April 10, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:54:37
2947 The High Cost of Fame - Call In Show - April 8th, 2015
I'm a gay restaurant server and I'd like to talk about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - do you think there should be a law to prevent discrimination? | I'm working on a project that explores the motivations behind "stage parents," the potential negative psychological effects on their children involved, and the importance of raising your child to be an independent individual. What do you think it would take for these parents to realize the damage they're doing to their children, if they are in fact forcing their unfulfilled dreams upon them? | Am I coming across as rational with my arguments against statism on social media?
Hey everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Aid Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
Welcome to your April, the season of your content with philosophy and joy and sparrows flight with the world as a whole.
Hope you're doing very well.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out the show as we need you more than ever as we continue to bring reason, evidence, philosophy, truth and virtue to the world as best we can and in a manner that only we can and only you can help us bring.
So Mike, who do we have to chat with tonight?
Alright.
Matthew wrote in and said, I'm a gay restaurant server in Virginia, and I'd love to talk to you and Stefan about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and some of the arguments around it.
If I had to ask a specific question, I'd ask about what might happen if a dispute resolution organization, DRO, still supported highly discriminatory policies and was in turn supported by really religious people.
I know it's a way down the hypothetical gravy train, but it might be fun to talk about given the giant media storm around it.
Hey, Steph.
How's it going?
It's going well.
How are you doing, man?
I'm alright.
Sorry, I hate to use this like this is some sort of complete definition of your personality, but hey, man, as a gay man, what do you think?
What do you think of this debacle?
No, I know.
Okay, first of all, if you ever get married to a guy, will you ever order pizza for your wedding?
Yes, I will be ordering lots of pizza.
You are not gay.
You are absolutely not gay.
This is the acid test.
It has nothing to do with whether you like dick.
It has to do with whether or not you would ever conceive of ordering pizza at your gay wedding.
I simply cannot...
I mean, I've spent...
I was in theater school.
I've had gay roommates for years.
I cannot conceive of any of them saying, you know what would top off this marriage perfectly?
A cheese crust double pepperoni pizza.
Once we have that...
It's magic!
I mean, that's just not how these guys would roll.
You've got to have the cheese in the crust, too.
That's the pinnacle of modern science, is being able to inject cheese into things.
Yeah, there's some engineer who originally wanted to work on the space shuttle, who's trying to figure out how to get even more cheese through pizza crust into the heart valves of Americans, just going, where did it all go so terribly, terribly wrong?
I wanted to design things for the space shuttle, and now I'm designing ways to have a chemical weapon of mass destruction known as cheese of the pizza dough.
Right, and for the wedding, I think we would be needing angel cake, but...
Well, it's tricky.
It's tricky.
I mean...
From a property rights perspective, I vaguely support it.
But I mean...
The religious conservatives see it as an attack on religious freedom to have anti-discrimination laws, but I think Peter Schiff made a really good point a little while back when Hobby Lobby was also in the news, which I think is really similar to this.
He said that it's so pathetic that these arguments are being couched in religious freedom when they really don't have to do with religious freedom.
They can be completely couched in property rights, which is what it should be.
But the challenge to Obamacare, for example, was fundamentally a challenge based on proper rights.
It was completely thrown out.
It was completely dismissed.
On the other hand, you have the liberals and a lot of moderates who have a very visceral reaction to discrimination and bigotry because of American history with segregation and racism.
And so anything that could possibly enable that is really scorned.
And then they react to the libertarian argument with a lot of apathy, I think, because the boycotts that we propose, well, I guess they don't work because...
Maybe they do.
I don't know.
But with Chick-fil-A, it didn't.
It really backfired with Chick-fil-A. And...
I don't think, to be fair to the boycotters with Chick-fil-A, I don't think they boycotted so much because of what the CEO said, but it was also because of his donations and his support of Prop 8 in California.
And again, that boycott really backfired.
It's just a crazy mess, because I have to wonder, at some point, you don't have a right to a job.
You don't have a right to a pizza, but...
I wonder, do you have a right, and of course I'm using the word rights, which are a little flimsy, but I'm wondering, I guess, do you have a right to emergency services, hospital care if you're dying on the street?
I don't know.
I mean, it's so tricky.
And I mean, in a market situation, what if there's just a market base of Or a market encapsulated with really bigoted or really religious people who want to do this.
I mean, the left freaks out about that.
And a lot of people freak out about it because it's just such a salient topic.
The idea of being mean to someone and denying someone because of their sexual orientation or whatever.
Right.
Right.
But why do you think this has become such a big topic at the moment?
Well, at the moment, I mean, like I said, there's the Hobby Lobby stuff.
There's the Obamacare stuff.
There's kind of a rise, I guess, from my perspective.
Maybe it's because I'm at college now.
It seems like there's a rise of the social justice issues and a rise of...
Feminist issues and gay rights issues, and that all kind of becomes encapsulated in the same kind of left-wing politics stuff.
So I guess that's kind of why it's such a big deal now.
I mean, it wasn't too long ago that gay marriage reached like a study found or a poll found that like 51% of Americans now support gay marriage.
Sorry, go ahead.
No, no, you were in the middle of a thought.
51% of Americans support gay marriage?
Right, right.
So it's now becoming politically correct or best practices or acknowledge that gay marriage is okay and that's good and yet the left is still kind of...
Reacting to the holdout conservatives who want to be able to discriminate against gays or whoever.
Well, but I mean, I think you understand, of course, the basic problem to me is that if people on the left say, let's boycott people we disagree with, then how can they complain about people boycotting who they disagree with?
And this Indiana thing, it was a theoretical question posed to the pizza place's employee.
I mean, no gay person had ever been denied service by this pizza place.
They just said, well, if it was a gay wedding, would you cater it?
And the employee said, well, you know, probably not or whatever, right?
And so...
The Christians who, you know, I mean, it's pretty selective, right?
Because they're willing to serve divorced people, even though Jesus was more explicit in his condemnation of divorcees than he was in his condemnation of homosexuals.
Jesus, in fact, never said anything against homosexuals, as far as I can understand it.
And having, you know, a dozen or so followers who are all unmarried and enjoy trooping through the desert without underpants on homosexuals.
You know, it seems like kind of the plot of a gay porn movie, but that's perhaps a story for another time.
But, um...
I've got sand where...
What's that old talking head song?
Sand in the Vaseline?
Anyway.
But, um...
But it's not just a...
It's like, it's more...
It's more...
Sorry to interrupt, Steph.
It's more salient than just a disagreement.
You know?
It's like, they're...
They're...
They're following their beliefs, but the beliefs are kind of crazy.
Um...
You know, and people hate that.
Good God, I mean, no, but, sorry, but if the problem that people have with believers in Old Testament deities is that they don't want to serve pizza at a gay wedding, if that's the craziest belief, if that's the belief they go nuts about, I think they've not read the Old Testament, or the New Testament, for that matter.
There's way crazier stuff in there.
Right, right.
And look, I'm certainly with you insofar as I personally would not want to frequent an establishment that denied service to homosexuals, even a theoretical survey.
Look, if they're not gay enough but pretend to be gay that they want pizza at their wedding, go for it.
And if you don't want to go for it, that's fine.
I don't agree with 99.9% of what people believe, but that doesn't mean I want laws passed.
Sure, sure.
And neither do I. I don't really want the laws passed either.
It's just that by saying that, I feel like I'm a little bit in the religious people's camp.
By not wanting a law?
By not wanting...
By allowing them, from a legal standpoint, to discriminate.
And I get the argument.
I understand, like, I'm just...
...personality, but hey, man, as a gay man, what do you think?
What do you think of this debate?
...potentially for discrimination.
But at the same time, I wonder...
I just...
It's so conflicting, because I wonder if...
If that principle could just enable bigotry and if that could lead to really, like, really big problems from a social standpoint, like...
Well, like a return or gay bashing or whatever, right?
Could it encourage real violence against gays, right?
Right, but again, then that would be against, from a non-aggression principle standpoint, that would be against that, so...
Of course, yeah.
I wonder, does the buck stop anywhere?
Like, okay, you don't have a right to a gay pizza wedding.
You don't have a right to a job.
No, no, no, no.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Be accurate, though, right?
Nobody's saying that you don't have a right to a gay pizza wedding, right?
Because there's lots of pizza places.
Right, but you don't have the right to force a particular person to supply it.
Right, in the same way that a gay printer of t-shirts shouldn't be forced to print homosexuality as a sin on a t-shirt.
Sure, sure.
I mean, you understand it cuts both ways, right?
You take out that sword, you're not the only person in the room with a sword, right?
I totally understand that.
I totally understand that.
But I wonder if there's a little bit of a difference there, because a gay person denying a Westboro Baptist Church, like a God Hates Fags t-shirt, I feel like that's a little bit different than a Christian denying someone because of their biology or something.
Because the choice to go out with a t-shirt like that and go protest, I mean, that's totally different than choosing to have like a news, which I think is really similar to this.
He said that it's so pathetic.
No, no, no.
Hang on.
It's choosing to want to have...
Gay pizza, I'm sorry, gay pizza, whatever that would be, extra pepperoni, but it's the choice to have a particular person create and send pizza to a gay wedding.
It's not the right to have pizza at your wedding, right?
Right.
It's the right to force someone who doesn't want to supply pizza to a gay wedding to supply pizza to the gay wedding.
Like the wedding cake example, right?
Of the woman – I think it was a woman who didn't want to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
And nobody's saying, can gays have wedding cake?
Of course they can!
So it's not a question of, well, do you have the right to initiate?
Somebody who doesn't want to supply a service to you is not initiating force, right?
No, I know.
I know.
And if you go to the government, as you know, you are initiating force.
I mean, it's a fundamental moral question.
Sure.
Now, the sort of fear of consequences of what happens if this stands and what other disasters...
But you can say that about anything.
Sure.
You know, what happens if bookstores do carry Mein Kampf?
Might some crazy guy start...
But you can say that about...
You can invent any domino-based disaster scenario for anything you want, which is why we need philosophy, which is, is it an initiation of the use of force to not make...
A cake or pizza for a gay wedding.
It's not.
I think it's bigoted, I think it's mean-spirited, and I think it's superstitious, right?
I mean, because it's based on religious tenets that are very cherry-picked, right?
But the reality is that there's lots of stuff that is unpleasant in the world that we educate people out of, and we are patient.
I think, right?
And maybe you can't talk to these people, but maybe their kids will watch Modern Family.
I don't know.
Right, right.
But we don't want to be in such a hurry that we start pulling out weaponry to effect complicated social change.
No, and I really don't want to.
I think my point...
And gay people are funnier than that.
You know, again, I don't mean to...
I don't want to stereotype, right?
But the gay people I've known are hilarious, right?
And the idea that gays with, you know, especially childless gays with huge amounts of money in general, well-educated, lots of leisure time, and the biting wit that comes often from being marginalized throughout childhood.
I mean, guys, you're funnier than this.
You don't need to go to the state.
Just write a satire.
I mean, just write something like, how gay does this pizza have to be?
I mean, do we have to slice the pepperoni in the shape of a giant phallus?
Do we have to use it as a sex toy in some ways that only a Christian imagination could comprehend?
I mean, I don't want to riff too much on this, but I mean, there's so many better ways of Of undermining bad ideas than running to the state, which I think indicates we can't handle it.
We need the state.
We can't deal with it.
We can't mock these people.
We can't make gentle fun of them.
We can't write skits.
We can't write funny articles.
We can't – whatever, right?
I mean we can't beat them gently and positively in terms of logic.
And so we need the government and we need the courts and we need the guns.
This is such a confession of intellectual sterility that I think it's doing more to weaken the gay community than any theoretically absent pizza could ever imagine.
Right, right.
I hear you.
Gays can beat this stuff.
I mean, my God.
I mean, the things that gays have had to put up with throughout history and that what gays have to put up is in the world as it stands.
The idea that some pizza store employee is somehow going to take down the gay community to the point where they've got to run to the government is ridiculous.
The gay community is so much stronger and more powerful than that and better humored.
And that's, I think, how these victories occur in sustainable ways.
Yeah, I hear you.
A refusal to be used for political purposes as well.
Because this is all ginned up.
Like the Trayvon Martin stuff.
It's all ginned up for political purposes.
It's just a way of polarizing the left and the right and portraying all Christians as homophobes and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
It's just because we're running up to an election.
That's why this stuff gets ginned up.
I think the gay community should be like, hey, you know...
We can fight our own catfights.
Thank you very much.
We don't need the media ginning up all this stuff.
We're handling the Christians.
Some of us are Christians.
We'll deal with this.
We'll post funny articles.
We'll post intelligent rebuttals.
We'll analyze this thing intellectually.
We'll make our case.
We don't need the government running in to save us.
We're not, you know, we're not a hibisci.
We can handle it.
I mean, the strength of the community should shine through in its rejection.
Of a government-based solution to what was posed as a theoretical problem to an underling of a pizza parlor in Indiana.
This is not, you know, Genghis Khan, the Genghis Khan of homophobes storming across the steps.
This is a tiny little issue, a theoretical bit of nonsense, and could be very well handled, I think, by the gay and by the straight community.
I mean, I just recorded a video on this.
And approached with positivity and humor and passion, you're going to do far more to deal with this than running to the government.
Because of course, once people run to the government, they think the problem's solved.
And then they get sucked into the political process and they start getting manipulated by politicians.
Yuck.
Right, right.
I think my point with the t-shirt printers thing is that the hypothetical Wes Perot person who wants a A mean t-shirt from a printer, I mean, that's based on their prejudiced opinion, whereas the gay person, their stance is based, like, as part of who they are as a person.
I know that's kind of flimsy, but I feel like there's a little bit of it.
I also wanted to ask you...
Hang on, hang on.
No, I didn't quite get that distinction.
Are you saying that being gay is not a choice, whereas being Christian is?
Being gay is...
Fundamentally, I don't think a choice.
And being Christian, as a kid, obviously, less so.
But by the time you're an adult, I think it's a choice to a large extent.
Obviously, there's history and momentum behind that.
If you are a 20-year-old young man who's been raised by fundamentalist homophobes, and the entire community, and the entire extended family unit, and the whole thing that you've known and grown up with...
teachings.
And, you know, boy, if denying pizza to a gay wedding, that's a huge step up from kill them, right?
Which is Old Testament style.
I mean, let's look at the journey that religion has made with regards to homosexuality.
I mean...
But the idea that the homophobia that may exist, that it's somehow willed, these people are just born into this environment and Look, I'm not saying that these beliefs are biological.
I personally believe that homosexuality is biological, and I think it has to do with particular developments in the womb, and it has evolutionary adaptation.
I've talked about this stuff before, but the idea that there's some wild difference and that people just sort of pick whichever Christian enclave they happen to be born into.
Like, I don't think you look across at Saudi Arabia and say...
Well, those people are all choosing to be Muslims, right?
Obviously, there's a lot of momentum behind that, especially in the Muslim community.
But, I mean, in the United States, even in the South, I mean, there's still so much access to different arguments and everything.
And I think, especially once you're an adult, there's...
I mean, the longer you live, there's a certain amount of accountability and...
And responsibility as you grow up.
I agree.
But isn't the great terror of coming out as gay that you might lose your family?
Yeah.
Isn't that same terror occurring coming out as gay positive to a religious family?
That you may lose your family.
And it happens.
You know it happens.
And so the great terror for the gay community is, well, my family will reject me if I come out as gay.
But if you come out as gay positive, your family may reject you as well if their beliefs are diametrically opposed.
I'm not defending the beliefs, you understand.
I'm just saying that the familial and social pressures are extremely high.
And I think that gay people could be a little bit more sensitive to that given how difficult it is for gay people in that they may be going against their family values.
And I'm not saying condone the beliefs.
Of course not.
Good lord.
What I am saying is that people don't just...
People's beliefs are embedded in a social...
Look, I mean, I've been spending 30 years trying to tell people that taxation is theft, right?
It's not a hard argument to make.
It's really not.
No, it's not.
I've talked about using the against me argument where you point out to people that they want you thrown in jail for following your conscience if they support the state and so on.
And how many people, to my knowledge, have had that conversation with their families and taken it the whole route?
Zero.
Not so many.
No, zero.
To my knowledge, zero people have taken the against me argument to its logical conclusion.
Now, am I going to sit there and say, well, they're just a bunch of cowards and they don't have any integrity and they're not into philosophy?
I can say, yeah, this is tough because we're social animals.
And there's an astonishing amount of conformity.
With the tribe that is evolutionarily required, not even advantageous, fundamentally required for our survival.
And so the idea that there are still some lingering bigotries from a 5,000-year-old set of religious texts...
I mean, let's say, okay, let's not condemn the last few inches in a journey of a thousand miles.
Right.
You make a really good case.
It's just...
I mean, comparing...
The gay experience in the United States to, I mean, the Christian experience.
I mean, the Christians are not discriminated against minority.
I mean, they have so much political power.
But at the same time, well, maybe because our topic mainly pertains to the really hard religious people, really hard right.
But there's also a great...
No, no, listen.
No, no.
Hang on.
No, let's be fair.
First of all, there is discrimination against Christians.
In that, for instance, I mean, very few Christians are portrayed positively in the mainstream media.
You know, whenever you see a priest on television, that priest is almost inevitably has got some sort of corruption or some sort of pedophilia or some sort of God knows what, right?
I mean, I can't even think, like outside of Jack Lemmon from many, many years ago, I really can't think of a priest who's been portrayed positively.
Now, atheists are not portrayed much better, so I sort of get that.
But there is, and of course, if you look at the sort of denunciations, I mean, this guy said that he didn't think his boss would be keen on catering a gay wedding, and these guys are getting death threats.
No, I know.
Yeah, yeah.
And that's why they got like $800,000 in return.
Yeah, I mean that's far worse than any kind of discrimination that – I mean these guys are like – they're going to be notorious like forever.
I mean they are suffering some significant discrimination.
And so, look, I'm not, you know, Christians as a whole, I'm not sort of trying to say that they're sort of a blind and certainly compared to homosexuals, it's nothing to do with discrimination and history and so on.
But religious people have come a long way in homosexuality, right?
I mean, the gay riots were like the late 60s.
Yep.
Right, where, you know, thank God, people started pushing back against this gay bashing and stuff.
So, I mean, society has come a long way in not too many decades.
And I know it's frustrating.
God, I know.
I mean, God, I like this vision of a perfect society that I'm never going to live to see.
Right?
But it takes a long time.
And I would say that Christians have done pretty well as far as...
Changing views on...
I mean, compared to the Muslims, right?
Where in a lot of Islamic countries, the punishment for homosexuality is death.
Right.
Right now, so, you know, I don't want to minimize what gays go through, and I'd be the last person to do that.
Actually, that's pretty self-serving.
I don't want to do that, fundamentally.
But I gotta think, from the perspective of a gay Muslim in Saudi Arabia...
Looking across the world and saying the gays in America are going insane because some employees said that they theoretically might not want to serve pizza at a gay wedding.
Are you kidding me?
Are you kidding me?
Can you cast your eyes over here a little bit?
Because we're getting stoned to fucking death over here.
Yeah.
And that's what bothers me.
Like, the CEO of Apple, oh, he should never do business with people who are discriminatory.
Really?
He does business with...
You do business with Muslim countries!
You mother...
person.
I mean, come on!
Okay, stand by your beliefs.
Stop selling state-enabling technology to countries that kill homosexuals!
Yes.
And the American government of all people who regularly supplies arms and weaponry and foreign aid to these countries might might want to step back a little bit from, "Oh my God, they're discriminating against gays in Indiana, theoretically, in some situation that's never going to work." Oh my God.
I mean, that's what I mean when I sort of talk about manipulation.
I'd really like it if these people got upset with Islamic countries about their treatment of homosexuals.
But the challenge with getting angry at Islamic countries, well, as filmmakers...
There's multiculturalism under the bus.
Well, they tend to be—the fact that people are willing to get angry at Christians is a compliment to Christians, right?
You understand that, right?
Sure.
People don't like to get angry at Muslims because Muslims tend to get quite angry back, you know, a few at times, radical elements and so on, right?
Sure.
And so, you know, the fact that people are willing to get angry at Christians, I think, is a testament to the tolerance and progress of Christians in these areas.
And, I mean, I think if people want to take gay rights in a very productive level, that's going to be a lot more risky than yelling at pizza store owners and posting pictures of gay porn to their Yelp reviews.
I mean, go take on some of the Islamic countries.
And that, to me, would be very courageous.
But it's kind of a compliment to Christians that everyone's yelling at them because they know that they're not going to get attacked back.
Right.
You make a really solid case.
And I honestly feel kind of bad asking these questions because it's just like, they're out of the box hypotheticals, but it's just...
I know...
People ask these questions, seriously.
Look, this show is to try and help us all.
With our challenges and what's on our mind.
And look, you know this and I know this.
We all have areas where our brain turns over, farts and dies, right?
We all have areas of struggle, challenge of, you know.
And so we all have these areas where we need these kinds of perspectives.
And so, no, please don't ever feel bad about bringing up topics that are of importance to you.
That's what this show is supposed to be about.
So, no, I'm glad you did.
I also know a handful of people who are on the left who actually grew up in a really conservative part of Southern California near LA. Their fight against all of these Mormons during the Yes on 8 thing and their really bigoted neighbors and I don't know.
It's scary.
I wonder...
It's just so weird.
I totally accept what you're saying.
You make such a powerful case.
It totally has come a long way.
From a historical standpoint, people want to look at the social issues in the United States and Western civilization and apply...
And I want to do this too all the time, but they want to apply everything that should be right But they don't have any sort of historical context.
They don't look back every once in a while and say, look at where we've come from.
But at the same time, there's still all of these holdouts that are doubling down in a lot of ways.
It's also kind of scary at the same time.
I don't know, man.
It's the opportunity.
Do you know one of the reasons why birth rates in the Western world are going down?
Well, there's a lot of factors.
What did you have on your mind?
One of them is that gay people don't have to hold their nose, take their wives from behind, and pretend that they're Russell Crowe.
Right.
Right?
Gay people are not faking marriage.
They're not forced into faking marriage and having children.
Right.
I mean, that is...
That's remarkable.
I mean, yay.
I mean, how great.
I mean...
And it's not, you know, I mean, if I were in a society where I was forced to be in a gay relationship, it'd feel kind of uncomfortable, because that's just not the way I roll.
And so I can completely empathize and sympathize with gay people who were forced into straight marriages, but that's not required.
I mean, of course there's still discrimination and so on, but I used to live in the gay district with a couple of gay roommates, and it was great, I mean, because there's a place where, like, there's no atheist community.
Right?
You can't move to, you know, Unbelievertown and so on, right?
And there's no, like, village people for gays, for atheists and so on.
But the gay community, you can at least move places where you can be open to gay and be sort of embraced and accepted and so on.
And, you know, start to have all of the body images that plague anyone who dates white men.
But anyway, that's a topic for another time.
But...
It is huge progress, and I know it's frustrating, and everybody wants to have the perfect world in the here and now.
But, I mean, gays are winning hands down, as far as I can tell.
And, yeah, there's some holdouts, and yes, there's lots of...
But, you know, I just...
I think that focusing on them is...
You know, the really important part of a revolution is knowing when to...
Right.
But I mean, learning how to be, and I need to remember this too, right?
I'm not just, not just for you, but learning how to be less strident when you've already achieved far more than, I mean, if you went back to the activists of 40 or 50 years ago and you said, well, in, you know, basically a generation, there will be gay marriage legal in many States and the majority of the American people will be gay marriage positive and, and so on.
And there'll be major gay characters who are parenting on television in one of the most popular sitcoms.
I mean, would they believe you?
They would be really happy.
They'd be really glad.
And then you'd say, well, you know, but there's one thing that's still really bothering us, is that some guy in Indiana said that he might not bring pizza to a gay wedding.
What would they say?
Are you kidding me?
What will it take to make you people happy?
And not that you have to be gay to be a gay activist or anything like that, but I think at some point there has to be...
We've achieved so much, and we're doing well.
Of course, gays as a community, in general, in the West, at least in America, are doing...
Yeah, higher per capita income, better education and so on.
And so, I don't know.
I mean, it's hard to say because, I mean, obviously the fight for equality and acceptance is never fully done.
But I do think that it's, you know, at some point they stopped bombing Germany, right?
After Germany surrenders, you stop bombing Germany.
And I think that a lot of the homophobia and bigotry in the West has dissipated and diminished.
Largely, it's a result of incredibly courageous and dedicated gay and straight men and women who've been fighting for these, and transgender, who've been fighting for these rights.
To the point now where Bruce Jenner is...
He's crossing his Rubicon, right?
Getting boob implants, I hear, and all this kind of stuff.
And this is reported and there's no particular shock and horror and he's not getting stoned to death and nobody's sending him death threats and all that.
And the last thing I'll say, and I'm sorry for monopolizing, I'll shut up after this That's okay, go for it.
Right, but I think it's really important for gay people to understand, you know, and there's nothing more that gay people enjoy than having a straight man tell them what is important for them to understand, so I apologize for that in advance.
But it's really important for gay people to understand the degree to which homosexuality is fundamentally opposed to To religiosity.
And the reason for that is we're supposed to be created in God's image and God creates sexuality for procreation and the soul is not biological but rather immaterial, right?
Like non-material rather than unimportant.
And so if God says that homosexuality is a sin, it's because the idea that we're all created in God's image and we all have a soul means that we're all kind of fundamentally the same.
And a lack of sameness challenges the egalitarianism of the soul, if that makes any sense.
And so there's a reason why those who are created...
Not in the image of the believers fundamentally challenged the egalitarianism of the soul and the wisdom of God's plan, right?
So...
So, in the model of God creates everyone the same, if you're gay, well, you must have just made a mistake.
Like, you took a left turn at Albuquerque, even you should have taken a right turn at Albuquerque, right?
You like the outie and not the innie.
And that's not good, right?
But then the question is, well, why would someone even be tempted with homosexuality, right?
And, of course, the answer from the fundamentalist perspective is, it's a test.
It's a test.
And why are some people given this test and not other people?
I mean, I'm sure you've never been tempted by the innie, I've never been tempted by the outie.
But why would some people be given, God works in mysterious ways?
There's an answer for every objection, right?
But this idea that God creates everyone the same, but some people are same-sex oriented and some people are opposite-sex oriented, It doesn't fundamentally fit because it means that we're not all created equally and there is no particular plan.
And this is why it has to be created as a sin.
It's fundamentally opposed to the egalitarianism of the soul.
And it's tragic.
And, you know, people, Christians have inherited these beliefs, just like people inherit a belief in the state.
And, you know, I always get these comments that people say, oh, God, Steph, how could you be so patient with this guy?
Not you.
How could you be so patient with the theist or the statist or whatever?
It's like...
Because their brains, like my brain in many ways, their brains are like one snowflake on top of a giant glacier of historical thinking.
To think for yourself takes decades of study.
Most people are just inheriting the prejudice of prior ages.
I mean, they didn't write the Bible themselves, they didn't create Christianity, they just inherited it.
And what's amazing to me is not how stable people's beliefs are, but how much they can change.
I mean, if I look at something like how gay rights have changed in the past 40 or 50 years, I think, damn, that's impressive!
That's impressive!
How many people supported gay marriage in 1970?
You know?
Like three, maybe?
And now it's over 50%.
And that's incredible.
And that gives me hope for things like atheism and anarchism and all the other things that I'm sort of flogging around and like a peddler with old buttons.
And so I think let's appreciate the degree to which there have been massive and substantial changes in society and...
I am.
I mean, Freddie Mercury couldn't even come out as gay.
He didn't even want to tell anyone he was gay until like one day before he died of AIDS. Yeah.
And I just, I really don't think that would be the case anymore.
I mean, there's very few people who are like, Elton John, I'm not going to go see him.
I mean, it is an amazing change.
And I think that to be threatened...
By theoretical pizza questions about gay weddings, which the demographic is the least likely to order a pizza outside of space aliens, I just think it's not gracious in victory.
And I think it's going to harden resistance, and I think it's not going to advance what's necessary.
Right, right.
You made a really good case, Stefan.
I appreciate that.
I don't want to take up too much time.
I did have...
No, talk, talk.
I've talked a lot and I apologize for that.
I've just been thinking about it all day.
I just have a topic.
Yeah.
No, no, it's fine.
I just have a topic that's a little bit, it's more personal.
It's about like dating and stuff.
I don't know if you want to get into it now.
Yeah, no, listen, I owe you some listening, so go.
Yeah, I mean...
I called in a couple months ago about, there was a call, relationships red flag, should I stay or go?
It's just, it's really been tricky, really hard in the dating world.
And I'm kind of wondering, like, to what extent do we have to settle?
Sorry.
Sorry.
Wait, you're not apologizing for feeling strongly about love, are you?
Yeah, I just wonder, like...
Oh, man.
I just wonder to what extent, like, do we have to, like, compromise?
Like, people like me, do we have to compromise or...
What can we expect?
Wait, wait.
When you say people like you, do you mean gay or sentimental or romantic?
What do you mean?
Like philosophically minded and a little bit into politics, but young and really care about personal values and integrity and everything and really into peaceful parenting and everything.
In a world that's totally not.
Right.
Right.
Do you have more?
have more do you want to add to that i really don't know if i want to go into too much specifics but there's just been a lot of people who again have like shown a lot of promise but um But there's always, like...
I don't even know how to describe it.
It's like...
You feel like you can be really honest at first, and you really...
In a way, you feel like you're pushing the envelope and presenting something new that you've never presented before and that you know that no one else is presenting, but you know that the other person carries so much history with them and so much...
Such a strong amount of a lack of self-knowledge and a lot of opposite values to you.
But at the same time, I look so hard for the right people, but they just don't seem to add up at all.
Right.
And how many of these kinds of, let's call them mistakes, have you made lately?
Um...
Mistakes.
Um...
I don't know if I want to say mistakes.
I mean, but...
Disappointments.
Yeah, yeah.
Like, there's been, I don't know, maybe, like...
Kind of, maybe, like, five...
Like...
Oh, man.
Um...
Maybe two or three semi-serious or really kind of got my hopes up kind of things.
And then maybe a couple others that didn't go very far.
I don't know.
And it's weird because...
I value the romantic relationships.
Just being able to have that someday, I value that so much.
In a weird way, in a conceptual manner, it's more important than...
It feels more important than school or career or family life or friends or anything like that.
Having an amazing...
A romantic relationship or a spousal relationship, that just seems like the number one goal to have.
I know I'm young.
I'm only almost 19, so I've got a long ways to go.
It's still really disappointing.
It's really hard.
I don't know.
Ran away stuff.
Yeah, well, I mean, you're wise to be concerned about the integrity of your heart.
Right, because you say, well, I'm 19, but I think that it's fairly true to say that your heart can only be broken a certain number of times before it starts to lose functionality.
You know, like the eighth time you break your leg, you know, you might not be doing the line dance anytime soon again, right?
Right.
Right.
So I think you're very wise.
And now, of course, again, my knowledge of the gay community is not insubstantial.
And there is a fair amount of fresh meat, right?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
The chicken hawks are not unknown, right?
Yeah.
And so, you know, as a young man and as an attractive young man, There are predators out there in the gay community, just as there is in the straight community and so on, right?
So I think you're wise to be wary of that kind of stuff.
And the other thing, too, is you say, well, to what degree should you compromise?
You must always compromise, Matt.
You must always compromise.
And the reason for that is that to not compromise is to assume that you are perfect, right?
Right, I'm not.
You know, that any deviation from your existing belief systems must be a compromise.
That's megalomaniacal, right?
I'm not saying you are.
I'm just saying that that would be vanity to the nth degree, which is to say, all my perspectives were valid, and any time I have to change my perspective, that's a compromise.
That is to assume that you're perfect.
And you're not, and I'm not, right?
I mean, I'm regularly meeting people and getting new opinions that alter my existing belief systems.
Yeah.
And so you will always compromise.
And to not compromise is the height of vanity for you and for me and for everyone.
So I would try and avoid the kind of purity of like, you know, and there are some things which of course we compromise on and some things which of course we don't compromise on.
But I would say that to assume that any relationship you don't compromise on is a relationship you're not learning anything from.
And therefore I would argue not much of a relationship, right?
Right.
Right.
So you, of course, I would assume, are far in advance in your understanding and wisdom of most people in any community.
And so you have a lot to offer, but I would certainly wait for falling in love for somebody who can really surprise and enlighten you.
And I don't think I'm way out of base in saying that the gay community, in certain elements of the gay community, not exactly known for Stygian depths of self-knowledge.
Sure.
I mean, there is a certain shallowness element and a certain, you know, preening element and a certain sexual, hyper-sexualized element that is not exactly conducive to deep and long-lasting emotional commitments, right?
Right.
And so that is something to...
That's of course something to remember and be aware.
Straight men not exactly, you know, most straight men not exactly drowning in an abundance of potential anonymous sex.
Otherwise, it would be a different life for straight men.
But yeah, the closest that straight men get to gay sexuality is online pornography.
Yeah.
Hey, look, here's easy sexual release.
It's just a take away.
I don't know.
I mean, yeah.
There's like Tinder and everything and college, frat life and everything.
It's crazy.
It's totally crazy to the extent at which people are just willing to just have sex with someone like Like, barely know.
Yeah, your phone can buzz if you walk past someone, right?
Yeah.
Then you guys can be like, hey, you liked me on this app and let's go have sex, right?
Yep.
There's a total culture of that.
And on both, I think...
It's certainly more, I guess, kind of stereotypical or kind of heightened with the gay community, but it's certainly there with the straight community too, for sure.
Yes, absolutely.
It's just a little bit less like, with the straight community, it's just a little bit like, it's like more person-to-person.
I don't know, this is really rudimentary, just my personal experience, but it seems like a little more face-to-face, whereas you can do it with an app or More guys do it with, like, an app for the gay community because there's, like, the not wanting to out yourself to other people and stuff like that.
So it's a little more secretive with the gays, but it's certainly that.
Yeah, no, I mean, technology gave us non-vivid porn, and now it seems to be giving us extremely vivid porn in terms of real-life encounters.
Yeah.
Yeah, so, you know, as far as compromise goes, I, you know, I sort of think, I shudder to think, but if I were sort of single...
I would not avoid dating anybody because of their, I mean with some exceptions, because of any existing beliefs that they had.
But I would avoid dating people who did not have any reasonable methodology for adjusting those beliefs.
Right.
So, I mean, I have far more in common with a religious person who's rational and willing to listen to reason and evidence than I do with an atheist who's dogmatic.
Right.
We had the same conversation last time.
Yeah, and I just want to remind that because, you know, some people are dipping into it new.
So, you know, look for the methodology.
But also recognize, of course, that the degree to which you pursue self-knowledge is the degree to which you are going to move away from the herd, right?
Right.
Yep, that's what is really paradoxical and really crazy too.
Right, right.
And you also, I don't think you can have a relationship based on mentoring someone.
Right.
And I think that's That's really important to get, and I've made that mistake in the past where I was attracted to someone and that person was not sort of advanced in self-knowledge, and I would try and mentor them, and that's fine for a friendship of a certain kind, but I don't think it's appropriate for a romantic relationship.
There does have to be some level of egalitarianism within a romantic relationship for it to be sustainable.
Because, and also, I mean, the teacher while teaching is not learning.
And this is why resentment grows on both sides.
But if you can pursue deep and meaningful conversations with a man and find him attractive, obviously that's the goal that you're looking for.
But the question is, how do you find them?
Do you find them at a gay bar?
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's, you know, I mean, I remember when I was a director, I was a director directing a pretty strange play, and my cast was pretty middle class, and I wanted to really get them into the strangeness of the world.
And although the world was not strange to the people who inhabit it, it was strange to them, so I took them to a transvestite bar.
I wanted them to be in character for the evening that we spent at a transvestite bar.
And it really did actually help sort of open them up to the oddness of the play that I was directing.
And I spent a couple of nights there and it's not a place where you'd go for a lot of meaningful conversation.
And that's not specific to gay culture.
That's true of straight culture as well.
You don't go to the bar for deep conversation for the most part.
So the question is, well, how do you find...
You know, deep, meaningful, gay relationships.
You know, I mean, my guess would be that if you can't find an avenue for that, that's a wonderful entrepreneurial opportunity.
No, seriously.
I mean, if you want to eat Indian and there's no Indian place, start an Indian restaurant.
Man.
I don't know if there's a gay dating app that goes into philosophical questions, but if there isn't, why not hook up with a cheap developer from some country and develop it?
That sounds really funny, but yeah.
No, seriously, why not?
I mean, why not be the guy who's known for helping gay men and women of depth find each other?
I mean, you can't be the only gay person who's wanting something deeper in the universe.
Otherwise, unfortunately, stereotypes will turn out to be true and bigots will have a field day, right?
There's got to be lots of gay people, male and female, and everything in between, who want deeper and more meaningful relationships.
And if there are apps for, like, shallow sexual using and gratification, why can't there be apps for the potential for love?
Well, there are...
There's a lot of apps that are marketed to that.
It's just that there's different subcultures within the apps.
It's just that...
There's certainly some apps that cater more to one than the other.
And I certainly stay away from the one kind and try to stick to the more serious kind in my experience.
But even then, it seems like...
It's slim pickings, and even the top people, the best candidates, are to really simplify it and really reduce people.
Even the best people, it's not too good.
I really do wonder to what extent there's a market out there for that.
Can you even have...
Can you even really meet someone serious, like a serious, serious person on an app?
Maybe, but it seems like chances are tiny.
But you could argue that that's the purpose of technology, is to join the rarest of the rare together, right?
Right.
You know, if there's only one fish in the lake, you really need a fish finder, right?
You really need that sonar technology.
Right.
And so the rarer that people are, I think the more market there would be for that kind of technology.
Is there going to be a billion dollars on it?
Well, not initially, but if you end up with people who end up in love or getting married through your approach, then that's going to be news to people and it's going to be interesting to people.
Right, but then there's also all the chameleons.
Oh yeah, well, of course, you know, tragically gay people are quite good at pretending to be something they're not, right?
Yes, right.
So there is that challenge for sure.
Yeah.
And how, you know, how do you find people who are chameleons?
That is, like, how do you find them out?
Well, I think generally you find them out by listening.
Mm-hmm.
Right.
Let them talk.
And if you feel that there's no connection, then they're probably trying to manipulate you and they're probably trying to pretend to be something that they're not.
Yeah.
Right.
People who are trying to manipulate you don't have deal-breaker standards.
They don't bring up deal-breaker standards.
Sure.
Sure.
Because, you know, they're just trying to find a way to get what they want out of you.
So there's some ways to try and figure that kind of stuff out.
And yeah, I mean, my advice would be, you know, hold on to your heart and wait to find the right person because, you know, every time you get burned, you get scarred.
And every time you get scarred, you get a little less open, a little less flexible.
Yeah.
And there are, you know, so many opportunities to get burned in the gay community that it is...
It is a challenge.
But, you know, you are a guy who has so much to offer another man that it's, you know, and I hate to say it.
I sound so Christian.
It's worth keeping yourself pure until the right man comes to life.
But, you know, it's worth it.
I mean, you have so much to offer a man.
And, you know, if you guys decide to have kids, you have so much to offer the kids that it is worth it.
I mean, you can't be the only one.
I hope not.
I really hope not.
Every fetish has at least one other fetish member, and if your fetish is philosophy and self-knowledge, we hope that right down the aisle from the shaved goat and baby oil fetish group, there's got to be somebody else, right?
Right.
I don't know if you want to continue along the rant train or not.
I feel like I've taken up a lot of time.
I think, you know, with all due respect, I probably should cruise on to the next caller.
Sure, sure.
But, you know, you're welcome to call back anytime, my friend.
I mean, it's always great to chat with you, and I hope that it's as interesting to you as it is for me.
Yeah, it was helpful.
Good chat, and you made a really good case earlier.
And thanks for all the work with the show and everything, and yeah.
And if anyone would like to know or meet Matthew...
Email me.
I can forward your information onto him.
Do what I can to help you out.
No chameleons.
No chameleons.
Be sincere.
Thanks, Michael.
And nobody from Westboro Baptist.
Anyway, okay.
All right.
Yeah, thanks, Matt.
Thank you.
All right.
Up this tasso.
He wrote in and said, And since being exposed to child actors and their parents in audition scenarios,
where I first began to take notice of these issues, I've been discussing the topic with various professionals, including union child advocates, and I also had the pleasure to speak personally to several former child actors, most of them now in their 20s, who have achieved varying levels of success within the industry since their beginning.
My question is, what do you think it would take for these parents to realize the damage they're doing to their children if they are in fact forcing their unfulfilled dreams upon them?
Hmm.
Can you tell me a little bit more?
It's not a world I know a huge amount about.
I wonder if you could sort of fill us in a little bit more about what the story is.
Sure, yeah.
I work in casting as a camera operator, so basically I sit in various sessions for hours, so it's usually me, the casting director, and a reader.
And usually I just see, if we are seeing kids come in specifically for a role, they're usually in for a very short period of time, sometimes minutes.
They can travel for hours to just come in for the two minutes tops.
So, I guess what I first started to see was obviously different kinds of kids and some of them just very uncomfortable.
I wouldn't see them interact with their parents maybe besides being in the waiting room.
But I think it didn't take very long to see kids You know, crying mid-audition, even at the start of it, just having when we asked them to say their name, just varying levels of discomfort and not wanting to be there versus other kids who you could tell really did want to be there.
And then I moved into also working self-tapes, which is much more private.
It's usually...
Just me and the actor and then I send their tape off.
And in circumstances like that, when there isn't a casting director and it is me, the child and their parent, that's when I was able to kind of see them, how they work much more intimately and I was just kind of a fly on the wall.
I'm not sure if I'm giving you the context you need, but that's when I would see some, I guess, crazier things in terms of what the parents paid attention to, how they interact, and really that's where I would see the forcing,
the kids just being like, okay, I think that's enough takes, and it's like, no, no, no, we have to do it again until it's right, and most of the time they don't even really know what they're doing either, and I can tell because I've I've sat in with the actual casting directors and I've been able to kind of tell what they're actually looking for.
Right.
And what percentage of the kids would you say are with parents who the kids are not particularly into it, but the parents are?
It's tough to say.
It seems like, specifically with commercial casting, it definitely feels like the majority, especially when they're younger, and it seems like the kids don't even really know why they're there, which is kind of a problem in itself.
And what age are we talking here?
I've seen, it usually doesn't go much lower than four, five.
Maybe I think I've seen three once for like a one-line part.
But I think the problem extends like really younger than 10 years old, even early teens.
Right.
And so you'd say the majority of the kids, I mean, obviously some of the kids do want to be there, but some of the kids don't, right?
What do you think the motivation of the parents is?
I mean, there's some obvious ones, but what do you think it is?
I think when we're sitting in the room, I think there is a certain level of this idea of living vicariously through their kids.
Maybe, you know, they wanted to be an actor if the parents did or wanted some, sometimes they see it as a very glamorous thing.
I mean, a lot of people do, but yeah, I think they're very excited by the process and And then their kid comes in the room for two seconds and they leave.
And sometimes they'll even stick around just to be in that environment a little bit longer.
And then we have to just politely be like, oh, you can leave now, sort of thing.
And they've traveled for, a lot of the kids travel at least two hours to get there to be in the room for, like I said, two, three minutes maybe.
Wow.
Now, the upside, though, is pretty significant, right?
I mean, if the kids are hired, then they get some cash, right?
Yes.
So, I mean, there is that aspect of things.
Do you have, and this is very tough to guess, but you'd probably certainly be better at answering it than I would, do you have any idea how many of the kids actually, you know, make it?
An extremely low amount.
The kids who tend to have even some level of success with it, they tend to work a lot.
It's not surprising to see a kid who is smart and can take direction.
I mean, it's surprising to find those kids, but once they're in that position, it's not uncommon for them to work like 10 jobs a year.
They'll keep using that kid over taking a chance on someone new.
Yeah, I mean, I auditioned a bunch of kids for a movie that I wrote and produced many years ago, a short movie, and the kid actually ended up doing well.
I mean, he was good, and he's ended up having a career.
But yeah, there's a lot of kids come in, and you can definitely see that a lot of them are there because they just don't want to say no to their parents.
There is obviously some of the, well, I wanted to make it big and I didn't, and my kids are going to do it too, but there's also bragging rights.
What is it that makes you valuable as a person?
Well, maybe it's because that's your thing.
Your kid is in the movies.
There are lots of problems with this kind of stuff.
I mean, the money that's floating around can be a huge problem.
I think everybody knows Macaulay Culkin had problems.
A lot of the other child stars have had problems.
And there is a certain kind of fame that, like, even if you don't do that much work, you just become, like, ridiculously famous.
Once you achieve a certain level of fame, you know, it really takes a lot to mess it up.
You can make a crazy amount of money with a certain amount of fame, but of course, the numbers of people who actually make that level of fame are very, very few, right?
Yeah.
It's like playing the lottery, except with the lottery, you just got to go into a store and get some tickets with this.
I mean, you work for years, and you can spend crazy amounts of money, because there's a whole industry, isn't there?
Of people who pray, I shouldn't say that, because some of them obviously are honest and decent people, but let's just put it another way.
There's a whole industry of people who cater to those who want their kids to become famous, or who want to become famous themselves, right?
I mean, we'll give you your headshots, we'll give you your acting lessons, we'll get you introduced to agents, right?
There's a whole group of people who cater to people who want to become famous, right?
Yeah, a lot of that stuff is...
None of it's cheap either.
I mean, even headshots alone can cost you upwards to $1,000.
Especially for people if they're not working.
It's really money they don't have, which digs its own financial problems.
You're speaking about...
Yeah, and you can spend tens of thousands of dollars on singing lessons, acting lessons, dance lessons, and people who say they'll be able to introduce you to something or other.
And holy, you can really spend a lot of money on this.
And of course, once you're in, then the pressure really begins to mount, right?
Once you've sunk that amount of time and energy in, doesn't the pressure really start to mount?
Yeah, especially when a kid is having a certain level of success, and oftentimes, very often, at least one of the parents, they quit their job and cater to them entirely, driving them to audition after audition.
Yeah, they kind of put all their eggs in one basket with their kid.
Right.
And what do you think are the primary drivers for these guys?
Oh, God.
Yeah.
Besides, again, living vicariously through their kids and talking to some child therapists as well, they've kind of talked about narcissistic parenting.
That's kind of been where that kind of pushed them because I ask them the same sort of questions.
I guess I'm not really sure other than potential financial gain.
I wonder what sort of...
Parents they would have had to put that in a position, like what must be missing in their lives in order to want to pursue that through their children.
So then you just kind of wonder if they're narcissistic.
Yeah, I mean, I'm of two minds about this.
And, you know, what's missing, it sounds sympathetic.
I mean, it sounds like you're being sympathetic.
And, you know, maybe you're entirely right to be sympathetic.
But...
I feel less sympathetic towards these sorts of parents.
I mean, to me, if you are driving your children because of your own need for attention, if you are harming your children because of your own need for attention, I consider that to be pretty horrendous.
And yeah, I'm sure they didn't have the best upbringings.
Of course, I can sort of understand that.
But lots of people don't have the best upbringings and don't turn into such monsters who are really driving their kids, depriving their kids of a relaxed and stress-free childhood in order to make them Into tiny, vanity-serving moneymakers, that's pretty predatory.
That's pretty predatory.
You know, go invent the next slap chop or juicer or something like that.
If you want money and all that, don't drive your children into this industry if they don't want to be there or if they're not that interested in it.
I mean, I've asked my daughter about it.
I mean, she likes to do acting and stuff, and we do lots of little improv scenes together and all that as part of her game playing.
But she's not expressed any interest in doing that for any kind of living.
And the idea that I would say, well, you kind of have to, it is a form of child labor, right?
So I think it's pretty nasty.
And I would say that there are people who want to be around fame no matter what.
Like, they just have this hunger for it.
And, you know, there's this terrifying statistic that the number one thing that British children want to be is famous.
Famous!
Just to be famous.
And I was telling Izzy about Princess Diana and fame and what it meant, and the reason being that we were talking about why Taylor Swift wrote the song Blank Space, where she, you know, she pretends to be this woman who goes crazy while she's dating.
And, yeah, so I was sort of saying, well, this is what, you know, this is what people say.
People are really fascinated by famous people and they want pictures of them.
And you can make, like, significant amounts of money just getting a photograph of someone.
I mean, it's crazy.
Look, here's a picture of someone.
Here's $10,000 or more.
And fame.
Fame.
I mean, I certainly think back fondly to the time, unlike Cheers, where nobody knew my name, you know, and I wasn't any kind of public figure.
That was pretty nice in a lot of ways.
And I mean, I sort of have it, I have it pretty good, right?
I mean, I don't get recognized everywhere I go, but it certainly happens.
So I have it pretty good as far as that goes.
But the idea of, like, wanting to be famous...
I just...
Why would somebody want that?
I mean, in and of itself.
Like, if you were to say, well, I want to discover the cure for cancer, and as a result, I'm willing to put up with being famous, because I will be famous if I discover a cure for cancer, so I'll put up with being famous.
That's sort of one thing.
But to say, I wish to have fame for itself...
I wish lots of people want to be you, lots of people envy you, lots of people think that you've got all this wonderful stuff, but when you look into the lives of most famous people, it's pretty monstrous.
Now, it certainly is true that most people who become famous stay famous.
There is a weariness.
I remember seeing, I think it was an interview with Jack Nicholson in the director's cut of The Shining, where he was saying, like, famous people meet like 10,000 people a year.
Like, it's crazy.
Just what it's like.
It's just a whirly gig.
Now, I mean, Jack Nicholson or Robert De Niro or Meryl Streep, they don't exactly sort of retire to an anarchist.
Marlon Brando did, but they don't sort of retire to an island and just shun all human connection and communication.
But most of them have a pretty ambivalent relationship to fame.
And I think you'd have to be pretty messed up to love fame unambiguously.
Fame in and of itself, if it's because you have done something that contributes to humanity in some manner, you know, obviously I think that's what I'm doing, is trying to help people think more clearly and give them arguments and evidence that they may not get from other sources, and I'm trying to do that sort of positive service to the world, I'm willing to accept a certain amount of public recognition as that's the way it's going to be.
I mean, that's, you know, if you want to Put arguments that are startling and upsetting to some people out into the world, you're going to get some fame, some notoriety.
But I certainly don't want fame for itself.
I mean, that to me would be a ghastly situation.
I mean, just think about it.
I mean, if you're famous, like really famous, I mean, where can you go?
Like Freddie Mercury wrote this song called Living on My Own, which he said was basically about his life.
It can't go anywhere.
It goes to some place.
He can't leave the hotel.
Everybody recognizes it and he gets swarmed and all that.
And, you know, it's a mess.
And so people who have that level of public recognition very much view it as a kind of necessary evil.
I mean, if you've got any kind of sanity, I'm not saying that Freddie Mercury did, but it is a very, very difficult lifestyle and comes with a whole host of problems, you know, like that old rap song, More Money.
More problems.
It is not the solution to life's challenges to just get a lot of fame and a lot of money.
Gary Coleman, what you talk about, Willis?
I mean, he had to listen to people say that to him for his entire life.
I mean, he ended up, I think he's dead now, but he ended up as a security guard because, you know, his money was all gone and had to pay some bills.
The brother in that show, in jail, I think?
Committed some horrendous crime.
I mean, there are...
What is it?
Macaulay Culkin added up as an addict of some kind.
I mean, it's...
Just look at Lindsay Lohan and her progressive zombification of fame.
It is a mess.
And it really distorts things.
And the thing that I think is hugely challenging about fame is the degree to which you become a mineable, visible resource for other people.
Because people think that fame has to do with, you know, will people want to read about you in magazines?
Well, yeah, I mean, I guess that's true.
But the reality is that when you become famous, everybody wants a piece of the action.
Like M.C. Hammer, he of the parachute pants and unbelievable spendthrift habits.
Guy made, what, over $10 million and had an entourage of hundreds of people and just ended up broke.
Because when you're famous, everybody wants a piece of the action.
Everybody wants to be in the penumbra.
Everybody wants to be in the glow of your fame.
And what...
Oh, can't touch this.
Yeah, so...
I can't touch this.
Unless it's my money.
In which case, you can bathe in it.
You can set fire to it.
You can set it in a rocket ship to planet bankruptcy.
Everybody wants a piece of this.
And when people are profiting...
From your fame, they will try to work you like a horse with no name.
They will try to work you.
There's stories about Janis Joplin just having a tour.
And she's like, I'm tired.
No, you got a tour.
And everybody tries to tell you, well, if the public loses sight of you for 18 minutes, they'll forget you.
And you'll have vanished and you'll be gone and nobody will be interested in you anymore.
So you've got to stay in the public eye.
You've got to do this.
You've got to do that.
And so you end up feeling this kind of workaholism.
And you've got lots of people whose paycheck depends upon you doing what you do, and you feel responsible for them, I'd assume, to some degree.
And I sort of feel this.
I mean, I've got people whose paycheck depends on listeners' donations, and so I'm aware of that when I do shows, that if I do a good enough show and we get some more donations, then these guys can get some more cash.
Like, I'm aware of that.
And, I mean, obviously compared to really famous people, I mean...
It's not significant, but it's significant to all of us here, right, in terms of how well things go.
So when I do a show that does well and we get some donations for it, I feel good.
And, you know, if we do a show...
Well, sometimes if we do a show and people cancel subscriptions and flee their donations, that actually also feels good sometimes because, you know, it's important not just to plant, but also to weed.
And I don't want crazy or dysfunctional people saying they're big fans of the show.
I'd rather they say they don't like the show.
So, the weeding stuff is okay, but it's a challenge.
And, you know, there's three of us here whose food and shelter relies on people's donations, but what if you've got like 50 or 100 or 200 or 500 people all depending on you?
That's a lot of pressure.
Like, is your agent objective about whether you should take a break if half your agent's income depends upon you doing the next project?
And so when you become famous, how many people who are around have nothing to do with your fame?
Well, hopefully your family and hopefully friends that you've had for a long time.
But I don't know.
I don't know how many people are really around who have no relationship to your fame.
It's kind of like an elephant in the room.
And so people have a relationship to your fame and that's always part of their relationship to you.
This idea that fame is going to solve people's problems, there is a general principle in life and I don't know exactly how to explain it, but it certainly has been my experience that my level of happiness is fairly constant.
And I'm a pretty happy person, and I would say that my level of happiness has not wildly changed since I was younger.
I mean, the fact that I've maintained it, I think, is good and still have a happy and positive outlook on things and enjoy my life.
But I think this idea that there is some external solution to the problem is Of unhappiness or to the problem of insecurity is a very, very seductive and dangerous notion.
I don't really think that there is an external solution.
I think that if you're unhappy, your kids becoming famous won't solve your issues.
And in fact, it may even make them worse because it's all the opportunity costs of pursuing fame that people often forget, right?
So the amount of conflict and stress and money problems and so on that are generated by these stage moms and stage dads, all of that is time that they're not spending learning how to be happy with who they are and what they've got.
And all of that stress is all the time that they're not having positive time and interaction.
I think it's a significant problem.
The idea that if we're pretty enough, if we're rich enough, if we're successful enough, if enough people know our name and so on, the idea that that will make all our problems go away.
The great thing about getting older is...
You know, I remember this cartoon in some magazine when I was a kid.
And it was two guys walking down a street.
And they saw running down the street, two or three, you know, giant monsters.
And like demons and all that.
And one guy turned to the other and said, it's just one goddamn thing after another.
Life is a series of problems, and learning to embrace and enjoy the problems is the challenge in life.
And if you can learn to embrace and enjoy the problems in life, then the fact that there are problems in life won't be something that interferes with your enjoyment of life.
I think that this idea that there's this magical place we can get to without problems creates more problems, because you give up reasonable and rational methodologies for making yourself happy in pursuit of this nirvana.
And then when you get there, well, you're still pretty much the same person.
I was listening to, I was at the gym the other day, I was listening to a documentary on Pink Floyd.
And, you know, after struggling, they released Dark Side of the Moon and, of course, one of the biggest selling albums of all time.
And...
They said, well, you know, it really didn't make that much of a difference in terms of our lives.
And I think that's just an important...
I mean, boy, if that doesn't do it for you, and if, you know, Michael Jackson, Thriller, I think is the best-selling album of all time, and if selling Thriller, like the bajillion copies of Thriller that were sold, did that make Michael Jackson happy forever?
No.
I mean, Lord knows what happened.
There were payoffs to parents of kids where there were molestation charges.
He apparently had some form of eating disorder, which is why he was so thin all the time.
His feet were ruined from so much dancing.
And he couldn't sleep.
And, you know, I mean...
He ended up dying from various drugs in an attempt to deal with the sleeping disorder.
And he ended up broke and having to go back on tour when he was, what, 50?
Or something like that?
I mean, it was a big mess.
Now, I mean, that guy was like the king of pop and everyone loved him and, you know, everybody wished to kneel before the silver glove and do all these kinds of cool things.
And, boy, if that's not an instruction on how little...
Fame can enhance your life.
I mean, he probably would have been better off as a day laborer in the long run.
Or Princess Diana, right?
The ultimate post-modern fairy tale.
You know, oh, she's so pretty.
She's got such perfect hair.
And she married a prince.
And she's given birth to princes.
And then she dies like a dog in a fireball in a tunnel.
And British women mourned her extravagantly.
And mental health, apparently in England, actually improved after that.
Because this fantasy that resources can solve unhappiness beyond a certain bare minimum is just Just that.
It's a terribly dangerous fantasy.
And I would assume that these people feel that they will be that much more valuable if their children become famous.
And I think that's giving up the fantasy that something else will make you happy other than virtue.
Boy, if there's one fantasy I could take away from people, it's the idea that anything other than virtue will make you happy in the long run.
Boy, that would be the fantasy I'd want to get away from people by.
Of course, there's so much profit in selling people solutions to unhappiness that have nothing to do with virtue.
I mean, people will pay lots of money to avoid virtue.
People will pay lots of money to pretend that other things in virtue will make them happy.
And it's too lucrative.
It's simply too lucrative a gig for people to give up, at least at this point.
What are you thinking?
If some of these parents are in fact driving their children's lives in hopes of them achieving that and living vicariously through them, I'm wondering if it can only take long-term therapy or their children growing wiser, seeing through their facade, maybe confronting them Can make them realize the negative effects they've caused when the damage is already done.
I spoke with one former child actor who's now in his 20s, whose mother forced him into the business at five years old, started with modeling, very emotionally abusive, pitting him against his siblings.
And ended up taking hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And it took him many years of therapy after moving out on his own to realize what his mother had done.
And when I asked him that question, like what he thought it would take for his mother to realize the damage she was causing when she was causing it.
He suggested the idea that maybe if his mother put him at harm's risk due to the circumstances she was creating, that maybe she could snap out of it, even if temporarily.
An example being maybe his mother saying he could swim for a role, he books it, and then almost drowns on set.
Oh, wow.
Yeah.
I'm not sure what the question was, but that's a pretty chilling story.
No.
Well, I think what I... When I see these parents, and yeah, I think I'm always just wondering, because some of them seem so thick-skulled, like it just wouldn't matter what I'd say to them.
An example being, I did a self-tape with this mother, and it was just her and her kid, and she booked an hour and She's just like, alright, so just film the kid.
He has a couple lines.
It's for a commercial or whatever.
And the kid didn't know his lines and she just assumed that.
She's like, okay, well, I'll off-camera tell him his lines and then he'll say it.
And then he might book the role.
And I had to very calmly tell her, I'm like, well...
You know, that's not really how it works.
The kid should know his line.
He's going to be up against kids who do know their lines.
And, you know, I had to very politely say, you're wasting your time and I don't want to charge you for an hour.
And she kind of looked at me and was like, oh, right, right, right.
And beyond that, I could see the kid didn't want to be there, was fighting, was screaming with her.
And it's like, what could I possibly say to this woman?
And again, like, is she really...
You're going to listen to me.
And I just saw this glazed look over her eyes like there's nothing.
I think that's kind of the question that I'm trying to get at because, yes, I have spoke to many people who, you know, they've gone to therapy and they've been like, yes, now I'm old enough.
I've had friends reach out to me and I've realized what my mother has done or my father and now I can move on with my life.
And it's like, well, what about this parent, I suppose, and how could they have...
Yeah, so is your question sort of how do you get parents to recognize that they're doing destructive things?
Yes.
Yeah, that's the trick of it, isn't it?
Well, you know, the old saying, if you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
And it's sort of like saying, well, how do you improve a government service?
Well, you can't nag them, right?
Because they can't be fired.
And so the only way that I know of to improve things is to privatize them, which means to move them from involuntary to voluntary relationships, which is why I promote the voluntary family, which is you don't have to see family members who are abusive.
You can choose to, but you don't have to.
That's sort of my reminder.
And if people knew that in a couple of years, like let's say, if teachers knew that In a couple of years, government teachers knew that in a couple of years, everything was going to be privatized.
Would they change their behavior?
Probably not.
No, I don't agree with you.
I think they probably would.
No, I think they probably would.
Because the teachers would say, oh, okay, so if the teachers, like if the students are only going to keep me on if they like my teaching, I think that, not all of them, But I think a lot of them would change.
If they knew in a couple of years that education was going to be completely privatized, I think a couple of them, I think most of them, not all, but most of them would try to improve their teaching, right?
Right.
And so privatizing...
The family, reminding people of the factual, legal, and moral reality that they don't have to see the family members, promoting that idea is the only way that I know of to improve the family because it's fully in accordance with all the other free market principles that...
You know, I wouldn't want to sit there and go down and nag people at the post office to be better at customer service and to be more efficient and to work harder and whatever, right?
Work smarter, whatever they're going to do.
I mean, because going down and nagging at people who can't be fired is pointless, right?
Get anywhere.
Right.
And libertarians agree with me because they don't say, well, what we really need to do is go down and nag people at the post office to be better and more efficient.
What they say is, we need to privatize the post office.
And the same thing is true with the family.
Just to put the idea out there that you need to win your children's love.
And they're not your property who must adhere to you no matter what you do, no matter what happens, no matter how badly you treat them.
They are not your property.
They are not your chattel.
They are not your serfs or your slaves.
Your children are human beings.
You must earn their love.
You must earn their allegiance in the future.
It can never be an automatic commandment of honor their mother and their father.
You have to earn the loyalty of your customers and your children are your customers.
And so I don't know that nagging any individual parent to be a better parent is fundamentally going to achieve much.
I mean, maybe.
And I'm using the word nagging in a prejudicial way, so I apologize for that.
You could phrase it however you want.
But we all recognize that if you want to improve the Department of Motor Vehicles, you have to privatize it.
That's how things get more efficient.
And if you look at the degree to which privatization has unbelievably improved the quality of life for Literally countless people around the planet.
I mean, if you just look at India and China, it's truly astounding just how much has improved in the world as the result of basic privatization.
Hundreds of millions of people are living staggeringly better lives as a result of privatization just within the economy.
And if we can privatize the family, I mean, I think that's fantastic.
I'm just going to give you some stats that I recall from an article I read recently, which is just astounding.
Do you know, just in the last 15 years, there has been a greater drop in extreme poverty, whether you measure it relatively or absolutely, than at any other time throughout human history.
Over the last 15 years.
You don't hear much about it because it doesn't conform to most people's prejudices about how you solve poverty.
But it's unbelievably staggering.
Like in 1980, half the world's population lived on less than a dollar and a quarter a day.
In 1980, half the world's population...
Lived on less than $1.25 a day.
Now, it's only one in seven.
From one in two, it has gone down to one in seven in a mere 35 years.
Wow.
There's a lot of experts who agree that the number of people living in extreme poverty could be reduced to zero over the next few decades.
Zero.
Zero.
And that is, like, this is the stuff that gives me hope about progress in the human condition.
I mean, just, and that's 35 years, just over the last 15 years, the greatest drop in extreme poverty at any time in human history, has that occurred because of communism or social?
No, it's occurred because of liberalization of markets around the world.
And that is truly astounding.
And that's the result of privatization, and I don't see why the family would be any different.
So how do you get parents to be better?
Well, you make their relationships with their kids move voluntary.
That would be my suggestion.
Right.
Yeah.
That's pretty interesting.
I guess what's so hard to kind of stand is when I'm in those rooms and those kids, they can't leave.
Oh, it's horrible.
Yeah, they just can't quit.
And I just see it quite a bit.
And I feel powerless to it too, I suppose.
I mean, I'm just in the room.
I'm going to film them and the most I can possibly do is...
Maybe tell them that you should take your kid to classes.
Maybe if he's still interested, he can take classes and make that decision for himself without making it seem obvious that I'm telling them how to raise their child.
But yeah, if they were given that freedom to quit or something, to leave, I'm sure a lot of them would.
Right.
And look, I mean, I... I don't have any answers to that because I'm long-term.
That's the only way that it can work for me is I'm a long-term guy.
And how do you deal with parents who are being abusive in the moment or parents who are being destructive in the moment?
Well, I mean, you can say something.
I don't know if you can because it's more of a I mean, again, I've often compared philosophy to nutrition, right?
Nutrition cannot help you with a heart attack, but it can help you with the next one, right?
If you listen to the nutritionist and, you know, eat well or exercise or whatever, but philosophy is not the emergency intake of a hospital.
It's like being a chiropractor or a nutritionist or...
Whatever.
I mean, it's long-term lifestyle choices.
It's not in the moment.
So you see, of course, these children who are stressed and upset and freaking out and whose parents are being cold and all that kind of stuff.
And I don't know what you do in the moment because all I can do is focus on what's going to solve things in the long run.
It's like the starving kid doesn't help.
It doesn't help when the markets are going to be liberalized in five years.
And so there are people who can help with that.
Of course, it's a lot easier to help a starving child than it is to help an abused child.
Because most parents will be happy if you feed their starving children, but most parents who are abusive will not be happy if you help their or empower their victims, right?
So, you know, I don't know.
I mean, the only thing I can do is focus on the long term, because that's where I think my strengths are.
And I certainly do what I can to help children in the short run.
Through intervention, through charity, and stuff like that, but I'm a long-term solution kind of guy, and I don't know any way that I can give you sort of anything magical to say for parents who are really destructive that you're coming across in the short run.
Yeah, I think I was maybe looking for some sort of event or a potential scenario in which a parent could maybe get a glimpse of what they're doing.
Like if a father, for example, was kind of thrown into the family business, was never able to pursue acting, and then as a result he might have forced his child to be an actor and live vicariously through him.
If maybe he saw his kid screaming that he wants to quit and the father kind of saw that in him when he wanted to quit whatever the family business might be, a restaurant or whatever, I'm wondering if that could be a potential moment where the father just might go, oh, that feels familiar, even if it's temporary or something like that.
I don't know if it's true that that's driving a lot of parents.
Do you think it's true that they wanted to be stars or they wanted to do this and then they didn't or something like that?
It seems like that sometimes.
I don't know if it's proven.
I don't know if any studies have been done on that.
You could be entirely right.
I'm always skeptical about generally accepted wisdom and I don't know.
I don't know if Michelle Barton's mom wanted to be an actress or whatever.
I think that what happens is, not to exclude the theories that you have, but I'd look and see if any studies have been done on this, but my guess is that parents happen to have born to them a very physically attractive child, a very outgoing and charismatic child, a child with a good sense of humor and imagination and so on, and they may view that just as ka-ching, right?
Yeah, I think, I mean, reflecting back on a lot of the parents or the child actors I've met, most of them did take a natural interest in it at first, and then the parents started to see that, and then maybe the kid booked a couple commercials, and then that's sort of when this downward spiral kind of begins.
There is the odd case, like I had...
Definitely have met kids whose parents literally forced them into the business, like, you know, started off, like I said, modeling, or, you know, maybe one of their older siblings started at five or seven, and then, you know, they have a new kid, and it's like, oh, right away, he's going to get into this as well.
So I have met kids like that, but I think you're right.
For the most part, these kids do take an initial, natural interest in it.
Yeah, yeah.
Or if the child is like, I think of the sort of beauty pageant, like the tantrums and tiaras kind of shows.
And if the kids just happen to be that physically attractive, then that opens up an avenue to the parents of that kind of vanity or financial gratification.
But it probably has more to do with the Yeah, I agree.
Well, listen, I mean, do you want to share...
You said you were working on a film about this?
Yeah, yeah.
I'm still in such a beginning process.
I haven't even...
The odd note of something I see, I'll jot down immediately.
For example, I saw a father who was constantly fixing his child's hair.
That was his main focus.
That's all he thought he needed, that the kid needed.
So there's little details like that.
And I think I've been thinking a lot about maybe the psychology behind these parents and talking to lots of people.
But in terms of development… Helping a story.
I mean, I think that's why I keep pushing for potential scenarios as I kind of build to what could it take for this father to see what he's doing to his son or his children, basically.
It's not much of a story, like I said.
If you do end up getting this thing down in some shareable manner, please let us know.
And if there's anything we can do to help publicize it, I think I find it interesting, this kind of stuff.
And I think there is kind of a fascination with show parents.
It is interesting because if the kids love it and everybody can make a lot of money, well, yay!
But I'm not sure that's the majority.
So I think it would be interesting for people to see what's going on behind the scenes.
Yeah, everyone I talk to about it in the business, whether it be a casting director or whomever, they get very passionate about it.
And I think it's because it's not quite...
I mean, yes, maybe in extreme terms, you know, extreme moms or, you know, if you go on Dr.
Phil or, you know, you watch that and it shows a mother screaming at her kid and they have a built-in stage in their house.
The stuff that I see is much, much more subtle than that and arguably just as damaging.
So in terms of creating a story, um...
The difficulty, I guess, is trying to have some of these parents maybe think, oh, maybe I'm doing that, as opposed to being so distant from some of the parents that are portrayed, whether it be reality.
Most of the time it's reality TV. It's like, oh, that would never be me.
So in terms of creating a story, it's trying to find that tone.
Yeah, no, I think you're right.
And the subtle stuff can in some ways be the most damaging because it's the invisible harm that is the greatest prison.
Listen, I've got to move on to the next caller if you don't mind, but keep us posted about the project.
And if there's anything we can do to support its distribution or getting the word out there, please let us know.
Yes, that's absolutely my goal in terms of even just talking to you.
It would be great to kind of follow up at some point as it builds and absolutely have your feedback.
All right.
Well, thanks for the call, man.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Alright, well up next is Dan.
Dan wrote in, and his question has to do with, am I coming across as rational with my arguments against statism?
For example, I was debating with people on social media where I was pointing out facts, and the individuals I debate with brush it off like it's a non-factor.
What would be a more effective way of making arguments more rational?
I refrain from name-calling and just point out facts and make good arguments.
What can make me a better debater and more effective when battling statism?
Is there anything you want to add to the question?
Well, first, can I actually say how your show has helped me, if it's cool?
Yeah, happy to hear.
Yeah, well, I just bought your books, by the way, all seven of them.
And I'm cramming them currently right now in my brain.
I'm just putting UPB all on my brain right now.
And I've got to say, it's pretty amazing.
It should be something that should be in Oprah's Book Club or something.
Other than the fact that it would make most of the other entries in Oprah's Book Club burst into flames.
But yeah, I appreciate that.
Thanks.
Yeah, that is true.
I mean, all that worthless junk.
I mean, honestly, it is just the fact of you saying that arguing against UPB is, you are arguing for UPB. That was pretty awesome when I read that.
No problem.
And I also want to say how your show has helped me out.
In the past year, I actually was working for a company for about three years.
I was a storage assistant manager.
I got promoted about a year ago to a manager.
And now I just got another job as a property manager.
So it has helped me a lot.
Before I used to be a Democrat and I used to be a leftist and I used to think I was a victim of everything.
And listening to yourself, it made me open up my eyes that I'm not a victim, that I can provide value.
And I've been providing value ever since.
And I'm making just as much as a person that has a college degree.
Fantastic.
That's great to hear, man.
Congratulations.
No, yeah, definitely.
And it's also helped me out with dealing with customers because my industry is a lot more customer service-based.
And philosophy has helped me deal with customers.
Customers sometimes are irrational, I could say.
Yeah.
It's not just customers, but yeah, I know what you mean.
They could be really irrational.
And sometimes I just point out evidence and facts and they kind of just come up with the stupidest things to tell me.
I had a lady, for example, tell me that...
She was arguing for fees or whatever, and I was like, I pointed out the facts, and she's like, oh, but I could be your grandmother.
I'm like, okay, what does you being my grandmother have to do with anything that we're discussing right now?
You know, it's just like the most ridiculous things come out of their mouths.
When you actually point out evidence, reason, and facts, and, you know, it's made me into a more, I guess, competent manager, you know?
Right, right, right.
Good.
No, it's good to see that kind of manipulation.
I mean, she's trying to get a better deal from you by appealing to your family sentimentality and all that, so that would be my guess.
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
And not just that, you know, you'll have people, because a lot of people, they get angry at me because they think that I'm trying, like, to outsmart them for some reason.
Right, right.
Usually that's because you are outsmarting them, and that's usually why people get angry for that.
Yeah, it's just like I had a lady, for example, the other day tell me that I'm an educated woman.
I'm like, okay, what does that have to do with anything that we're discussing?
If you have to tell me that, it's probably not working.
Yeah, you know, and it's just something that I've just realized that people are getting very offended by things that I say.
And it's not because I'm trying to literally like trying to outsmart them.
I'm just trying to show them the truth.
Right.
You get me?
So, I'm sorry that this is completely deviated away from, you know, what we were talking about, what my actual question was.
No, it's fine.
It's fine.
It's half your show.
You know, it's just, it just bothers me that people get so irrational, like, with these type of things.
Like, you know, that, like, I even see it with, like, customers, you know what I mean?
Right, right.
Well, why would you assume that you're at fault?
Sometimes, for example, in the social media incident that I was saying, I had an argument with a lot of people in social media.
For example, I posted something on Instagram and it was talking about if we want to support veterans, we have to stop making new ones.
Pretty much saying we have to stop killing.
This was Veterans Day and I put on the bottom a hashtag of Happy Murderer's Day.
And the amount of hate that I received The amount of hate that I received, I literally could have just killed a baby or something on Instagram.
Uh-huh.
Were you surprised at that?
I wasn't surprised, to be honest.
But people's emotional reactions was more surprising.
Why?
Um...
Because I had a lady that her husband is like in the military or whatever.
And she's like, you know, she was telling me, oh, you know, you've never experienced anything like this.
You've never seen a kid die in your arms.
And I'm like, what does it have to do with anything?
That's why I didn't even sign up for the military.
I had my opportunity to sign up for it.
Because I remember when I was like 16, I had one of those officers that come and recruit people come to me when I was working at a local grocery store.
And he was like, do you want to be a man?
And I'm like, no, I don't want to kill people.
Sorry.
Let me just check.
Oh, no.
Think I am.
Don't need your permission for that.
It's literally like propaganda like that.
Do you want to be a man?
Do you want to make a change in lives?
And I'm like, you mean by killing them?
Well, but did you grow up with a father?
Yeah, I did grow up with a father.
Right, so a definition of manhood is less likely to work on you if you grew up with a father, right?
If you didn't grow up with a father, then it's more likely that some anonymous stranger inviting you into becoming king of murder club is going to have more of an effect on you, right?
Yeah, that is true.
That is true.
I totally agree with that.
Okay, so hang on, hang on, hang on.
But...
Do you get that calling soldiers murderers on social media is volatile?
Well, to other people, yeah.
Well, yeah, but you said that you were surprised at the amount of negative feedback you got, right?
Well, yeah, like emotional stuff like that.
I would understand if someone would have actually tried to actually give me a little bit better, I guess, arguments instead of telling me...
No, no, you weren't.
Hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, man.
You weren't making an argument.
You were just using the word murderer.
Yeah.
So were you really surprised that when you weren't making an argument that other people did not respond with an argument?
Yeah, I guess I was.
Definitely.
Do you understand that that's not very rational on your part, right?
I mean, if you were to make a very long argument, then saying the people, well, they just didn't respond to my argument with an argument.
And, you know, that's reasonable.
But if you simply are calling military people murderers, that's not really...
An argument.
That is...
That's a provocation, right?
Yeah.
And, you know, the people that they started asking, you know, and, you know, the whole idea was to get people to, like, in my part was to get people to, you know, call a spade a spade, you know what I mean?
To try to get them to think about things like that.
No, no, no.
No, listen, I gotta tell you, that's...
Offending people and expecting that to make them think is like expecting them to learn...
Ballet because you rolled a grenade into their room.
Mm-hmm.
Gotcha.
Right?
Simply poking people's offense buttons is not the same as trying to get them to think.
Mm-hmm.
So you think in my case that I was offending people more than a lot than even actually making them think?
You were trolling.
Yeah.
Right?
Yeah.
It was actually something that I was actually going to say next.
I feel like in a way that what I wanted to do was just get people to think that to stop having murderers, you've got to stop military men from being murderers.
Well, okay, but let me make a counter case.
First of all, there is the legal definition.
And by the legal definition, soldiers are not murderers.
At least most soldiers, right?
Certainly soldiers who kill in combat are not murderers, which is why they get medals, not jail cells, right?
Yeah.
Right?
There was this cop who seems to have shot a black guy eight times in the back while a black guy was running away or fleeing after a traffic stop.
Yeah, I mean, apparently there was a warrant out for this guy's arrest for child support and so on.
He'd never been convicted of a violent crime.
And fortunately, there was video of the event.
And the video seems to show that the police officer shot this guy eight times in the back while he was running away.
So the guy's just been charged with murder.
You know, what happens, we'll see.
But it certainly seems pretty fair that this charge was made.
So that would be a case of murder.
Whereas, at least according to the investigations that occurred with Darren Wilson and Michael Brown, that was not a case of murder.
So the important thing is that most people are working in a status paradigm, right?
It's legal, and therefore you can't use a legal term, and most people understand murder to be a legal term, and you can't use a legal term, which is murder, to describe murder.
That which, according to the law, is not murder, which is the actions by most people in the military when engaging combatants, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, true.
So you're wrong to call them murderers according to the law, right?
To the law, yeah.
Right, right.
And so, go ahead.
In that sense, I mean, when, I mean, like you were saying, you know, basically...
To me, what military men are are paid hitmen from politicians.
Well, no, no, I understand that.
Look, I'm not disagreeing.
I'm not talking about that.
What I'm talking about is you're asking how to be more effective in your communications, right?
Yeah.
We're not asking for the technical definitions of philosophically what's going on with these people and so on.
You're asking me how to be more effective in your communication.
And the first thing you need to do if you want to be effective in your communication is to understand where people are coming from and use the language that they use.
You can't radically redefine people's language without informing them of why and expect them to have any idea what you're talking about.
Like if I redefine pottery as anarchism and then start talking about going to anarchist class to create an ashtray, then people will be quite confused.
right?
Yeah.
Because that's not how they understand.
That's another thing.
Like, for example, in anarchism, like, you know, people automatically think, you know, The Purge or something like that.
And, you know...
That's why The Purge is...
Yeah, yeah.
Go ahead.
Even though The Purge is a government, you know, program, but whatever, you know, forget it.
That's just movie stuff.
But, you know, anarchism to me is just a voluntary society.
And to other people, they just think it's automatically, you know, pretty much chaos everywhere.
So, I mean...
Yeah, of course.
Is there...
Is it really me redefining the actual meaning of it, or is it, you know, just what it is?
Well, no, but if you're communicating to other people, you need to know what language they're using, and what words they're using, and if you are going to radically redefine the words that they're using, you need to tell them that, and you need to tell them why, right?
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
Right, that's non-arrogant communication 101, is to humble yourself to the listening space of the audience, right?
Correct.
Yeah.
That's true.
Maybe I never...
Yeah, where are people coming from and what is the language that they're using?
And if you're going to radically redefine the terms, because if you call soldiers murderers with no argument...
Then you are legally incorrect.
Now, in some abstract moral realm, you could make a case for that, but that's a long and complicated case to make.
And what you're saying to people, if you make that case, is that the legal system that they live under is completely wrong in its fundamentals.
Right?
Yeah.
I've never looked at it that way.
I guess I was looking at it like, you know...
Because I don't remember the exact thing that I wrote, but I just remember I put that as a hashtag.
And then I got the responses of, you know, so that girl saying that, you know, you've never seen a person, you know, a dead kid or, you know, whatever.
And I was like, you know, well, I decided not to join.
So that's exactly why I knew that I could possibly see that.
But, you know, that's why I decided not to join at all.
And, you know, not just in that scenario, for example, like I had another debate with someone on there, someone else on there that we were talking about Detroit.
And I listed the facts of Detroit, you know, like all their debt problems, like the $20 trillion, I mean, billion dollars, and they're in debt, 100,000 creditors, all the problems.
And, you know, the guy asked me, you know, so let me, he asked, he told me this, he's like, so let me ask you, do you think that the government caused this?
And I just, like, could not believe that he just said that.
When I just pointed out all these facts, I even put in articles in there.
I even took the time to put in articles, and I was just like, wow, I can't believe this.
Right.
Where did it go from there?
From there on in, he's like, oh, what you're doing right now is you're making the case for statism, for, well...
Against anarchism, that's what he was saying, because all this stuff is going on and it's all chaos.
And, you know, I pointed out how ineffective the policing was.
I pointed out a bunch of things, like a bunch of, you know, how the police are taking like an hour to respond to people and telling them to come in at their own, you know, at their own risk.
Censor the city at their own risk.
I mean, I pointed even out articles of that, but, you know, apparently that didn't go through.
Right.
Yeah, so that was a less emotionally volatile argument.
But one of the key things in sales, and I don't mean to reduce philosophy to sales, but the techniques are still of value, is To make sales...
I never really did cold calls, but I would get involved in selling complex environmental management systems to big companies.
And the important thing is to know when you're not going to make a sale.
Most sales, of course, as you know, is rejection.
And you have to make a hundred calls to make a sale.
Now, if you spend an hour on each call, right, you'll be making one sale every two and a half weeks.
But if you can spend one minute on each sale, then you can make several sales a day, right?
So sales efficiency is knowing when to stop investing in a transaction that is not going to pan out, right?
Very important.
So you're saying that I kind of was – that this guy would never open his mind to the idea of it being the government even though I pointed out all these facts and everything.
I see.
He's just not going to accept it pretty much.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah.
I mean the number of people who call me out is ludicrous.
right?
I also put an argument out for the defense of marriage and there was some guy who's like, Steph, if you're not a coward, you'll have a Google Hangout with me on my channel, right?
You're trash talking me?
Really?
I mean, come on, this is not a breakdancing competition in 1982.
I just think that's kind of funny, right?
I think MGTOW might be the way to go for you for the benefit of all.
But I mean, that's just trash talky stuff.
Now, maybe it would be worthwhile having a conversation with someone.
I don't know.
But certainly not if that's their approach to having some kind of conversation, right?
Yeah, like for example.
No thanks, right?
He was also saying, he's like, I broke down your whole argument.
But the thing was, he never even provided me with any reason or evidence or anything.
He never just provided me with anything.
He just was saying, I just broke down all your arguments without any...
Just saying that he just broke it down.
Oh, yeah.
The number of people who tell me that I'm wrong without telling me why...
I mean, good lord, if I had a dollar, right?
If it cost a dollar for people to tell me that I'm wrong without telling me why or providing any evidence, I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams.
You're just so wrong, Steph, I can't even be bothered to spend the time to go through all the instances in which you're wrong, so blah blah blah.
I defend you sometimes on those YouTube comments.
Oh, well, good for you, I guess.
But don't defend me.
Just keep asking for reason and evidence and people will show very quickly that they're just bluffing, right?
No, yeah.
And, you know, that's something that's, you know, and the thing with the whole, you know, I said happy murders.
And, you know, now that, you know, you pointed that out and, you know, that I really had no argument there.
I guess I did expect those, you know, emotional responses.
But, you know, I was prepared, I guess, in a way to defend against those emotional arguments.
You get me?
Like I was already putting, you know, when the lady said that, that I don't know about, you know, how it is to hold a dead kid.
I was like, well, you know, I don't.
I don't know how it is to die of cancer, for example, and be a smoker, but I know it happens.
You get me?
That's just things that I was just thinking.
There's a bunch of scenarios that I don't know about, but I do know that if you do it, there's something that would happen.
I mean, these non-sequiturs are like, have you ever made sweet love to a Sicilian ferret under the Tuscan moonlight?
It's like, uh...
I'm disturbed that you'd even ask me that question.
I mean, what does that mean?
Have you ever held the hand of a chinchilla when it slowly dies of bronchitis?
But, I mean, it still has about as much emotional coherence as your hashtag, right?
Which is, a murderer...
What people understand by a murderer is somebody who kills knowing that it's wrong.
And who then, you know, hides bodies and the police attempt to convict him and so on, right?
Or not convict him, the police attempt to find evidence against him and the court attempts to convict him and so on, right?
But this is not how it works in the military.
The people who work – and this is one of the very earliest essays that I ever wrote was helping people to empathize with why people end up in the military mindset.
I mean, they're told their whole lives.
It's service to the country.
It's protection of people, you know, that fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.
And, you know, people can call you bad names, but you're fighting to defend their rights to call you those bad names.
And, you know, the heroes are military and the action heroes are military.
And, I mean, this is the entirety of the propaganda that they've received and imbibed.
And, look, I'm a pretty smart guy.
And it took me 20 years to break out of statism.
And that's 20 years where I had a hell of a head start through objectivism.
I had the luxury of studying full-time for many years at three very good universities.
And it took me 20 years To break out of statism.
And I had not killed for statism.
I had not fed my family through statism.
My pension did not require on statism.
And still, it took me 20 years.
Right?
If you are arrogantly lording it over other people with your newfound knowledge, I think you are using something that you did not earn.
There's nothing so humbling as realizing you've been wrong for a long time.
You don't have all the answers.
I don't have all the answers.
I don't know the degree to which we have the right to lord it over other people who either don't have our intellectual gifts or haven't been exposed to the same material or don't happen to have that emotional apparatus that is willing to embrace and explore these ideas.
But I think that humility is...
I'm not saying it's a universal.
I'm not saying it's an absolute.
And there are times when you can get angry at people who are, you know, just being difficult or evasive or obfuscatory for no particular reason other than emotional defensiveness.
And so I'm not saying anger never has a place.
But it is very arrogant to call soldiers murderers.
Without making a strong and to some degree compassionate case.
And look, I'm not saying I've always maintained this ideal.
I'm not saying that at all.
It's something, again, I sort of need to remind myself of.
But don't use your knowledge as a kind of weapon for personal aggrandizement, for feeling superior to people.
Because you don't know exactly why these ideas have clicked with you.
I don't either know why these ideas have clicked with me.
They surely didn't click.
They didn't click very much for anyone around me save maybe one or two people.
And I don't know what we have in common.
Why these ideas clicked with us and why We made it our life's work to pursue and expand our understanding of and increase our communication of these ideas.
I can't say I'm just a better person.
I'm a better person because these ideas have clicked with me, but I can't say that I was a better person and therefore these ideas clicked with me because when I look at my early life, I wasn't a bad person, but I don't think I was a conspicuously heroically good person either.
So you don't know exactly why these ideas have clicked with you.
But if you are going to take on the mission of bringing these ideas to the general population, if you are going to give yourself the mission of bringing these ideas to the general population, you need to meet people where they live.
You don't call in the airstrikes of expanded knowledge to shock and disorient people.
You don't use philosophy as a kind of shock and awe program to stun and disorient people.
And that is a form of attempting to be superior to them.
And look, in your understanding and in your knowledge, you may very well be superior to them.
And if all you want to do is feel superior to them, then do what you do and don't talk to them.
But if you are talking to people and attempting to get them to understand philosophy and critical thinking, then scaring and offending them will not do it.
Will not do it.
My dentist obviously wants me to have good hygiene.
But if she just screams at me that my breath stinks, she's not going to get her message across to me as well as she could.
Right?
Yeah.
And people look at soldiers as heroes.
They look at...
Not everyone.
A lot of people look at soldiers as heroes.
A lot of people are married to those soldiers.
A lot of people had those soldiers as fathers.
Or mothers.
Or grandparents.
And if you come along and call people who are loved by others...
Murderers with no context.
You are harming the cause of philosophy.
You are not helping the cause of philosophy.
Well, I wish I could honestly probably sit back and just apologize to them, but I got kicked off of Instagram because I violated their terms in agreement.
Right.
So, I mean, so what good did you really do?
Yeah, I kind of got myself kicked out.
I guess they didn't like my posts or stuff like that.
For whatever reason.
Well, I mean, it's, you know, calling someone a murderer is as grim and ugly a moral label as you could possibly conceive of, right?
Being a murderer is the worst of the worst, right?
Yeah, I would say a rapist, murderer...
I mean, the penalties for a murderer are stronger than the penalties for anything else, right?
Yeah.
Stronger than, you know, it's worse in the law than pedophilia or rape or these things, right?
And so if you are going to call millions of people murderers, that is a very strong accusation to make.
And the idea that people would react emotionally and in a hostile manner to that is not shocking.
Now, in an abstract, in the future...
From a purely moral standpoint, you could make the case that these people are, of course, initiating the use of force and they're taking orders and so on.
And I've made that case, but I try to make it sort of step by step.
And, you know, where I haven't, it is to my failure.
And you can do it if you're in a conversation with someone, right?
So I did a show on estrogen-based parasites, which was trying to wake people up to the reality that...
Women can be exploitive and deceptive and parasitical.
And I used humor, and I made the case, and I was in a conversation.
But if I simply had used women are parasites as a hashtag, what case would I possibly have made?
I don't think that there's any philosophical case that can be made in a hashtag, except hashtag hashtags are not philosophy.
Right?
Yeah, yeah, definitely.
And so there's nothing wrong with jarring language.
Obviously philosophy is half performance art for me.
So jarring people and startling people and so on I think is fine.
But making horrendous moral accusations towards millions of people who are generally loved and respected in society is not something you can do in a hashtag, right?
Yeah, it's like – but don't people also – like, yeah, that's something that I was actually going to say because my sister actually told me.
She's like, you're trolling.
And I didn't really want to accept the fact that I was.
Do you get me?
Of course you didn't want to accept the fact that you thought you were doing philosophy.
Yeah.
But you weren't.
Yeah, true.
And she told me I was trolling, but I kind of thought that, you know, Something that I feel like is very true.
I think there's a lot of things that could back it up.
Democide and all this stuff.
But you weren't backing it up.
I mean, within the comments...
You were making a statement, right?
I did make a statement, yeah.
And you were making a very short statement with no moral...
Or intellectual or philosophical or empirical case behind it, right?
Yeah.
And there's nobody who would accept what you were saying who did not already agree with you, which is the very definition of preaching to the choir, right?
Yeah.
And if you're going in a general social milieu, you are dealing with people who don't already agree with what you're saying.
So if you look at speeches that I give to libertarian audiences versus the speeches I gave in Brazil, I'm dealing with very different audiences.
And you have to know the level of insight, the level of openness, the level of propaganda that is in the minds of your audience.
And if you're speaking in a general social context, Well, then you have to recognize who you're talking to.
And if you want to change the minds of the general population, then you cannot radically redefine language without telling them how or why or even that you're doing it.
You have to know your audience.
I mean, politicians are very good at that, right?
Politicians are very good at that and we're not always...
That's exactly what I was going to mention.
That was actually what I was going to say.
Politicians, they're the ones that are looked upon so highly.
Well, to me, they're just evil human beings that make laws.
Here you go again, right?
So now you're using the word evil, which is again a very strong and powerful word.
And you and I may have...
But I don't even know what you mean by evil.
I mean, politicians do not themselves directly initiate the use of force.
They're soffits.
They, you know, often will say things that aren't true and, you know, and so on.
But evil?
Again, you're using these emotionally explosive terms without any particular definition.
Now, again, you and I will probably speak closer to the same language, but even I'm not sure what you mean.
Evil compared to what?
Evil compared to like a mass murderer or a serial killer or, you know, a serial pedophile?
I mean, surely a politician is less evil, if we're going to even use that term with a politician, surely they're less evil than a mass murderer, right?
Well, I mean, aren't they, there's some that are technically type of mass murderers, like, you know, Hitler, for example, I mean, or, you know, Stalin, you know, these type of politicians are mass murderers.
But surely you're not saying that all politicians are in the moral camp of Hitler?
No, no.
And that's what I mean when I say, so if you're going to use the term politicians to refer to all politicians with the moral standing of Hitler, well, that's, you know, the mayor of Podunk, Kentucky is probably going to be a little bit confused at being lumped in with mustachioed screamer dude.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, that I totally agree.
Like, I don't think, you know, Ron Paul would probably be in the same category.
You know, Ron, you know, I still think he's in a lot of the status ideas, but, you know, I definitely think that he'll be, you know, you can't lump him in there with, you know, Hitler or Mussolini or any of these guys or Castro.
No, no, obviously no.
That would be, I think that would be an insult to the millions of victims of the The Castros and those kinds of things.
So I think that you like to be provocative and yet I think we can be provocative without being imprecise and without being confusing.
I don't mind being offensive.
I don't mind startling and surprising people.
But you still have to make a philosophical case.
And if you can't...
I mean, I don't think I've ever used a hashtag in my life.
And...
Because you can't make that kind of argument.
I mean, I'll rarely engage anyone in YouTube comments or anything if I even read them because it's like, yeah, call into the show.
Let's have a conversation.
Because those venues are not very well suited for the discussion of philosophy.
So...
I would just strongly recommend trying to make sure that, A, you're making a case.
Because if you want to change people's minds, you have to reason philosophically.
Because anyone whose mind is not changed according to reason is not worth changing.
If someone's like, yeah, they are all X or Y or Z, it's like, well, you haven't changed that person's mind, you've just reinforced their prior prejudices.
And so if you can't change someone's mind through reason and evidence, and, you know, artful, stylized humor or whatever, you know, works for you, but if you can't change someone's mind through reason and evidence, that mind is not worth changing.
It's like blowing on a weathervane saying, well, I've changed its position permanently.
It's like, nope, just until the next breath of wind comes along and changes it back, right?
Right?
Let's say that you wanted to create a three-hour advertisement for NASA and other government programs and call it the movie Interstellar.
That would be kind of a way of cheating.
But we're about planting seeds.
We're not about getting a million people to agree with whatever outrageous and unsupported statement we're making.
We're just about planting seeds.
Just about planting seeds.
If I measured the success of this program...
By everyone who changed their minds on the major issues that we discussed, this show would be a massive failure.
It's just about planting seeds.
Patience, patience, patience is the key.
People aren't going to change positions they've held for decades or generations because of a single hashtag or even a single conversation.
It takes a long time to change people's minds.
If you can get it measured in decades, you're doing incredibly well.
For the really important stuff, sadly, it's centuries.
Yeah, go ahead.
Do you think that it'll be better for me to engage with them in a more conversation setting and maybe some type of formal way of just talking to them and just providing my ideas or my...
Arguments behind why I think it's correct, why, you know, whatever reason or position that I'm on is the best.
Dude, what I'm saying, no, no, because you're trying to figure out some technical solution to what essentially is a problem of empathy, right?
Because when we first started talking, you seemed surprised that people reacted strongly to you calling millions of beloved people murderers.
I think now we've talked about it, that's not so surprising, right?
Right.
Yeah.
And so the challenge is put yourself in the other person's shoes.
If you want to change their minds, I mean if you're fighting them, then you put yourself in the other person's shoes in order to figure out their next move or whatever, but if you want to change people's minds for the better, put yourself in their shoes.
And say, how would I feel if someone called someone I loved a murderer?
And how would you feel?
I see what you mean.
Like, let's say if I had a brother that was in the military, even though I don't agree with it, you know, I'm still...
No, no, no.
No, you're still not there.
Because now, I asked you to put yourself in someone else's shoes, and you put yourself in your shoes if you had a brother.
You didn't make it, right?
I asked you to put yourself in someone else's shoes, not you if you had a brother.
So if you were in somebody else's shoes, let's put you in some uncomfortable pumps.
So if you were in a woman's shoes and you were married to a soldier, and your father was a soldier and you loved them both, and someone called them a murderer, how would you feel?
I feel very...
I would feel just like how she did and not what she did.
And would you be open to any further communication from that person?
Well, yeah, they blocked me or probably reported me, I think.
And would you be curious about the reasoning behind such an outrageous statement for you?
No, not at all.
Right.
So were you helping or hindering the cause of philosophy and critical thinking?
I was hindering it.
You were.
And the important thing is to know why.
I don't know why.
I don't know why, but if you can figure that out, then you can really help philosophy rather than using it for some emotional gratification at the expense of the truth.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So why do you think you posted that?
At the end, like I said, the whole point of it was just to have people think completely different of soldiers, and not to think about them as heroes.
That was the whole idea and the intention, and to see them just like their hitmen.
No, you've said that to me before, and you haven't changed what you've said, so I'll have to interrupt you on that.
And I will submit to you, I could be wrong, but I will submit to you That the reason that you posted this is that you were very, very afraid of appearing vulnerable.
And like most people who were afraid of feeling vulnerable, you had a macho exterior which attempted to be dominant but instead proved ineffective.
Look, if you want to change the world You are staggeringly at the mercy of the world.
Right?
If you want to change people's minds about what virtue means, about what integrity means, you are incredibly at their mercy because they can just say, no, screw you.
And then, because you really want to change the world and you're desperate to improve the world, when people say, no, I don't care, screw you, it hurts.
There is an incredible vulnerability in trying to improve the world.
You are going against all the momentum of history.
You are going against all the piled-up prejudice that appears as natural as physics to the majority of mankind.
And you are trying to stand against the great Unrushing, frozen, black, blinding obsidian tide of history and say, stop, reverse yourself.
Water must run uphill, sunlight must become dark, and the moon must burst into fire.
And you appear to be attempting to undo physics with mere words.
And that, to most people, is the actions of a crazy person.
You appear to be somebody standing on the edge of a bridge, screaming that they can fly while flapping their wings with two feathers held Between the tips of their fingers, you look crazy because people's social beliefs are not perceived as beliefs, they are perceived as truths, as existential and metaphysical as the truths of physics.
And if you are going to try to attempt people, if you're going to try to attempt to convince people that gravity can reverse itself upon their command, They have a great and what seems to them very wise capacity to say, no, you're crazy.
You're crazy.
And if you wish to change people, you must be their servant.
You must be their slave.
There is nothing commanding in attempting to improve people morally.
You must beg.
You must crawl.
You must subject yourself.
You must humiliate yourself.
You must be willing to be attacked and vilified and hated and scorned and spurned and ostracized and attacked.
You must be willing to all of these things because you are in service of the future.
You are in service of that which is best, which is yet to come.
Which is yet to come.
You are a slave not even to masters in the present But to free people in the future.
You are not in command of the present.
You are a victim of the present.
But a deliverer of freedom in the future.
You are crucified in the here and now.
So, three days later, society can resurrect itself.
There is extraordinary vulnerability.
In trying to change the world.
Especially if you're not trying to do it through politics.
I am hurt by the world that is.
Say the world changers.
I am in agony of the world that is.
And I will never even live to see the world that should be.
I am willing to live in the hell of knowledge in order to deliver others to the heaven of peace.
And we are not the masters of our lives when we submit ourselves to what is necessary to change the world for the better.
We are broken and we are slaves and we are servants at best and we are prisoners in reality.
If you never think you can take five steps in either direction, you don't even know you're in a cell.
When you know how far you can fly, you know how heavy are your chains.
If you're a zombie, nobody looks like a zombie.
If you're not a zombie, you must move among them.
With, as the show points out, zombie juice spread across your chest.
Yeah.
You don't get to command people You don't get to order people.
You don't get to merely provoke people because you desperately need people to listen to you and to change for the better, which is a very hard thing to do and a very painful thing to do.
You are in the position of begging and supplicating.
You must cast pride aside.
This is why objectivists don't succeed that much.
You must cast your pride aside and you must do whatever is necessary to move the seed of human opinion towards a better place.
You must voluntarily throw yourself in the pit of corpses in order to bring one or two or five or ten to life if you're lucky.
There is no command in the service of virtue because virtue must be voluntary.
You are as much a beggar as somebody who opens a business.
You desperately want people to come to your business but you can't go out and drag them in.
You must entice them in.
You must get them to come in and yet not To the point where you go out of business.
You are a servant.
You are a slave.
And that, I believe, is what is necessary.
You meet people where they live.
You use the words that they use.
And if you're going to change the words that they use, you must tell them why and be patient as they struggle and reject.
And it is entirely right and proper and true and good and necessary That people should spit in the faces of those who wish to improve them.
Because most people who come along and try to improve mankind end up leading mankind off a cliff into a pit of genocide and war and murder and revolution and guillotines and suicide and gulags and war.
Ah, endless war.
We are going to get Lebensraum for Germany.
Living room.
Oh, okay, well, there's 40 million people going to die, but still...
We are going to have a dictatorship of the proletariat and then the state is going to wither away.
We're going to be free!
Sorry, Mr.
Solzhenitsyn, you get 10 years in the house of the dead in Siberia.
How many people come along to the world and promise it?
Riches in order to steal its young and serve them up to the meat grinders of superstition and nationalism and war.
Tribalism of every kind.
Most people who come along and promising paradise deliver human beings to hell itself.
So it is entirely right that people should look upon those of us who try to improve the human condition with great skepticism.
What if we are the next Lenin?
What if we are the next Hitler?
What if we are the next Mao?
What if we are the next...
What if we are the next monster coming along as a devil in the guise of the angels?
What if we are a nightmare dressed as a daydream?
And they should reject us and they should scorn us and they should make us suffer for the sake of change.
That's only fair.
The most beautiful woman in the realm Can demand love tests of her suitors.
And if we are promising a paradise in the future for the sake of great pain in the present, people have every right to be hostile and skeptical towards us because so many people have come to humanity before promising everything and providing literally nothing as in death.
We can make this world so wonderful You won't even want to be alive.
Here, let me help you with that second part.
How many of the quarter billion people slaughtered by the governments were slaughtered after promises of vast improvement?
Free healthcare!
You don't have to worry about living in cities anymore, Cambodians.
You can enjoy elegant country living in the killing fields.
Have you had enough with working for a living?
Come join us in the free gruel and ice of Siberia.
Do you not enjoy paying for your own healthcare insurance?
Let us force lots of healthy people to pay for health insurance they don't want and can't afford and don't need for the most part so that you can be subsidized.
What could go wrong?
Right?
So many of these promises turn out to be hell on earth.
Not like paying for your labor?
Don't worry.
The government will subsidize the importation of slaves.
Because what could go wrong?
You'll have free labor.
Don't want machinery that can actually improve things?
Slaves is your answer.
Because nothing stagnates economic and social progress like people who invest heavily in machinery that fundamentally cannot be improved.
Ladies, had enough of a bad marriage?
Let's make getting divorced really easy.
And let's make sure that you don't have to rely on any men who may let you down, because the great, giant, alpha male state will swoop in to take care of any man-shaped hole in your financial and social security.
Don't you worry about it.
You don't have to worry about being that nice to your kids because we'll give you pensions in your old age.
Don't worry about savings.
We got you covered.
Of course, you can't eat federal notes of IOU, but they're there in case you want to start a fire and keep yourself warm as you die of hunger.
Had enough of the fluctuations of gold-based currency, which can fluctuate a few percentage points each year, let's replace it with government paper.
That way, there'll be no unemployment, no instability, and certainly not two giant world wars funded by fiat currency.
Don't worry about a thing.
We've got you covered.
This is going to be a vast improvement.
Hey, I've got another question for you in the 1930s.
Have you had enough of actually trading with people voluntarily?
Do you find that kind of difficult?
Lots of overhead, marketing and advertisement.
Lots of people who don't want to buy our products.
Don't worry about it.
We've got giant federal programs to force people to buy from you or subsidize you if they don't.
We've got it all covered.
Are you tired of creating jobs in the free market?
Don't worry.
We'll borrow huge amounts of money, and we will spend like crazy drunken sailors with holes in our pants and gold flowing out of our eyelids.
We've got it all covered.
We'll just spend money until we're all rich, or until there's another giant fucking war, in which case everything will be...
Warlike again.
Oh, sorry.
Okay, quite a lot of death where we promised riches and infinite wealth, but still, nonetheless, hey, got another question for you.
Are you feeling undereducated?
Let's get a giant GI Bill going so that all the socialists who created the hellscape known as Europe can come over to America and create the hellscape known as growing socialism in America.
I could go on and on, but the reality is...
Hey, have you had enough with not having enough sex?
Hey, do you find having the same sexual partner for a good portion of your life kind of boring?
Let's free it up, shall we?
We'll take away a lot of your economic liberties, but then we'll stop scowling at you if you bang pretty much anything that moves.
Have you had enough of using your keys only to start your cars?
Toss them in a ball!
Grab on randomly!
Have sex with that person!
What possible harm could that do to the stability of marriage and the future happiness of your children?
No problem!
We got you covered!
Well, actually, we've got you uncovered in a nudist colony, banging anything that's pretty much animated by sexual lust and the vast movements of microbial organisms across its pelt.
But yes, we've got you covered!
We'll take away your economic liberties, but here, you can bang yourselves into an early grave And to the demise and destruction of any family structure that might support your children's happiness in the future.
No problem, MGTOW, here it comes.
But don't worry, it'll be a generation and a half and away.
Hey, do you feel like not having kids but still support government programs?
That's not a problem either.
You may not want to have kids and you may know that the government has no money to pay for your old age education, but don't worry, there's still a few people over there having kids.
Their kids can be your slaves because you love government programs, you just don't want to have the kids necessary to support their continued existence.
You lazy, selfish bastards!
So my kid has to work ten times as hard because you are too lazy to even fuck and raise a kid to pay for the social programs in your old age that you demand as your human right.
I want a human right to be taken care of in my old age by other people's children.
I don't want to actually have children of my own that were necessary to support that as a tax base for the program to continue.
Hey, do you like looking at the Earth from out of space?
Well, let me tell you what.
We're going to tax the living shit out of you so that there's no possibility of private spacecraft.
Because remember, space travel is for the elite.
Just like airplanes and cell phones.
You should never be able to access it because we're going to tax the living shit out of you to send a few old bastards up into space so that none of you get a chance to fly into space and see it for yourself.
Does that sound good to you?
No?
Well, fuck you.
We're taking your money anyway.
Too bad.
You don't get to go up there.
Pfft.
You get to watch it with CGI. No way, Jose.
Hey, are your children taking up too much of your time?
Do you find it quite difficult to educate them yourselves?
Don't worry.
We've got you covered.
We're going to have wonderful free education.
It's going to be available to everyone.
No propaganda involved.
And we're certainly not going to teach your eight-year-olds about anal sex because we're sane.
So yeah, hand over your kids, hand over your money.
Nothing bad can happen from here.
Nothing bad can ever happen from having children bond with the state rather than with their own family and their own parents.
Because state allegiance has never been the cause of any problems in society, ever!
So, anyway, again I could go on and on, but...
It's right for them to be skeptical and it's right for them to push back because a lot of people who promise improvements in the human condition have not really thought things through or are merely motivated by resentment, family history, emotional instability, selfishness, narcissism, megalomania.
So yes, it is entirely right after the experience of the last, say, 20,000 years for human beings to push back.
And say to those of us who wish to improve society, yeah, fuck you.
You're probably just a month of sociopaths in sheep's clothing, so no.
And then if we keep coming back, okay.
After a while, they might listen.
But I'm telling you, it's going to take time, and it's going to take a lot of suffering, and it's going to take a lot of willpower, and it's going to take a lot of persistence.
And anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Does that make any sense?
Yeah, and that reminds me of actually because my father...
He actually came from Cuba before the revolution, actually, because he didn't believe anything Castro was saying.
He thought Castro was a liar, you know, and he actually fled right before the revolution happened.
He got here and, you know, he was actually right.
And, you know, that happened to a lot of the people around my area, which is a lot of Cubans.
So I think that, you know, I understand the skepticism where it's coming from because they come from a place that literally got destroyed by people.
Him and Che Guevara, by the way, just to let you know, every Cuban hates Che Guevara.
They call him a mass murderer because they all experienced it.
Yeah, and the only person they hate more than Che Guevara is my pronunciation of Che Guevara and thereby me in proxy.
But yeah, this guy came along and promised them the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, the Stars.
Hey, we'll get rid of these imperialist gringo fruit companies and we'll replace it with a massive slaughterhouse wherein you'll get crappy free healthcare and never get to leave this hellscape of an island which most people would pay to come and visit.
But you'll want to throw yourself into a leaky boat and try and cross your way in shark-infested waters over the Bimimita Triangle to Florida rather than live in this paradise of upcoming fantastics, right?
So, yeah, I get why.
I'm going to do one more, if you don't mind, and then I'll shut up.
Hey, do you not like apartheid?
Do you not like white people being in charge of South Africa?
Don't worry.
We've got the African National Congress to take things over.
Certainly they were a terrorist organization in the past, but trust me, two days before the election, they registered as a political party.
So they're going to be perfectly fine.
You know what the best training is to run a country?
27 years in solitary.
That's the best way to learn how to manage a complex economical system known as South Africa.
And you know what's going to be great?
Within 30 years of getting rid of the white people in South Africa, Bishop Desmond Tutu will be saying that he thinks that everyone was better off under apartheid, and, for an added bonus, South African women will be more likely, after birth, of being raped than learning how to read, because South Africa will become the rape capital of the world!
Yay!
You've won that, and all you have to do is get rid of white people, and all this paradise can be yours.
Pfft!
But my goal is not to worry what people are going to say now, right?
My goal is 50 years or 100 years from now.
That's what matters.
And it's not going to matter to me.
Certainly 100 years from now, I'll be long dead.
But philosophers are never judged appropriately in the time in which they live.
Of course not.
I mean, because that's not the standards by which philosophy is judged.
Philosophy is judged according to universal principles, reason and evidence.
And philosophers, if they are doing the work of philosophy, are never judged accurately according to the standards in which they live.
So, for instance, I mean, lots of people really, really hated philosophy.
Copernicus and Johann Kepler and Galileo and all of the people who challenged the biblical notion of fixed earth and replaced it with the sun-centered model of the solar system, right?
They are hated by people.
And now, well, certainly not now, after, right, within a century or two after they died, they're like scientific heroes, right?
Why?
Because they were right, right?
So, at the time, it was very important to That they spoke the truth.
It was very important to them.
And because what people believed was false, and because significant portions of social life rested upon those falsehoods, i.e.
the moral and political authority of biblical texts, they were rightly scorned and derided.
And, you know, my own ancestor, William Molyneux, Was best friends with John Locke and they sometimes had to flee persecution and a lot of what they said was true and accurate and certainly more accurate than the prevailing theories of socio-political organization.
But it is natural that philosophers are not understood or not accurately parsed out by their existing society.
It would make no sense.
Because if existing society is largely incorrect, then any philosopher who's not in opposition to social mores is not doing the work of philosophy.
It's just a basic fact.
I mean, if you send a physicist back in time 2,000 years, he would contradict 99% of what everyone believed.
And they would be upset with him, and they would hate him, and some people would love him for sure, but that's just the basic reality of things.
If society is wrong in its fundamental social, political, and familial organization and ethics, then any philosopher who's right is going to be in opposition to significant portions of social thinking.
And because people who've not been reasoned into evidence can't usually be reasoned out of that belief system, then most people will not have the tools with which to rebut the philosopher, because the philosopher is working with reason and evidence, and other people are working with the prejudice of historical inertia.
And so because people can only sustain wrong opinions by studiously avoiding thinking, when they come across a thinker who corrects them, they have no tools with which to oppose the philosopher, and thus they must simply reach into their bag of rules for radical Saul Alinsky tricks of slander and mockery, and you know, it's as inevitable as sunrise.
They cannot fight the philosopher using the tools of philosophy because the philosopher is needed because people do not have the tools of philosophy.
And so for a philosopher to expect praise in the present is for the philosopher to not want the job of philosophy.
The job of philosophy is scorn in the present and freedom for the future.
Now, you could say praise in the future, but who cares, right?
You're long dead.
Doesn't do you a whole lot of good.
But that's the job description, and that's what I've been saying to people from the very beginning of this show.
That is the job description.
You will get a lot of hostility in the here and now, and you will have to sort of console yourself with the reality that A, you're right, B, you're beneficial, C, if you care about it, the future will love you to an even greater degree that the present hates you.
I mean, Socrates...
was put to death.
Socrates is the greatest philosopher, arguably.
Aristotle was threatened with death.
Plato was sold into slavery.
Nietzsche was fired and went mad.
Spinoza was specifically ostracized by the Jews, I think it was in Amsterdam, for opposing their notion of a deity.
That's how you know that someone is onto something, is he's disliked by people who are wrong.
Not like everyone who's disliked is not a philosopher, but all genuine philosophers are disliked by significant portions of the population.
Of course they are.
It's natural.
So that's the gig.
That's the job.
And, you know, it's important to know that going in.
And knowing that going in, it's probably to the benefit to not be More provocative than is productive, if that makes sense.
Gotcha.
And do you ever think that philosophy will meet with the modern time, maybe?
Oh, absolutely.
Yeah, absolutely.
Philosophy and society will get along famously in the future.
Nobody in the West suggests killing physicists for their theories now.
Or scientists, but this was common in the past.
Science and society are getting along a lot better now than they used to.
And yeah, absolutely.
Philosophy and society will get along famously in the future, for sure.
And they'll look back at this as a madhouse bounded only by imaginary lines and real oceans.
Right?
Where countries are nuthouses stuffed to the gills with people Delusionally certain that their fantasies are facts and will wonder how a sane person lived among such mad creatures.
And fortunately, we have, of course, this show and lots of other people working in the realm of philosophy to figure these things out.
Nobody says, let's get slavery back on the table or whatever, right?
I mean, this anti-slavery in society are getting along very well at the moment to the point where nobody talks about resurrecting slavery and thank goodness too.
And in the future...
The idea of hitting or yelling at children or intimidating children will be as foreign to us as slavery is.
It's just that when you started opposing slavery, lots of people who profited from the slave trade didn't like you.
And when you were against aristocracy or the monarchy, then lots of people who were monarchs or aristocrats who profited Didn't like you.
Now, the difference, of course, between that and this is that there were only three to four percent of Southerners were slave owners.
And a lot of people in the South really disliked slavery for reasons I've gone into.
I've got the presentation called The Truth About Slavery.
And the aristocracy was few in number.
And...
This is different though, because what I talk about in this show is our moral responsibility to live a virtue and integrity relative to the state, which everyone is subject to, relative to parenting, relative to our effect on children, which almost everyone has some capacity to affect and influence children.
So I'm casting the net very widely, and the number of people who are disturbed by the promotion of the voluntary family, who are disturbed by The moral prohibition on the virtue of spanking or intimidating children.
Well, that's a far greater number of people to be offended by philosophy than ever would have been offended by philosophy in the past.
That is a different situation and it's largely enabled because the gatekeepers that keep philosophy from the masses have fallen by the wayside as a result of the internet revolution where you and I can have this conversation without anyone getting in the way.
Well, that is a new situation and I get the importance of that situation and I could ease back and I could apologize and I could retract But I simply don't want to push off a free, virtuous, happy, and peaceful society.
By another 50 years, should I do that?
Or more, perhaps.
It's just the way it is.
I hope that helps.
I'm going to end the call, but I hope you'll think about this kind of stuff.
You have to really make sure that philosophy is not something that serves your ego or something that serves your preferences or something that serves your emotional needs or defenses of desire for superiority or self-aggrandizement.
You are there to serve philosophy if that is your chosen.
Like as a doctor, you're there to serve health.
And as a nutritionist, you're there to serve health.
As a dentist, you're there to serve better teeth or oral hygiene.
You are there to serve a virtue.
You're there to serve the future.
And whatever you need to do to move that conversation forward is what you need to do if you want the gig.
So that's my only suggestion for that.
So thank you so much, everyone, of course, so much for calling in.
It is an absolute joy to speak to you all about what's important to you.
And I thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to have these conversations with the world.
And I hope that you will consider helping out this, I believe, the most essential conversation in the world at the moment.
Which I think is doing a staggering amount of good.
Just think of that Trayvon Martin video.
Truth about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
We got millions of people exposed to an anti-spanking message.
Simply through that.
It's over a million people just on YouTube and podcasts and mirrored sites and so on.
Millions of people exposed to a very powerful anti-spanking message in one show.
You know, try and find somewhere else where that happens.
I'd be happy to go and support them too.
But it's freedomainradio.com slash donate to help out with this show.
