on the edge of Of completely screwing things up.
Ah.
Right.
Right, because excellence obviously requires risk.
Yes.
And true excellence means that you're just flirting with disaster continually.
And this is, it's a bit of a cliche, obviously, if you're not willing to fail, you can't really succeed, and all that kind of, right?
But the degree to which we must embrace a continual capacity for failure is the degree to which we continue to push forward human excellence.
Now, this is a bit different in the mental arts as it is in the physical arts.
But every time you wish to improve a skill, you must go beyond what you know how to do.
That's a truism, right?
If you keep skiing the bunny hills, well...
You never really get to be a good skier.
I will tell you a story.
Oh my god, it's a new story!
So, first time I went skiing, I was 15 or 16.
And I'd heard that the snow was really bright, so I bought a pair of welding goggles.
Because...
I didn't know what I was doing.
I bought a pair of welding goggles, and I get off the ski lift, I put the welding goggles on, and it goes from, like, it was really bright.
It goes from, like, bright Gestapo-style tell-me-about-your-birthplace interrogation by the sun to basically being 70 to 80 feet underwater on a cloudy day in a storm.
And I'm skiing along thinking, okay, well, I'm staying up, that's good.
I mean, I'd already skated, so I'm staying up It's some kind of dark shapes out there.
I assume they're trees or people.
I can't really tell.
So I'm basically...
Like, if you could navigate through sonar, that's kind of what I was doing.
I might as well have let out some bat chirps and listened for the echoes or whatever.
Skiing along, skiing along.
Okay, fine, right?
And I think, okay, well, I don't know where I'm going.
I can't really see the signs because everything's this dim, murky, underwater SWAT team night vision crap.
And I see a bunch of shapes.
And I figure, okay, well, I guess I went down an easy hill.
And that's the end.
Good.
I figured at any moment now my eyes are going to adjust.
And it was not the end of the hill.
It was a bunch of people who were at the top of a double black diamond, which for those who don't know is basically the death drop littered with bodies of the overconfident kind of ski hill.
And they were all at the top, because they're like, oh man, that's a giant hill.
I couldn't tell, though.
The guy I was skiing with ahead just vanished.
Like, literally, he'd just gone.
I'm like, whoa.
And then I basically sailed through the people, and then I was on the death drop.
Oh, Jesus.
I don't remember much of it.
I do remember, like, straining my leg muscles to the point where I thought they were going to pop out my eyeballs.
My friend didn't make it.
Actually hurt his knee.
I got to the bottom.
But halfway down, I'm like, I can't see a thing!
I mean, I can't even see any gradations.
It's just this big green murk with a couple of trees in the distance.
And, you know, this is the moguls and stuff.
So I'm like, to hell with it.
And I rip off my Goggles.
Naturally, I now basically feel like icicles made of sunlight obscured my eyeballs because I can't see it.
Really, it was worse.
Couldn't see anything.
Snowblind, completely.
So, of course, that which I was concerned about has actually come true, but while I'm going down this death drop of a hill.
And I made it down to the bottom.
Everything's okay.
Never put those on.
Went and bought a pair of sunglasses.
Everything was fine.
But it was a pretty cool way to start skiing because nothing was really as alarming as that.
And I actually became a pretty good skier over time.
Yes, you survived.
Yes.
Now, I'm not recommending it.
That was ridiculous, right?
Pretty much.
And I was not skiing.
I was not dying.
Yeah.
As best I could, right?
I don't want to die.
I'm too young.
I still have my hair.
Take it.
Right?
And that's not what I recommend, but there is an important lesson in that, which is to be uncomfortable is to gain skills.
Because there were all these people who could see ahead of them Who
didn't go down the hill?
It's two things, in my opinion, since I think we're both on the same team and heading in the same direction with the same tools.
Changing the world is two things.
Number one is consistency.
You got your principles.
You just stick with the principles.
I'm sorry if it makes people uncomfortable.
I'm sorry if it makes them imagine they hate me.
I'm sorry if it makes people's lives difficult.
All the good things that I enjoy morally and to some degree technologically arose because people were willing to make other people uncomfortable.
Progress is the capacity to make entrenched interests uncomfortable.
How happy are PC makers that everyone's using tablets?
Not very comfortable.
How happy were carriage manufacturers that cars came along?
Not very comfortable.
How happy were slave catchers that...
People got rid of formal slavery.
Not very happy, right?
The willingness to provoke discomfort in entrenched interests is the very definition of success.
I mean, if you're not provoking...
And progress.
If you're not provoking any discomfort in entrenched interests, then you are not advancing anything.
You're not doing anything of consequence.
And so, number one is consistency.
And number two...
It's just willing to be uncomfortable or willing to make other people uncomfortable.
In this particular realm, that's really tough because you have a lot of empathy.
Empathy for yourself, which is why you're willing to protect yourself and so on.
You have a lot of empathy.
So in the moral realm, you can't have practical ethics without empathy.
But empathy makes it hard to make other people uncomfortable, right?
Right.
Right.
And so this is one of the reasons why ethics is so bloody slow to move forward.
An excess of empathy is a paralysis of moral progress.
If you don't have empathy, you can't contribute anything really to the moral equation, other than manipulative destruction in the sort of Kantian or Marxist or Hegelian narrative.
But if you have empathy, then you can contribute to ethics.
But if you have empathy, the more consistently you contribute to ethics, the more uncomfortable you make other people, which is difficult for your empathy, right?
So knowing how to be empathetic in the right way to the right people for the right cause and knowing when to be harsh and to welcome people Anger and hatred is a great challenge, right?
Especially when, because we're all told, you know, people are all the same, you know, we all put our shoes on one foot at a time, and I'm sure the Russians love their children too, and, you know, we're all told that we're the same.
And so, because this sameness, we're all told everyone's the same.
Deep down, we're all the same.
This is the myth of the soul, right?
Everybody's redeemable.
Everybody's got a conscience.
Everybody's got mirror neurons.
They just got to find that switch, right?
Turn it on, baby.
And because we're given this lie always that everyone's the same, then anytime we provoke discomfort in others, if we have empathy, we must be doing something bad or something wrong, right?
Yes.
Right?
What is it...
What is it Joe said to me in that conversation we had a little while back?
Why are you hated?
Right?
It's a baffling question for a lot of people.
And I know it's not me and all that kind of stuff, right?
But empathy means you can contribute to the moral conversation.
But universal empathy means you can't because it's too uncomfortable when people dislike what you're doing, right?
Yes.
But it's hard because it's not – you can't just dial it up and dial it down at will, right?
And for me, this is the challenge of pushing forward with my empathy for the genuine victims of this world without extending empathy to the abusers of this world.
And again, I credit feminism with helping me with that, right?
They had empathy for the victims of spousal abuse and no empathy for the perpetrators of spousal abuse.
Right.
So, I mean, I know it's a long speech, and I'm happy to listen now, but what I would say is that if you want to change the world, embracing consistency and developing the muscle of discarding the hostility of evildoers, boy...
If you figure that out in a lifetime to the point where you're perfect at it, please let me know.
I think it will be a life's work.
Fascinating analysis because, indeed, I'm almost always drawn to the ideas that are considered most radical in almost everything I do.
So, academically or as an essayist, I always go for the most radical ideas.
But for me, they're not radical.
They're consistent or they make sense.
Nothing's more radical than consistency.
Exactly.
And funnily enough, last week I was actually diagnosed with autism because of this.
What now?
Yes.
You won't believe this.
It's really funny.
Because the expert on autism, for some reason, told me that how most people think is a complete mess, and I need to understand that.
I have to empathize with how people think.
Because I gave her an example, for instance, something I really, really, really can't stand.
Someone said, no names, but someone said, Obama is a really great president.
And a few sentences later, Bradley Manning did amazing work.
He should have gone much further than he did.
And I was about to, my heart started pounding really fast.
I was getting sweaty and red in the face.
I was like, stop, stop this conversation right now.
Did your ears hear what your mouth just said?
Please.
Don't you want to play people back to themselves?
Yes.
Remember how you just, I mean, I used to have this in relationships until, you know, I found it.
A wonderfully sane woman.
But it's like, you just said this, now I've got to play you back!
Exactly, but the worst thing, they are not impressed when you confront them with their own inconsistencies.
They're like, yeah, well, yeah, okay, all right, yeah, whatever.
And then they go on with the conversation.
I'm like...
Yeah, I'll grudgingly give you that point.
Like, I guess it's important to you.
Exactly.
So, here you go.
Right, and I am foaming.
I can't concentrate on the conversation anymore because it irritates me so much.
And according to the expert, that was a sign of autism, so...
There you go.
So, being upset by inconsistency and hypocrisy in others is a sign of autism.
Yes, I thought about you right away.
Ah!
Right, right, right.
Of course, the striving for consistency is really the basis of modern science, right?
The reason for double-blind experiments, the whole point of physics.
Striving for consistency pretty much unseated the whole Catholic medieval worldview of the Earth at the center of the solar system and of the universe and everything and the stars all going around and all that, right?
And so striving for consistency is what gave us the modern world.
Yes.
There are people who don't like the striving for consistency.
It's like, do you like your cell phone?
Exactly.
Consistency!
How do you like getting up in a plane and not dying?
Consistency!
Appreciate physics?
Want medicine?
Like your car working?
Consistency!
Consistency!
Exactly.
And at the moment we get ethics within one-tenth of one-tenth of one percent of science, this world will be a paradise.
Yeah, my goal is to rationalize ethics, so...
Yeah.
Yeah.
But apparently that is not normal, so it's a disorder.
Right.
Right.
And I asked this expert, was Frege autistic or is everyone in language philosophy autistic?
Is every mathematician autistic?
What is this disorder you speak of?
And she was like, well, it's a funny coincidence that some ways of thinking coincide with the ways of thinking of autistic people.
But it's still a disorder.
That sounds like a fine null hypothesis.
Yes.
Yeah, my reaction to most experts in these fields is like, hey, if that's what you call normal, I think I'm allergic.
Exactly.
I can't help you, right?
Exactly.
Right.
But I think that is part of my reluctance to really go all out because I'm always considered the odd one out or the one with the radical opinion.
So if people ask me to speak at a conference, for instance, they think of me as, oh, this will get a lot of audience or people will get mad at this, so that's good for sales or whatever.
But they don't really take me seriously because I'm still the...
Autistic person with too much consistency, you know?
That's really frustrating.
Yeah, that's an old quote.
It says, little consistencies are the hobgoblins of immature minds or something like that.
Or as Walt Whitman said, you say I contradict myself.
Very well, I contradict myself.
I have a giant beard.
I can hide my contradictions in my neck here.
But no, it matters.
It matters in a very fundamental way.
Consistency is sanity.
Consistency is sanity.
We all know that.
Object consistency, right?
If you see a chair in a room, you turn around, you turn back, and the chair is gone, you have a problem, right?
You have a problem, right?
You've got space aliens beaming shit up, which I know happens to my keys on a regular basis.
You have...
People sneaking in and out, moving stuff around, or you saw stuff that wasn't there.
Inconsistency is not only immorality, it's insanity.
Yes.
And elevating mad to normality is an embarrassment.
All it does is it says conformity is a virtue.
If mental health is normality, conformity is always a virtue.
This is just the national anthem of cowardice.
Right.
You've got to ask these people, are there any societies that are dysfunctional?
Is it people in Sierra Leone?
Riddled with Ebola?
It's up to like 5,000 cases or something like that now.
They believe that white people are giving them Ebola?
Yes.
Don't even get me started on what some people in the black community in America think about where AIDS and crack cocaine came from, but...
And they go and murder the healthcare workers who are trying to stop the spread of this disease?
Yes.
Because they think that they're...
Can we at least say that's somewhat dysfunctional?
If you don't join in the murder gang for your people trying to save you, then are you...
Is that normal?
Somebody saying, you know, maybe we shouldn't kill the people who are here with the medicine.
Well, you see, you're not conforming, and therefore, those people must be autistic.
Exactly.
Yeah, and she said, but you have to understand that more than 90% of people don't think that way.
And I'm like, yes, they're wrong.
And she just smiled at me like, oh, she doesn't really get it, you know?
And then she tried to explain how normal people think, and I'm like, they're wrong.
So...
I was really at war with this woman, and I don't feel like that just with the experts.
I feel like that with my colleagues, with the general public, with my parents.
It just repeats itself everywhere I go.
So, Andrea, did you perhaps not provide me with all of the information in the earlier part of our conversation there?
Maybe.
I'm afraid you will, in fact, have to listen back.
And you will have to hear me ask you, can you be self-expressed in your environment?
And you say, yep!
Yeah, in my direct environment, people, I select five people.
Right.
But that's not even the majority of your day, right?
Exactly.
Right.
Right.
Well, I'll tell you this.
If you keep pushing that consistency and you work on developing the muscle to endure the discomfort of irrational people, then you can have a life where everybody is chosen.
Right.
You know what I'm talking about, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, I will draw in like-minded people, and I will drive out people who can deal with my consistency, so it solves it.
Right.
Right.
But to get there, I need to be expressive, so, yeah.
Yes, I mean, I would certainly recommend, you know, push the envelope.
I don't believe in strategies.
I'm not, you know, real good at that stuff.
Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, I don't know.
I'm not that good at strategies.
I'm not that good at, well, you know, people can only take so much truth at a time, and so inch by inch, little by little, any kind of stuff, right?
You just woo them over.
Boy, I don't think we have time for that.
No time for that.
And I would fail at that, because betrayal shows up deep in the eyeballs.
It shows up in the tone of the voice.
And if I'm betraying my principles for the sake of incremental acceptance, people won't hear any principles.
They'll only hear the betrayal.
Yes.
And it's manipulative.
Yeah, it's not consistent either.
No, and everybody knows where the ideas lead anyway.
Right.
Everybody knows where reason and consistency leads anyway.
Which is why they're so good at avoiding it, right?
Yes, very good.
I mean, if I dance all the way through a minefield and get to the other side, nobody can tell me.
I don't know where the mines are.
Nobody can tell anyone else.
Oh, that guy doesn't know where the mines are.
It's like, it's a pretty closely packed minefield.
He made his way from A to Z. One end to the other.
Didn't blow anything up.
There's no red mist to form a person there.
And most people get from the beginning of their lives to the end of their lives...
Avoiding, dodging, slithering through under, turning themselves into vapor, going through the vents to avoid consistency, to avoid reason, to avoid truth.
They know where it is.
They know where it leads.
How the hell can they get from birth to death with consistency all around them in physics, with the value of consistency all around them in the free market, and then say, well, you know, I guess I was never exposed to consistency.
It's like, no, no, no.
You dodged inconsistency every time.
So you know exactly what it is, exactly where it leads.
But why do people do that?
Because it's so much harder than just follow.
Why do you do it?
What are these other people you're talking about?
It's easy.
Okay, so they don't ask me, well, I just, I can't imagine.
Why do you do it?
No, no, why are people inconsistent?
That's what I mean.
Why do they dodge?
You're inconsistent.
That's what I'm trying to say.
Right?
Because you're going only so far.
And you're doing the same speech or the same essay fundamentally, and you're not pushing further, right?
No, I do a different essay every time because I have a lot of topics I'm interested in, but I only get so far.
Even when I want to do something really ambitious or something really interesting...
I think nobody will want to know this or people will just laugh at me again.
And by the way, when I said I want to rationalize ethics, I meant medical ethics because you already rationalized ethics.
For instance, a project like that, people would just, yeah, wouldn't be interested.
And that's really hard for me to just motivate myself, to convince people who really, really don't want to.
I have to get them kicking and screaming to see it my way.
And that's a lot of energy I have to put in people who are not really worth it, per se.
Right.
Yeah.
Right.
Yes, yes.
And there is a war between consistency and exploitation.
These two are the opposites.
People usually don't see it that clearly, but it's fundamentally what it is.
It's all I've been talking about all these years.
The opposite of consistency is exploitation, and the opposite of exploitation is consistency.
Because the whole purpose of power is to create universal rules and then exclude yourself, right?
Right.
You can't counterfeit, but we can counterfeit.
You can't start wars, we can start wars.
You can't take property, we can take property.
Inconsistency is exploitation.
And exploitation is inconsistency.
So to fight Immorality.
You must fight inconsistency.
It is a life or death struggle, not metaphorically, but literally.
Humanity will not survive without consistency.
Because we have the consistency in the realm of weaponry, right?
We have science, we have engineering, both of which rely upon consistency.
In the weaponry of power, we have consistency.
In the machinery of propaganda, we have consistency.
So, so much power has been handed to power because of consistency.
I don't think fundamentally we'll survive.
I mean, we may survive physically, but in terms of the spirit of the species, in terms of our yearning for freedom, in terms of our capacity for independence, in our capacity to challenge authority, and our capacity to overturn existing structures, I don't think we'll really get there.
I don't think we'll really survive in any fundamental way, in any important way, unless...
We fight like a cavalry of angels for consistency.
And I say that using cavalry and angels, which are both examples of inconsistency.
See?
Even I have to use these weapons.
Right.
Yes.
I think deep down maybe it is that I doubt whether it's possible because if the experts say, I used air quotes there, but if the experts said that more than 90% of people think that way, inconsistently, and I'm always the odd one out, then how am I going to make everyone see it my way?
Oh, you can't, right?
I mean, but you can't.
I mean, but...
I mean, I fight this, right?
Because I grew up with an irrational, dominant mother and an irrational, dominant society and blah, blah, blah.
And I have to remind myself, I can't fix the insanity of the world.
I can't fix the irrationality of the world.
I can't fix the subjectivity of the world.
I can't.
I put out my arguments.
It's all I do.
Steady stream.
Of arguments, evidence, consistency.
It's all I can do.
I can't be Batman.
I can just shine that light into the clouds, right?
I can't even make him come.
But I know, sure as sunrise, if that light isn't in the clouds, no superheroes are showing up.
We'll put the light into the clouds.
That's all we can do.
Thumbs up to reason, right there in the cumulus, right in the belly of the haze over the world.
You shine the light up into the clouds.
Maybe the superheroes will come.
Maybe they won't.
But at least there's a possibility.
And the internet provides us that possibility.
You and I would never have met without the internet.
We'd never have this conversation with the internet.
We wouldn't know each other's thoughts without the internet.
The internet is the best chance for consistency to crush exploitation because People with consistent arguments can put those arguments out without the gatekeepers of exploitation shutting them down.
Right.
And you can reach the world from home.
And the rarity of consistent thinkers, which is really to say thinkers, the way that people think is like...
There is no way that...
You're either thinking or you're not thinking.
Right?
Thinking isn't just...
Stuff going through your mind, right?
I mean, it's putting together reasoned arguments with reference to evidence.
It's not, and then I thought of a horse, and then I thought of a car, and then I thought of a hat, and that's not thinking, right?
There's no way that it's like, well, the way that some people do science is very much the opposite of way other people do science.
It's like, no, no, no, it's not.
Either one of them or none of them is doing science, but if there's a discrepancy, they can't both be doing They can't both be employing the same methodology and doing the opposite thing.
Can't do it.
The way that some people go north and the way that other people go north can be complete opposites.
Not from the same place.
No.
Right.
So we have this opportunity to find each other, right?
We have the stars to navigate by.
We have the opportunity to find each other in this wilderness.
Of ghosts.
We can find solid flesh and boon companions.
Unprecedented.
Our isolation before made us imprisoned in our own consistency and turned mad by the madness of the majority.
And now, the secret thoughts of consistency which we all harbor like dangerous bacilli of future growth Within our hearts can meet other people and connect and we can have a tribe of reason for the first time in history.
We can have a tribe of reason.
The tribe has always been antithetical to reason because the tribe is about hierarchy and inconsistent consistency, which is exploitation.
But now we can actually have a tribe of consistency.
First time ever.
They tried in ancient Greece.
Plato got sold into slavery, almost died.
Plato, well, Aristotle tutored a warlord, murdered many people.
Socrates had to drink his hemlock.
Didn't work, right?
Yeah.
But we can do it now.
We can do it now.
But the problem with the Internet is that those people are not always visible, even though they're rational and you want to reach them.
But the people around you are not rational, are very visible and very vocal.
And try to explain you why Obama's good president and Bradley Manning should have gone further as a great guy can be consistent or can exist in the same brain.
That's what people are trying to convince you of around you.
And you want to reach the people who will agree with you and with logic that that is impossible or invisible.
So it can get really discouraging and you can surround yourself now with rational and valuable people.
But you have the unique, I think unique, capacity to take something negative and to take criticism and use that as a fuel.
Oh, you think that's just my natural, hey, he's a shit-to-jet fuel engine.
I don't know if it's natural, but you found a way.
No, it's not.
It's something you have to work on.
How did you do it?
The moment you're calling me unique, it means you're saying, well, you know, greatness is certainly possible.
I'd really rather be in the stands than on the field, right?
It's a great spectator sport, but I'm not, no, I don't want to come on the field, right?
Yes, I'm sorry.
I didn't mean it like that.
I meant I haven't observed it in someone else yet.
So that's what I meant.
No, but I understand that.
But you can, right, the degree to which in the long run, right, the degree to which you are willing to live consistently is the degree to which you actually can.
If I had hedged all of my bets at the beginning and I talked about abstract economics and crap like that, right, done sort of Econ talk light or whatever, right?
Well, I might have got a couple of donations.
I'd have made the kind of beer money that people make when they're, you know, podcasting without any particular consistency or passion, right?
Right.
And then I'd say, well, you see, I have to have all of these crazy people around me in the business world and all that because, you know, I can't make any money podcasting.
So, you know, my...
Philosophy doesn't pay, right?
And I'd be right.
But not, right?
Right.
Now, if you're willing to go all the way, then none of the earlier paradigms and limitations exist.
Right?
I have to have a job because my essays don't pay.
Right?
I have to compromise at my work because my essays don't pay.
I think that's not the correct cause and effect.
Because I'm willing to compromise at work, my essays don't pay.
Because I'm willing to compromise at my essays, my essays don't pay.
It's the cause.
Your lack of commitment, and I'm not saying that this is a weakness, right?
Because what's asked is a huge amount, right?
So...
But to put it as clearly as I can, it is your lack of commitment that keeps you in the orbit of people who drive you crazy with their inconsistency.
It's your inconsistency that is producing and enabling the inconsistency of the people around you.
You're right.
It is one of these weird things that if you jump off the cliff believing in your wings, you get wings.
And if you stay at the cliff edge...
You're paralyzed.
You can't go inland.
You can't fly.
You jump and you get wings.
You don't jump and you can't because you don't have wings, right?
Yes.
Yes, you're right.
You don't know what kind of power you're...
I have a sense, right?
I mean, I see you from the outside, right?
And again, we've met.
But the kind of power that you have...
Within yourself to change the world is limitless.
I view everything that I do the moment after I do it as limited.
Drives Mike nuts, right?
Everything I do in the moment I'm fully committed to, right afterwards it's limited and I could have done better.
Or at least I want to do better next time.
And that's why people keep listening.
Because I'm never satisfied.
I don't repeat if I can avoid it.
So what if you completely...
I'm not saying you should, right?
I mean, this is everybody's choice, right?
As you know, I'm allergic to telling people what to do because nobody worth telling what to do would even listen, right?
Yes.
But I'm telling you that if I had played it safe, I would be in danger.
Because I put myself in danger, I'm safe and free.
Because I was willing...
To be as consistent as humanly possible, or at least as I was humanly possible, because I was willing to be as consistent as I could be, I now have a life of consistency.
If I had compromised, I wouldn't, and I would say, well, you see, you can't be that consistent.
No, I can't be that consistent because I wasn't that consistent, if that would have been my end result, right?
I've got to stay in the business world.
There's some inconsistent people in the business world.
They've got to do this.
Take some government contracts.
Got to, you know, apply for R&D tax credits.
Got to, right?
Got to have a lot of inconsistent people in my life because, you know, hey, consistency doesn't pay.
No.
Incomplete consistency doesn't pay.
But what if, right?
All value in economics is around scarcity, right?
Scarcity and demand.
High demand, high scarcity, money, right?
Only one Brad Pitt.
And scarcity means a complete commitment to consistency and a refusal to accept inconsistency in your life over the long run.
That raises your scarcity.
Well, does it raise your value?
Of course it does.
Of course it does.
Because we all yearn for consistency.
We all need consistency.
Human beings, like all animals, survive on the very principle of consistency.
Because if you can't tell reality or predator or prey or light or dark from one day to the next, you'll never survive.
Consistency is the root of organic survival.
We're all dying and yearning and living and desperate for consistency.
And we fear it, of course.
Because consistency...
It's like the talcum powder that shows you the invisible man, right?
It shows the predators, right?
Human predators camouflage themselves in pretend consistency.
Real consistency exposes them for the predators they are, and then they attack to drive away anyone who might dare to speak of consistency, right?
There are people, and look, I'm not saying I'm a big fan of Rush Limbaugh.
I actually never listened to the guy, but there are people who have for years and years and years been targeting all of his Advertisers.
And attempting to get advertisers to stop advertising on his radio network.
Again, I'm not saying he's a paragon of consistency.
I mean, the man has, you know, I think got some useful things to say about the welfare state.
And I like the fact that he's not politically correct.
But, I mean, he's a fair worshiper of the death cult of the army and all that.
But people go after your reputation and they go after your income.
All evil do is it projects their evil onto the virtuous.
And so you draw those airstrikes on you.
And that's another reason why we shy away from it, from consistency.
The story of Socrates has survived as a warning to thinkers.
Not because we love Socrates.
Because if Socrates was not useful to those in power, If you didn't praise the laws of the state and serve as a warning to those who corrupt the youth and deny the gods of the city, I mean, the only thing anybody remembers really about Socrates is the hemlock.
So that's, you know, one possibility you might want to explore is you say, well, you know, I've got all these inconsistent people in my life and so on.
If you devote yourself to consistency, you...
Raise your scarcity and I believe you raise your value.
And economically that's not bad.
Right.
Yes.
I think I've been so concerned with consistency in life around me that I definitely didn't look at my own life hard enough.
Yes.
Of course, yeah.
I mean, we want to focus on the inconsistencies of those around us, but we have to ask why there are people around us who are inconsistent if I'm so consistent, right?
Right.
Either I win on their inconsistency or they win on mine, right?
Inconsistent people spout off their inconsistency just to erode you, to chip away at you, right?
The worst loss, the worst disaster to any warrior is not a sword, but like rheumatism, right?
Yes.
It's the erosion of your courage that is so desperately bad and what it's designed at, right?
The people who go, oh, you're autistic.
Oh, that's not how people think.
Oh, you know, they're eroding.
They don't want to say you're bad and you're wrong because you're upsetting people.
You're upsetting people's illusions and that's mean.
But that's a fight, right?
That's an honest fight.
But what people want to do all the time is just erode you.
Water wears away stone.
Water wears away stone.
Oh, you're a utopian.
Oh, you're a dreamer.
Oh, that's not how the world is.
Oh, you fantasize about things.
Oh, you're never going to achieve anything.
Oh, it's not going to change.
Oh, you're a bad person.
They don't want to give you a clean fight.
A clean fight is, you are wrong.
And here's why.
Ah!
Thank you!
I came with a sword.
You came with a sword.
Let's fight.
The beautiful thing is you kill me, I'm stronger.
Because you have killed only some part of me that is false.
Yes.
That's right.
If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you have ever imagined.
Right?
All anybody who's rational wants is a clean fight.
Yes.
Follow one.
But people don't want to give you a clean fight.
They don't want to oppose you like a swordsman or a swordswoman.
They want to oppose you like a tiny bacteria of chronic fatigue syndrome and just wear you down with inconsequentialities and tiny insults and manipulations.
That is the desperately terrible thing about modern combat with people.
Just give me Tell me I'm wrong.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
Let's talk about it, right?
Right.
But people, I mean, you don't get those clean fights, do you?
Never.
And that is the most desperate thing.
I avoid germs in general.
I avoid germs, which means I avoid as much as possible germs.
People who insinuate that I'm wrong or pretend to insult me as if that means I'm wrong.
And the early guy who was talking, right?
I had to bring him up.
You feel, it seems, come on!
Give me a real fight.
And the people who are around you can't be openly inconsistent.
They can't be clearly inconsistent.
They're inconsistent.
They pretend not to notice it.
When you point it out, they deny.
They say it's irrelevant.
They claim that you're insane for wanting them to be consistent.
And they'll finally, if cornered, give you something grudging like, fine, I guess what I said was sort of inconsistent.
Can we drop it now?
Like you've got some weird mania.
You know, like you've got some OCD thing.
You've got to wash your hands 500 times and be right in every conversation.
And those people won't give you a clean fight.
They don't even care enough about the truth or themselves to defend what is wrong.
You just get...
My word for it is ooged.
Oog is just gross, weird, dense, confusing, murky, interstellar emptiness, but vaguely cloggy and sticky non-thought.
Here is my argument.
And structural violence. - Truncated.
Or, you know, I'm going to play you back your own words, you crazy philosopher guy.
What do you think of them now?
Well...
I stand by them.
I'm even more sure of them now than when I first said them.
Yes.
Right.
And all it is is manipulation.
Posturing.
It's oog.
It's just oog.
That seems quite extreme.
Oog.
Oog.
Right.
Oh, so you think that everyone has to be perfect in order for the...
Right?
Right.
I don't – I feel like Lady Macbeth's hand will never become clean.
Out, out, damp spot.
I got ooged.
And every time I get ooged – like, if I'm going into a debate, I know.
I know.
It's just going to be – It's just like Spider-Man except it comes out of their mouth and it's just glue and oog and sticky clay and blech, right?
Blech!
It's like those dinosaurs in Jurassic Park that spit venom.
Blech!
I guess you're calling that an argument, are you?
Blech!
So if it's a debate, but yeah, just the oog is constant.
And it actually just makes you grossed out.
It's like you come for a fencing match and somebody just throws shit at you.
It's like, ah...
I don't really want to play anymore.
I don't want to die.
I mean, what's the point of doing all the sword exercises, the fencing exercises, if people are just going to, you know, reach into a bucket and throw some crap at me?
Right.
And I can't, like, I just, I can't do it.
I just...
I don't...
I can't respond.
I can't pretend that I'm fencing with somebody who's just got a shit cannon aimed at my groin, right?
And so, yeah, you just...
I try to limit my exposure to that stuff.
You know, there's an old liberal strategy, or I guess it's a rules or radical strategy.
You just accuse people of the most heinous stuff.
And then you just watch them splutter.
Right.
Right.
So, I mean, there was a whole leftist group that, you know, basically what they do is they just keep calling Republicans racists.
Right.
Yeah.
Right.
Racist.
Right.
Exactly.
And then, you know, I'm not a racist.
What?
Right.
It's like people just say this stuff.
And it's like, still no argument.
And it's so predictable.
Still no argument!
Right.
It's so predictable.
It is.
It is.
But it's literally predictable, not only just saying that's so predictable, but you can literally predict, for instance, the Bundy Ranch case.
Before it got really blown up in the media, a friend and I said, how many days before the media will start making this a race issue instead of a liberty issue?
Next day, boom!
Race issue!
It's so predictable.
It's almost insulting.
Right.
So let me put out a prediction here.
So Thunderfoot, I think, is going to release a video about me tomorrow.
And I did a pretty respectful video where I was taking his arguments or his statements and sort of breaking them down.
And I did it in a friendly and positive way and didn't insult him and didn't go to sites where Thunderfoot is really disliked.
But, you know, what's going to happen?
I mean, it's predictable.
It's going to be like, here's these bad things that this guy seems to have done that people don't like.
So there, right?
I mean, there's not going to be any critical analysis.
There's not going to be any rational rebuttals.
There's not going to be any respect or politeness.
And look, I get that.
Look, I could be catty.
No problem with that.
And it's fine to be catty.
If I'm being an idiot, people can be perfectly catty with me.
But He's an atheist, and like most atheists, he's probably on the left, right?
And if you're on the left, and you're talking about the free market or moral philosophy, then, I mean, we all know what the left does, right?
Yes.
All they do is impugn negative motives and think that they've rebutted an argument.
Right.
Right.
Well, you just don't care about the poor.
You want old people to starve.
You want the sick to be ill.
You don't care about minorities.
You're a racist.
Right?
None of those are arguments, right?
Right.
And I used to be like, or like, you're critical of how some women behave.
Misogynist!
Woman hater!
Mommy issues!
Ugh!
Ugh!
Your mouth sounds are frightening me.
I must give you poo.
Yes, it's true.
And I mean, I used to rebut, right?
But now, I don't.
I don't.
Because people who want to have a genuine dialogue are always welcome to come on the show, of course, right?
And also because you can't rebut insults.
You can't rebut slander or whatever, right?
You're ugly.
Your mom smells, so I win.
And slander is, as Socrates said, slander is the last weapon of the loser.
And anybody who can't see that...
Won't hear me.
Some people rebut themselves.
So, anyway, a long set of speeches.
But, yeah, if you want to, you can have a life of consistency, but you've got to initiate it.
You're right.
And I will.
I certainly would like to see what comes out.
Thank you very much, Stefan.
This really means a lot to me that you took the time to speak to me.
Oh, it's my absolute pleasure.
And keep us posted, will you?
Anything we can do to publicize what you're doing, just let us know.
Thank you.
I'd like that.
Thank you.
All right.
Monsieur Le Maik, let's do une au bon anymore.
Alright.
Up next is Nicola.
And Nicola wrote in and said, I love him, but I'm not in love with him, if you know what I mean.
I do.
Let me finish.
that 10 while we overlook the 6 and 7s that come along while waiting for the 1?
Am I being fair to this man and myself?
Well, great questions.
Great questions.
I don't believe in soulmates.
I mean, there's no soul.
And I can mate with my hand.
So I don't really believe in soulmates.
I think there are degrees of compatibility.
And then, you know, through a common commitment to rational discourse and so on, you can grow closer together.
Like, there's nobody better for me than my wife.
Now, does that mean I could have at some point met someone who would...
But now, there isn't, right?
We've got 12 years together.
We've got a beautiful daughter.
We have a great life.
We love each other.
We have all our communication issues that are pretty solid.
We have like two disagreements a year, basically.
So there's nobody better for me now, right?
Does that sort of make any sense?
I guess what I was thinking that for me what I've sort of discovered throughout life that I'm thinking that true happiness is something that can only be shared with another person.
And I was thinking that your, maybe not soulmate, but the person that you share your life with as your spouse is probably that person that's going to provide you with that shared experience.
I guess one of my biggest fears is being alone later on in life.
I don't want to have any children because I have some health issues and I'm past the point of being able to safely have children, I think, anyways.
It's never been something I really wanted to do.
Ever since the age of 14 or 15, I seem to understand that having kids was not for me.
I didn't know how I knew that.
I just did.
I was more interested in wanting to pursue a career When I was 24, I had a cerebral hemorrhage and it changed my life dramatically.
I went through surgery and I went through, my mom described it to me, that I reverted back to the maturity of a 14-year-old, the age of 24, just from the surgery and how it changed afterwards.
It's been a long, long recovery.
I was 24, so at that point in my life I was just starting my schooling.
My career and I felt like I was cut at the knees pretty young.
So I spent the next decade recovering from that and just trying to keep going.
Whereas they said to me, oh, you'll never work again.
You basically just go on disability.
You're pretty much finished.
So I basically said to them, well, screw that.
That's not going to happen to me.
Just pushed through and continued on and we quote unquote made it.
But, you know, I definitely couldn't introduce kids into that realm, and my ex-husband is certainly not the kind of man I'd want to have children with.
He was way too selfish to even consider having kids with.
He was definitely not a...
wouldn't have made a good father.
That's why I didn't marry him, because he would have made a good father, because I knew I didn't want kids, so that didn't really matter.
I guess I just...
This man I'm with now, I never really got that real.
When I initially started dating him, I was just out of my divorce.
So I think there was a little bit of just wanting some companionship there.
And as the time grew by, I stayed with him.
What I thought was a couple years too long than I should have.
And when I'm getting a little bit older, I'm starting to think that maybe, you know, maybe I'm waiting for something that's never going to come.
And I don't want to find myself, you know, I'm working in a nursing home right now, and I see these old people in there and think to myself, oh my God, you know, this is not where I want to end up, and I'm 20 years off from that.
It's a little bit of an eye-opener.
I'm in my later part of life now, and I want to just have a nice, comfortable life.
When I met this gentleman, he introduced me to a lot of different ways of thinking.
I've really grown a lot with him.
He's very socially awkward and not understood by a lot of people because he's not a He's misunderstood by a lot of people.
Basically what I'm concerned about is that he loves me and wants to marry me and I'm sort of humming and hawing and kept him waiting for a long time.
I'm thinking that maybe there's somebody else that will come along that will be that total match for me.
And I'm just...
Yeah, I think I might be deluding myself.
Well, I mean, my particular formulation of love, as you know, is that it's our involuntary response to virtue if you're virtuous.
So if you want more love in your relationship, then you both have to become more virtuous.
I'm not saying you're not virtuous, right?
But You both have to improve in virtue.
If you improve in virtue, which you can't control, then your love will grow, which you can't control.
If you can't control health directly, you can control exercising and eating and preventive medicine and going to the doctor or whatever.
You can't control your health directly, but you can work the levers that affect health.
And you can't control love directly, but you can control the levers.
Which produce love, which is a growth in virtue for you both.
And how do you know when you're actually, you know, I guess being in love with somebody and loving somebody are, I thought, two different definitions.
Is that not the case?
No, I think that's...
When women, and it's usually something that women say, like, I love you, but I'm not in love with you.
I know it sounds very cliché-ish.
Yeah, it's very cliché.
I actually told him that that's the reason I'm holding off for marrying him, because I'm just not quite sure if I'm in love with him, and I feel very cliché as saying it, because I don't know if I'm in love with a man, and people say, well, you'll know if you are.
Well, tell me what do you admire about the man?
He's very kind.
He's very...
When I'm with him, I'm able to relax and be myself.
He's the only person that I've met that is very...
With my condition, I have a lot of chronic headaches, and he's very attentive to that, and he seems very legitimately concerned about my welfare and my well-being.
And that's...
You know, compared to my ex-husband, who saw my issues as nothing more than an impediment to his ability to go and do things, and he was very unkind about it and not very understanding about it.
This particular gentleman has been very supportive, and he basically wants me to be happy.
You know?
He's had my concerns as his top priority.
He's never been married.
He has no children.
And he says meeting me in his 50s is what he's been waiting his whole life for.
All he wants is me and a life with me.
Nothing else really seems to matter.
Right.
So I think I know what the problem is.
Okay.
Everything's about you.
Well, it is, you know, I said to him, what are your dreams in life?
What do you want to achieve in your life?
And he said, my dreams are to be with you.
And that's not the answer I'm looking for.
Yeah, I mean, but, I mean, yeah, okay, so you, but it's his utility to you that, right?
Yes, I ask what you admire.
And, you know, he said kindness, he helps me and he's sensitive and sympathetic to my ailments and so on.
And you mentioned that he has money, which obviously, if you're having trouble working, will make you more comfortable, right?
Well, it's one of the things I have the hardest issue with is because I'm thinking to myself, okay, well, I go to work and I hear all these women talking about how they could meet somebody that they could no longer have to work and stuff, and I'm thinking, well, I've met somebody who's saying that to me and willing to provide that for me, and I'm humming and hawing.
What am I out of my mind?
We don't want kids.
We only have ourselves to think about and our lives, and so what's wrong with that?
You need somebody who's willing to do that for you.
You mean what's wrong with being with someone for the money?
Well, what some people would say would be settling for someone who can provide a good life for you.
Because that's sex for money, isn't it?
Well, what do I have to offer him, Stefan?
I don't want kids.
My reproductive years are finished.
I don't have that to offer him as a woman.
I have my companionship and my love to offer in my later years.
So I figure if he has security to offer for me, that's quite a good exchange.
Wait, so you're exchanging your companionship for money?
Um...
It provides me a certain amount of comfort to think that I won't have to continue to work for the rest of my life, yes.
Right, but what I'm saying is that he provides you companionship too, right?
Absolutely, yes.
Right, so if he has to provide you companionship plus money, but you only have to provide him companionship, then it's not really a very fair deal, right?
Well, if all that he's interested in is my companionship and my love, then I think that he would probably think that was a fair deal.
No, but I'm just talking sort of philosophically, right?
I mean, if I have to pay a woman $50 to go out on a date with me, and she says, well, but you get the pleasure of my company, what would I immediately think?
Well, the funny thing is that for most of this relationship, I've been the one that's paid for most of it.
Wait, you just jumped out of our conversation.
Well, because I... What did I ask?
You asked if we went out and the woman sent $50 to spend time with her.
Yeah, and then she said, well, you get the pleasure of my company.
Then I would assume that the pleasure of my company was minus $50 for her, right?
Yes.
Now...
As far as your reproductive years are behind you and so on, I mean, the value that anyone brings is not as a breeding pen, right?
Well, no.
I certainly don't have what I would have had to offer at 23 as far as my value and what my future was holding.
I have been...
Wait, hang on.
So you're saying that you have sex or eggs to sell?
No, because if I thought that was just it, I wouldn't have bothered educating myself.
I want to offer more to that than somebody.
Well, my value is basically just decreasing as I'm getting older, I guess.
I've realized that.
Because you're less fertile?
I'm getting older and I... You know, I'm less willing to...
Not because I'm fertile, no, because I never wanted children anyway, so that didn't matter.
My age never really mattered.
Do you think that my wife's value is declining as she ages?
Absolutely not.
Why?
She's not fertile anymore, right?
I mean, why?
Well...
She's productive, I assume, and she's got a career, and she's a great mom, and she's got a wonderful husband, so she's got a wonderful life.
I'm just happy that you guys met in enough time for her to be able to have children.
That's wonderful.
I know there's a lot of women that doesn't happen for.
And if she had been unable to have children, I would have had my life with her without children.
Yes.
I would not have traded my wife for children.
And the reason, right?
I mean, love grows.
Why do people stay together, right?
We're not as sexy as we were in our 20s and bloody, bloody, blah.
And, you know, a lot of people can get younger people, right?
But we stay.
I think we stay and grow in love because we grow in virtue.
We grow in courage.
We grow in the good that we're doing in the world.
I have an immense...
Respect for the good my wife does in the world, and I have immense respect for her courage and fortitude and strength and all the good things that she does.
And, of course, you know, she's a great mom and a hugely fun companion and all that kind of stuff.
But these are things that I genuinely admire.
These are not utilities.
Did you feel complete before you met her?
Yeah, I don't know what that means.
I mean, I had all my limbs, so I don't know if I'm complete.
I guess when I was saying earlier that I think that true happiness can only be something when it's shared with someone else.
That's what I mean by complete.
Oh no, I wouldn't.
I mean, you know, I wrote alone.
I wrote novels alone and plays alone.
I mean, that was not, and I was incredibly happy doing that.
I'm not saying that that would have been, you know, that that's all my happiness, but there's huge amounts of happiness that can occur when you are on your own.
I'm not too thrilled about being alone.
Right.
So then he has utility in terms of companionship, right?
But I don't have all the answers for what you need, but I'm just giving you sort of my formulation, which is, I think, good, which is that if there's not things that you morally admire about the man, and utility to you is not admirable, right?
It doesn't mean that people you love can't have utility for you.
I don't mean that at all.
But what I mean is that I don't believe that love can grow out of things that people do for you.
I don't think that after four years you would know one way or the other whether that person was going to be in the future or not.
Well, no, but he has utility for you, but I don't think that you admire his moral courage or fortitude, right?
What you've talked about is people don't understand him, he's socially awkward and so on, right?
Well, most of the time we've been together, I haven't been able to really admire him because he's not really...
I've been the one to basically take care of everything financially, and it's only in the last year that he's actually made a move to better his life and do something with himself.
And when I say he's wealthy, I mean he comes from a wealthy family.
That's not him in particular.
Well, I would say he's kind of a nerd.
He has been up until last year, yeah.
And then he went and started working somewhere and earning some money and contributing, but it was only up to three years into our relationship before he finally did.
And for that to happen, I actually had to kick him out of the house and tell him to go and get his life sorted out.
Right.
So there's some things that you don't particularly admire about him, right?
Well, I don't understand why he's...
Yeah, yes, I guess so.
There's some things that I definitely have some concerns about as far as the integrity of the man is.
Right, okay.
So if you have sort of questions about his virtue and his integrity, but he has utility for you, then this would be why this is a challenge, right?
So your question is, can I get...
What if I go for somebody who's better for me but doesn't have utility for me?
Well, that's a negative, right?
Because you want utility.
You want a provider and someone, whatever.
And so that's the challenge.
And so because you're calculating, then the odds can always change, right?
And that's why I say for my wife and I, there's nobody else.
It's not a calculation.
I'm not like, well, you know...
Until someone better comes along, right?
Yeah, well, that's exactly where I'm at.
I don't want to say to this guy, okay, let's go ahead and get married, and then two or three years later, I meet somebody that's absolutely perfect for me, and it's like, oh, God, what have I done?
No, no, no.
You don't understand.
You don't understand.
There's no such thing as perfect for you.
Because that's lazy.
No, that's lazy.
That's like buying a gym membership and saying, well, once I buy the perfect gym membership, I'll be healthy.
There's going to be a gym that's perfect for me.
I never have to go.
I never have to work out.
I'm just going to get healthy.
There is this illusion that there's someone who's out there who's going to be perfect for you that you don't have to earn through your virtue, through your courage, through your Commitment to doing good in the world.
It's a fantasy.
There's nobody who's just going to come along and click with you and make everything fantastic and make everything great.
It's like health.
You have to earn it.
And you earn it through being consistently courageous and virtuous and doing good in the world and taking on illusion and badness.
You have to be virtuous for love.
To be loved and to love, you have to have virtue.
That's the indispensable requirement.
And so the idea that you get it all without having to be virtuous through this magic called perfect for me or compatibility or whatever, right?
I'm telling you from my perspective, right?
This is not a syllogistical argument.
I mean, I've made the case for why virtue is the foundation of love.
But you can't, right?
If you think that there's just some guy who's going to be perfect for you and you don't have to earn it through courage and virtue and integrity...
Then you are mistaken.
And then you're going to basically just have a bunch of calculations of utility to go through.
And there may be some guy who comes along who has better utility.
But if you're interested in utility, then he's interested in utility.
And as you say, from a utility standpoint, your value is going down.
And so if you're going to be committed to utility in your relationship, then it seems like this is probably the best bet you have.
If, on the other hand, you want to pursue the virtue path, then you won't have to worry about utility and doing better.
Yeah.
I guess the fear of the unknown is less than the fear of the known, I suppose.
I guess that's what I'm thinking.
No, but that's just another utility, right?
You're looking at it as a calculation of utility.
Well, you know, but I could end up alone, right?
This is all utility talk.
And again, there's nothing wrong with it.
It's just then make your decision based on utility, right?
I mean, which is your rational calculation of what's going to benefit you materially or emotionally, but not what is a passion that you're going to morally admire a man in how he lives and What he takes on in his life and the good he does in the world and all that.
I mean, if you're going to make your decisions based on utility, then, you know, but I think that deep down you know that there's something different than utility that you could be making these decisions on.
Well, I do.
I think that's why I feel so, why I have a bit of a, I'm still humming and hawing four years later, right?
Yes, because you've got utility, but you want love.
And utility and love are not, I don't believe that they're in the same ballpark.
No, and I guess I have been married before, and I thought that I loved my husband when I walked down the aisle.
I really thought I did.
I believed it.
Now I'm not so sure I know what love is anymore, because I really thought I had it the first time around, and I was totally wrong.
Right.
Totally wrong.
Right.
And I bet you that man you married, you did not marry him for his virtues either.
Yeah.
No.
No.
I am not sure now looking back why I married him.
I thought I loved him.
I thought he loved me.
Right.
But I bet you didn't have any particular definition of what love was other than this feels good or this feels right or whatever, right?
Well, you know, I met him a year after my brain surgery and we were engaged within two weeks of knowing each other.
So it was just insane.
When you had the mental age of a 14-year-old?
Yes.
Yeah, that's what my name is.
Well, you see, now that might be a bit of a clue, right?
Hey, you've just been brain damaged and you have a 14-year-old personality.
Let's get married.
Well, most rational people don't get engaged to somebody after two weeks of knowing them.
Right.
And does your boyfriend know about this part of your history?
Oh, yes.
He knows everything.
Everything.
Right.
And he's like, yeah.
Have you done any therapy?
Not really.
Most of the...
I've been trying to just...
No, I haven't done therapy, no.
I have tried to stay out of the...
I know therapy is not the same as the medical system, how they try to treat things, but no, I haven't gone to any therapy.
Okay.
I mean, that may be something to think about.
Yeah, it's, you know, I felt like considering, you know, what I've been through, I've done pretty well.
It's just, I'm pretty, I'm probably one of the most sane people I know.
And that's only my opinion.
Yeah, you might want to widen your group a little bit.
Yeah, because I mean, look at a man who's like, well, you know, the only time you got married, I guess you got married to an abusive guy and you got married within two weeks right after you'd had a huge brain injury.
I mean, that's just...
Such terrible decision-making all around.
Now, you're to be excused because you were brain-damaged, right?
Well, I'd like to think that's what the problem was.
Yeah, I definitely wasn't.
No, you were.
You had a cerebral hemorrhage, right?
Yes.
So you were brain-damaged.
You should not have been, of course...
Legally competent, if you've been brain damaged to get married, your mother should have hit him with some sort of pepper spray and so on, right?
And just, you know, thrown herself in front of, right?
You just got brain damaged.
Why didn't you put me in nunnery or something, Mom?
Oh, my God!
Well, I mean, yeah, but whatever, right?
But the point is that this is such terrible decision-making, not just on you, but on the part of your family as a whole, right?
Yeah, they said to me later on that there was nothing they could have done to talk me out of it.
I was completely convinced she was the man for me, and I was like a teenager.
I could not be talked out of it.
And that's what it pretty much was like, yeah.
And do you remember them trying to talk you out of it?
Absolutely, yeah.
Yeah, I do.
And I said, I love him.
I'm going to marry him.
And I did.
And...
And within three months of marriage, it was obvious that I had married the wrong man, but I stayed for 10 years.
Right.
Right.
Well, again, you can read my book, Real-Time Relationships, which is the logic of love.
And you can jump ship from utility to virtue.
And I think that's the only real satisfaction and certainty that you can get in relationships is through the pursuit of virtue.
You pursue virtue and, you know, so many things go right after that and, you know, can be challenging.
But I would say if you pursue virtue, then you will get what is real love rather than what people call the one or soulmates or compatibility or whatever.
Which usually is just two jigsaw puzzles of dysfunction clicking together in an unholy way.
But I would really focus on the pursuit of virtue or recognize, if you want, of course, that that's not your particular goal or approach at the moment and then say, okay, well, then it's just a utility.
And a utility calculation can always be revised down the road.
And you can say to the man, because honesty is foundational to relationships, you can say, well, you're not a virtuous man that I can see.
I don't really admire your virtue.
In fact, you seem kind of clingy or codependent-y or whatever.
But, you know, my sexual value is diminishing and And, you know, be aware that I'll still be on the lookout for something better because utility can always be improved, although the odds go down, you know, every day.
But, you know, hey, let's get hitched.
Sounds very...
No, but this is what, like, if people are honest, right, if they take the Hallmark cards off their abacus, right, then this is what rational calculation or utility calculation does for people, right?
Yeah, you know, and I have been totally honest with him as far as saying to him why I haven't agreed to marry him yet.
You know, I want to see some changes in his attitude and things like that before I, you know, I'm not...
But I've also said that I'm, you know, yeah, I don't really know what I want to do right now to be found, so I guess I just was looking for what was...
I don't know.
Yeah, look, relationships are founded on utility or virtue.
And there's nothing wrong with utility.
I mean, I go to my dentist and she likes my money and I like her dental skills.
Right?
Utility is perfectly fine.
Nothing wrong with it.
It's just not love.
And that's why you're not feeling the love.
But the idea that you can not improve your virtue but find someone who's perfect for you where everything's going to be blissful is a dream.
Right?
If you want real love, you have to earn it.
And you earn it by improving your courage, your honesty, your virtue, the good you're doing in the world.
And then you may find love.
And this dry calculation of mutual utility is fine.
I mean, if that's, you know, but just be honest about it.
That's where it's at.
And if you say, well, no, I don't really want to go and do the pursue virtue thing, then this may be just fine.
And that's okay to just take the, I guess not the easy way out, but a comfortable life and just, you know, I guess I don't have kids.
I'm not too, you know, the world is going to be the same after I'm gone.
And I feel a little bit, you know, I try to change the influence I have in my sphere of influence in my world and try and Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, which would be backing down, I think, from a necessary fight that good people need to have, right?
Well, I know.
I've got nieces and nephews, so I've got people that are going to inherit this planet, and I'm not impressed with what we're leaving behind at the moment.
Yeah.
Look, love is the shadow cast by heroism.
And if your partner is not to you heroic, and if you are not to your partner heroic...
Well, there's no shadow.
There's no substance to the relationship other than mutual utility, which is not really substance.
So, you know, it's fine.
Obviously, you can do whatever you want.
As I said before on the show, everything's permitted.
Just be honest about it, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I guess, you know, the thing is I've changed so much, too, you know?
So it's like the person I was 10 years ago is not the person I am now, so...
I'm not making decisions based out of fear.
I'm afraid of being alone.
Right.
And that's, again, that's more utility talk, right?
Which is that he may have utility in warding off the fear of being alone and so on.
But that's nothing to do with heroism or virtue or goodness or whatever.
Anyway, that's sort of my framework.
I'm sort of running a bit out of steam, so I try not to have conversations where I'm sort of getting tired because that's not respectful to where you're at.
But yeah, keep us posted how it goes, and I'm sure you'll make the right decision for yourself.
I'm a big one for just be good and roll the dice, but that's not for everyone.
I don't have the same sort of health restrictions that you have and so on.
So, that's your choice to make.
But I certainly do appreciate you calling in.
I appreciate the questions.
It's a very exciting question and a very challenging question.
Thank you so much.
So, have yourselves a wonderful night.
Mike, is there anything that we need to add?
Oh, yeah.
If you can help, please grow the show.
Sign up for a monthly subscription at freedomainradio.com slash donate, FDRURL.com slash donate.
You know, 60 cents a day and change, 20 bucks a month.
$50 a month is $1.61 a day.
To spread philosophy, $10 a month, $0.32 a day.
Not too bad at all.
And if you've got $3 a day, $3 a day and some change, you can do $100 a month if you like those heroes who can step up to that degree.
And we will continue to grow.
We will continue to try and do better and better quality shows.
We've got some wonderful stuff coming up that Stoyan has been working on Night and day.
Some just greatly researched stuff.
And so we'll be getting that out coming this week.
Tomorrow I'm going to try and record my rebuttal to Hermione's speech at the UN, which was disappointingly short on magic.
Shockingly short.
She totally should have done it in a witch's hat.
But I've been working on an essay about that, and I will be hopefully getting that out tomorrow.
Mike, is there anything that you want to add?
I'll just say The Truth About Ayn Rand is coming up as well, something else that Steph is working on, a multi-part series, because Ayn Rand and her influence and everything about her cannot be contained with one simple truth about presentations.
So that's coming up as well, and also an interview with Peter Boghossian.
I'm going to release that tomorrow.
So look forward to that, folks.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
So yeah, we've got some great stuff coming.
I actually had a good chat with the nice folks at the Ayn Rand Institute, just making sure that nothing new had come out on the smoky Russian Vixen over the last 10 or 15 years.
But yeah, so we've got part one is all done.
Not recorded.
I want to not record until we're done all three parts in terms of the research and the writing.
But part one is done.
Part two I'm working on.
And part three.
So yeah, part one is sort of her life and early history and all that context.
Part two is her philosophy.
Part three is common objections.
And part four is what it's like to not inhale air not containing cigarette smoke for about 45 years.
Because that's an important thing to remember.
Yeah.
Have yourselves a wonderful, wonderful week, everyone.
I guess we'll talk to you Wednesday for our regularly scheduled call-in show.
