All Episodes
Previous Next
April 30, 2015 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
43:12
2962 You're Making Me Guilty Damn You! | YouTube Comments - Rebutted!

Stefan Molyneux dips into the YouTube comments to discuss discrimination, passive aggression, the use of universal principles in Philosophy, socialist economics, supply and demand, money corrupting government climate science, scare-mongering for the purpose of gaining political power and making somebody feel guilt.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain Radio.
Back we go to the geyser of ingenuity and challenge known as the YouTube comments section.
Although I am occasionally of course catty, and by that I mean I'm generally catty, I really do appreciate these comments coming in.
So let's start with, you put your content out there for free.
You shouldn't make people feel guilty as if they should pay for something.
You clearly give away for free.
If you really think it's worth a price tag, put a price tag on it.
Then you'll quickly see how little most of your content is worth in the eyes of others.
Truth is, if you made people pay, you'd lose half your audience, probably.
Now this is a very interesting and very illuminating comment and I really want to talk about it in terms of human freedom because there's almost nothing that entraps us more than feelings of victimization followed by resentment.
That is the real prison of the human condition.
So let's just take this bit by bit and unpack it and I promise you this may be one of the most liberating conversations you will hear today, this week, this year, perhaps in your whole life.
So, somebody says, you put your content out there for free.
Well, I've never said that.
Now, certainly early on in the show, when I first started doing it, I wasn't even thinking of taking donations or getting paid.
I had a job.
Some might say a real job.
And so that's fine.
And then I started asking for 50 cents a show to cover costs.
So there is nothing, of course, in this world that is free.
It can be subsidized.
Like if I had a billion dollars, I could choose to subsidize all of this and pay the people who work at this show and pay for all the technical equipment and the bandwidth and the servers and the multiple servers for delivering our podcasts and so on.
So I could choose to subsidize that, but that would not be for free.
It would just be me who's subsidizing it.
So there is really nothing out there that's free.
So when he says you put your content out there for free, that's not the case at all.
And then he says, and this is a really fascinating thing, you shouldn't make people feel guilty as if they should pay for something you clearly give away for free.
That's interesting.
Now, here's the question.
Can I make you feel something?
Well, yes and no.
It's a simple philosophical answer.
Yes and no.
So if you're napping, and you've probably seen these horrible videos on YouTube, you're napping, I come up with an air horn, you know, blow it in your ear, you're going to poof, your adrenaline, cortisol, heart's going to start hammering, you're going to jump up.
So clearly I have done something to you that is not a matter of your choice.
Now, that is a sort of physiological response.
On the other hand, guilt is not that kind of emotion.
We experience guilt, rightly or wrongly, when we fail.
To act in a way consistent with our stated moral values or our believed moral values.
So if you believe you should go to church every Sunday and you don't, you're going to feel guilty.
If you believe that you should give five dollars to every homeless person you pass and you don't and you can afford to, then you're going to feel guilty.
Now, this doesn't mean that all guilt is valid any more than all moral ideals.
are valid.
But nonetheless, guilt is an emotion we experience when there's a gap between what we call the good and what we're actually doing.
So can I make you feel guilty?
No, because I cannot make you have particular moral ideals.
Ooh, it might be tempting sometimes, but I can't do it.
I can make arguments for it, but I can't actually implant moral ideals in your head.
And neither can I have you not meet these moral ideals.
I can neither create the ideal nor the gap between your actions and the ideal.
In other words, I cannot create guilt within you.
Now, when you experience guilt, that is your knowledge that you are not meeting your moral ideals.
Shame is when other people find out.
Call you bad for it or whatever.
But guilt is when you have this gap.
Now this gap is instructive and this gap doesn't always mean change your behavior to match your moral ideals.
It can also mean examine your moral ideals and figure out their rational and philosophical validity.
They may not be valid.
Maybe you shouldn't give money to a homeless person.
Maybe you should start a company that hires them or whatever.
It could be any number of things that you could be doing.
But this gap is an opportunity For an increase in self-knowledge.
Why am I feeling guilty?
Nah, you see.
But if you say that the other person is responsible for both your moral ideals and your failure to meet them, then what happens is you get to say the other person is responsible for your guilt.
Someone else, me, anybody, somebody else has caused your guilt.
That is a very dangerous situation to put yourself in.
Very dangerous situation to put yourself in because when you're placing yourself as a victim, you're saying, look, I've got this giant guilt button on my head and that stiff guy keeps pushing it.
And I don't want him to.
He's mean.
He's bad.
He's bleh, right?
Whatever for doing it.
But you don't have a giant guilt button on your head.
You're choosing to watch the videos and you are choosing to listen to me request 50 cents a show.
And partly it's your choice how you respond.
But saying that other people are responsible for your emotional state puts you in the category of helpless victimhood.
That puts you in the category of helpless victimhood.
Now, there are very few people more dangerous than those who've put themselves in the category of helpless victimhood.
And that issue, you know, the cornered rat kind of thing, I'm not trying to call this guy a rat.
I'm just saying that when somebody is in a position of helpless victimhood, they tend to lash out.
So when somebody blames you for their emotional state, that is almost always a prerequisite for an aggressive attack, which we see coming in the last part of the message.
It's predictable as sunrise after nighttime.
Because if you say, I'm a mere victim of somebody else's aggression, then you gain the right of self-defense.
And then your aggression, which is actually the initiation of aggression, your aggression, you can cast yourself as a protection, as self-defense, as a protection from being victimized.
And that means that you can justify your own aggression by claiming that you are a victim.
Now, this is not to say there are no such thing as victims.
Of course there are.
But guilt is not one of those situations wherein the victimhood is legitimate.
And illegitimate victimhood almost always is a precursor to aggression.
So that's really, really important to understand.
Self-ownership means that you are responsible for the contents of your own head.
You are responsible for what you think.
You are responsible for the values that you hold.
You are responsible For any gap between your ideals and your actions, just as I am, just as everyone else is.
That is called self-ownership, owning the contents of your own mind.
You have the capacity to evaluate, to choose to change, to get new information, to get new data, to listen to new arguments, to confront erroneous thinking within yourself.
That is all part of self-ownership.
And self-ownership, one of the great challenges of self-ownership, real, authentic, true, embodied, This individuated self-ownership is refusing the easy narcotic of blaming other people for your feelings.
It is to refuse the easy narcotic of blaming other people for your feelings.
Blaming other people for your feelings is saying that your emotional apparatus is something that other people can play like a passive piano.
And that is to reject self-ownership, the responsibility of thinking, the responsibility of self-confrontation.
Now, when we're kids, of course, the values that our parents give to us and sometimes inflict on us and the teachers and the priests and so on, that is to some degree against our will.
But once you reach adulthood, saying that other people are responsible for your emotional state is to abdicate self-ownership, to become passive, and therefore to become aggressive.
And if you look at People who commit a lot of aggression that almost always portray themselves as victims or at least other people as suckers.
That is a very, very high price tag to pay for the immediate comfort of, well, I feel bad and a It's the other person's fault because then you can focus on getting aggressive to the other person and your own vulnerabilities and your own gaps in ideals versus actions you can drug away through releasing adrenaline, fight or flight, cortisol and so on into your system focusing on attacking the other person and avoid therefore the vulnerability of saying well why do I feel bad?
Why do I feel guilty?
Isn't there something for me to learn about that?
This is particularly true of those of us who are into sort of freedom and voluntarism and the associated belief that charity will take care of the poor.
So I have no doubt that charity will take care of the poor because I educate people for little to no money.
I educate I don't know how many people out there on the internet for little to no money.
And the reason I say no money is not because it's zero money that I charge.
I ask for 50 cents a show.
But if people don't have any money, then they can spend time.
Going to promote the show.
Go share it.
Go, you know, Facebook it.
Find a show you like and help other people get in touch with it and so on.
I'm happy to take that as well.
It can be money or it can be labor.
And just think, of course, of the fact that I don't have, as some podcasters have, you know, five or ten minutes of commercials for every hour of my show.
So if you watch a couple hours a week, that's, you know, half an hour, 40 minutes that I'm saving you.
And therefore, you can go and spend that time promoting the show or half that time for whatever it is, right?
It is not my fault that other people feel guilty.
And the interesting thing is that there is an aspect of a kind of interpersonal totalitarianism that occurs when other people blame me for their emotions.
Because, I mean, if I'm going up and punching someone, clearly I have to stop.
If I'm going up just out of nowhere, just go and pound on someone, clearly I'm initiating force, I'm adjusting the structure of their facial pieces, and I should stop because I am inflicting something on them.
And so every time that someone says, you are inflicting pain upon me, they're trying to kind of cast a net around you so that you stop what you're doing.
You're punching me, you're making me feel bad, so you should stop.
It's kind of like you're putting poison in my coffee or you're beating me in the head.
You must stop your behavior.
So victimhood, the belief that you are a helpless pawn at the mercy of other people, is actually a demand that other people stop what they're doing.
But the reality is, I am perfectly free to follow the funding model of my choice.
I'm perfectly free to do that.
Other people saying, well, it hurts me, so stop, is what?
I'm not supposed to pursue a funding model that I like, that I find valuable, that I think is really important to the spread of philosophy, that is in accordance.
The more radical the show, the harder it is to ask people ahead of time to pay money for me.
Of course, right?
And I get it.
So, when people say, you're hurting me, and I'm helpless about it, and you're doing it to me, That is a form of attempting to control other people's behavior.
Like in this case, my behavior.
Stop asking for money because it makes me feel guilty.
But that would be to act against the reality, which is that other people are responsible for their own emotional states.
And also, it would be to surrender to a form of kind of mildly totalitarian control, which is to say, I'm going to stop What I'm doing because it's making you feel bad, or you believe that it's making you feel bad.
But since that's not actually what's happening, I'm free to speak whatever I want, right?
I'm free to speak my preferences, my goals.
I'm free to ask.
I could ask for a million dollars a show if I want.
And people would probably say no.
In fact, I'm sure just about everyone, everyone would say no.
But I'm free to ask you to send me a plaque of Queen Elizabeth from 1977 as payments for the show.
I'm not going to check my mailbox every day, but I'm free to ask for whatever funding model works for me.
You're free to donate.
You're free to not donate.
I'm going to remind you that that's what I'm asking for because that's fair and I have a responsibility to fund the show so that the show can continue.
I believe that philosophy is the most important thing the world needs at the moment.
And by at the moment, I mean always and forever.
And therefore, since I believe that that is the most important thing for the world, I have a responsibility to make sure that the show gets enough money to survive.
To do that, I ask for money.
I don't berate people.
I don't tell them that they're mean and terrible and cheap and nasty and bad or anything like that.
I do think that if you're into voluntarism and you believe that charity is the way...
I'm not a charity or anything, but if...
You believe that your generosity, let's say, is the way that things are going to be funded in a free society.
Well, why not live by your values?
You know, 5 bucks a month, 10 bucks a month, 20 bucks a month.
It's not the world to ask.
It's not like 10% tithe or anything like that.
I'm not asking for anything kind of crazy.
But if those are your values, that volunteerism is the way that we deal with things that are hard to fund in a free society, well then, why not do it with this show?
I mean, it would seem to be in accordance with your values.
You know, people out there who believe in Voluntarism and charity and a lack of coercion.
You know, we don't want government schools because they're based on coercion, but this is a show that educates people and actually makes their lives in some ways more difficult, at least in the short run.
So why not fund it in the way that you say education is going to be funded in a free market for those who can't afford it or are too skeptical of it and so on.
I think it's in alignment with values.
I'm perfectly happy to hear arguments to the contrary.
But the idea that somebody is going to say, I feel bad Steph, so you stop doing what you're doing, it would be an insult to freedom and it would be an insult to the reality that this person who wrote this comment and you out there and me and everyone Owns their own thoughts, owns their own values, owns their own behavior.
Wherever you have a gap between your ideals and your behavior, you can examine the gap, you can examine your behavior.
If you find the values valid, then up your behavior.
If you want to change your values, you can certainly do that, assuming that it's some sort of rational philosophical process and not just a whim.
But negative feelings are an incredible opportunity for self-knowledge.
And if you blame other people and try to control other people because you feel bad, You're both going to end up enslaved if the other person has too little respect for you to remind you that that's just not the way that self-ownership works.
If you would like to help out the show, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Thank you to everyone who supports the show.
We really can't do it without you.
I really invite you to come and support the show, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
You will be surprised how good it will make you feel.
Ah, yes, the, uh, oh, I know how this video's gonna go.
I haven't watched this video yet, but let me take a guess.
He's a cop defender.
He's a, whatever, right?
So, um, guy wrote on the truth about video, the truth about poverty.
I've not watched this video yet, but I think I've started to intuit a few things about the way this guy thinks.
His conclusion will probably be that we need to double down on the disastrous economic policies of the Republicans.
Oh yeah, because I'm such a Republican.
Like more tax cuts, loopholes and giveaways to the super-rich, and then the cutting back or elimination of all governmental assistance programs to the poor.
Regardless of any political ideology to the country, the economic facts are that such government assistance programs are one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy, as opposed to the failed trickle-down policies that were concocted by Reagan And his ilk.
So, give a poor person money and he or she goes right out and spends it on badly needed goods and services.
Oh, man.
Oh, God.
Are you typing with...
You could never forehead small enough to type with, like a tiny little ball-peen hammer, slowly eradicating reason from the world.
So, give a poor person money and he goes out and spends it, and that stimulates economic activity.
You know what's great about that?
It's like, I need a blood transfusion.
Can you take it from my left arm and put it in my right arm?
Because even though you'll spill a lot along the way, I guess I'll end up with more blood.
I mean, this is madness.
You're giving that poor person money, where's it coming from?
Where is it coming from?
Come on, think just a tiny bit, just a tiny little bit.
Look, I have a swimming pool.
It's half full.
I need it to be more full.
So I'm going to take water from the deep end and I'm going to put it, scoop it out from the deep end and pour it into the shallow end while spilling a lot along the way.
I'm sure that's going to raise the level of the, oh God, people, people, you just need to think a little tiny bit.
Where are the poor people getting the money from?
You're taxing it from other people, which is reducing demand somewhere else.
Or you're printing the money.
Which is causing inflation, which is harmful for the economy, or you're borrowing the money, which means you're stimulating economic demand in the here and now while further suppressing it down the road.
You're either doing it across class or across time or through inflation.
That's where you are reducing demand.
So this idea that, I mean, and it's not hard.
The reason I'm so contemptuous about this stuff, it is not hard to figure out.
Read any little Henry Haslitz, you know, introduction to economics, you know, anything like that.
Just a little pastia.
I mean, a little pamphlet.
Anything.
Just read a little bit outside of the status propaganda of Keynesianism and so on.
Just a tiny, tiny...
Little bit.
That's all you need to do.
I mean, just think about it.
Just think about it.
If a guy comes into your store and says, hey man, give me $100 from your till and I promise to spend it in your store, would you do that and say, look, I'm $100 richer?
It's like, no, you're not.
You're exactly the same as where you were before, but now you've lost some goods and all the time and energy and money it took to get those goods into your store.
Oh, and the idea that, I mean, I get this from the resource-based economy people too.
It's like, man, you're just stuck in your little box.
You know, you just, you can't expand your paradigm.
You just truncated something or other, right?
And, I don't know, as a radical, anarchist, atheist, I don't really think that I could be accused of being in some predefined little box.
Anyway, so he says, contrary to their propaganda, the rich are not the job creators, the poor and working class people who consume the goods and services they provide are.
That's like saying if I go to a prostitute, I've created a woman.
I'm just consuming.
I'm not creating.
Simply having demand does not create jobs.
God, just think a little bit about human history.
For God's sakes, do you think that we only have new demand since the Industrial Revolution?
People before that were completely zen.
I need nothing.
Maybe a little less smallpox.
That would be nice.
Maybe a little less war and famine.
That would be lovely.
Oh, black death, bubonic plague.
Maybe a little bit...
Oh, Genghis Khan.
Maybe a little bit less of that.
But I'm completely content for the most part.
I have no desires.
People always had desires throughout history.
Desires do not create jobs.
I want a jetpack.
I want a jetpack.
Hey, anyone?
See a jetpack?
Anywhere?
Jetpack?
No!
Look, I have a demand!
Doesn't...
If demand created supply...
There'd be no such thing as pornography!
It appears when you want it, because it's magic!
I mean, that's a relationship a baby has to the mother's nipple, for God's sake, not a mature adult in relation to economic reality.
Give extra money to the rich who don't need the money and it will sit in a Swiss bank account or fund risky and irresponsible speculation on Wall Street.
What the hell does Wall Street have to do with the free market?
I've yet to understand any of that sort of stuff.
Give extra money to the poor and it will be recycled right back into the economy to stimulate consumer demand, which is the real engine of economic growth.
Ah, crazy.
Crazy.
Yeah, I don't know.
I mean, this idea that Wall Street in its current incarnation has anything to do with the free market is just so deranged.
I mean, it's like saying, well, penis goes into vagina both during lovemaking and rape.
Therefore, rape and lovemaking are exactly the same, except for the knife to the throat, which is kind of an important distinction.
The only way you know if a free market is genuinely occurring is if there is a free market in money.
Is there a free market in money?
There used to be.
In the 19th century in America there was a free market in money, with some interruptions and of course the massive civil war, but there was in general a free market in money.
Banks competed with the stability of their currency, with the number of gold reserves, and there was incredible price stability, and there was in fact a decline in prices, a deflation over the course of that.
century and so if there's no free market in money in other words if government controls currency and as a proxy then has to control interest rates if government controls currency there is no free market yes it's true that people buy and sell things absolutely and you know what people traded in the Soviet Union one razor blade for one sock you name it they traded in the Soviet Union that did not make the Soviet Union under communism a bastion of free market capitalism The fact that there's buying and selling going on,
that there's stocks and so on, has nothing to do with the free market if the government controls the currency.
Because the currency is that which is common in almost all free market interactions.
If that is controlled by the government, there is nothing left of the free market but a tiny, tiny aftershadow.
You've got to get away from the cave and the flickering fire to use that platonic metaphor and get out into the world and look at the way things really are.
Government controls money.
Government controls interest rates.
No free market.
Only the vestiges of a free market.
I don't know whether the rich or poor create more jobs or not.
I have no idea.
I mean, I'd like to live in a world where I don't care.
It doesn't matter.
Some rich people are parasites.
Some poor people are parasites.
Some rich people are hardworking.
Some poor people are hardworking.
It doesn't matter.
But the idea that you simply take a bunch of money from rich people and put it into the hands of poor people and that stimulates a massive amount of economic growth is simply delusory.
Poor people tend to Spend money on things which they consume because they're poor, right?
And so they buy food which they consume and they buy other goods and services which they tend to consume.
They don't tend to save up a lot of money and invest it in building a business, right?
You don't get investment in capital goods, capital growth, and so on.
Nothing wrong with that.
It's just the reality.
So the poor will stimulate demand for consumable goods, but they will not generally invest in increases in productivity in the long run.
I'm sorry, you just need to get your head out of your socialist econ 101 and just take a look at the real world and put yourself in that situation.
It's basic empathy.
Economics is basic empathy.
You know, what would I do in that situation?
Well, you know, if somebody came into my store and said, let me 100 bucks and I'll spend it in your store, would that drive economics?
It's just basic empathy, which is why, tragically, it is so scarce to see.
Stefan, please grow a beard.
I don't know.
First of all, I'm not gay.
I don't know how to grow a human being that makes me look less gay.
I was a little bit self-conscious about my cancer surgery scar, so I grew a beard because of that.
Plus, it was a really damn cold winter up here in Canada.
The weather has warmed up.
Plus, I can only ask my wife to take so many Brillo pad Man hairs up the nose when she kisses me, so I'm afraid we're back to Baby Bottom Cheekville, but perhaps if the winter is bad, I will re-ZZ Top myself.
But yeah, it's fascinating to see the number of comments about the beard.
So, a video I did called Climate Change in 12 Minutes, somebody wrote, on your last point on the politics, if the science here were to be corrupted by the influence of power and money, why on earth do you think it would be corrupted in favor of climate change?
If the scientific community were corruptible in this area, then it would most certainly have been done by the vastly wealthy and powerful establishment of billionaires and oil barons who have an enormous interest in maintaining fossil fuel Dependents.
As if to prove my point, they already have done this to the political elite over whom they exert their vast influence to the end of opposing any action on climate change.
If this were also possible for the scientific community, don't you think it would have been done?
So the argument, and it's not an argument that is of course scientific, it's not an argument that is conclusive, but when people say, ah, you know, but the people who are skeptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, which requires massive expansions of government power to solve, people who are skeptical of that are just bought off by the oil interests or the rich people who make money off oil and so on.
Well, If that argument is made, then far more money is flowing from the government to pro-catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming.
That requires massive political power expansions to solve.
Much more money is flowing from the government to those, right?
So we're talking billions and billions and billions of dollars going from government to pro-alarmist climate change...
Research, as opposed to far, far less money going in the opposite direction.
So, that's really the case for that.
More fundamentally, much more fundamentally, if nothing is broken, it's hard to sell people a fix.
If you're not sick, it's hard to sell you a cure.
If you're not lost, it's hard to sell you a map.
If you have no friends, it's hard to sell you a cell phone.
People have to convince you that the system that you're living in is fundamentally broken, fundamentally dangerous, that there are powerful, vast, conspiratorial, shadow, dangerous, chemtrail-laced forces that are working against your long-term happiness and survival and freedom and so on, and therefore you need powerful protector, Govobot, Transformatron, from democracy to obsidian sword wielder of the black magic of state power against the blah blah blah, right?
So you need this mythical fairy tale wherein the system that you're in is horrendously unjust, unfair, wrong, bad, naughty, broken.
And we've been sold this bill of goods over the last, say, 40 or 50 years, which is that the free market, freedom to trade, is fundamentally broken and unjust.
And it's been sold in three major ways.
Number one, that it is bad for the environment.
That free trade is terrible for the environment and therefore we need massive amounts of government power in order to protect people from the consequences of unbridled consumerism, free trade, the rape of the planet and so on.
And the second is that the free market is inherently unjust to women, right?
That women earn 67 cents on the dollar and so on and all of that.
And the third is that The free market is fundamentally unjust to blacks, right?
You can't say minorities because Asians are a minority and Asians have a higher per capita income than whites.
Jews are a minority and Jews have a higher per capita income than whites.
And you have to say that it is unjust to blacks in particular.
So there's patriarchy, there's racism against blacks, there's environmental predation, and that's why we need this massive government.
Now each of these arguments is Well, let's just say it's potentially susceptible to empirical rebuttal, right?
To empirical and philosophical rebuttal.
And I've done that in a variety of shows.
We don't need to get into it here.
But this idea that something is desperately wrong with freedom and therefore we need the state to protect us from freedom.
We need affirmative action.
We need equal pay laws.
We need the EPA. We need, you know, all of this sort of stuff.
It's just a bill of goods that's been sold.
It's like people are still repeating this myth that the 2007-2008 financial crash had something to do with deregulation.
Deregulation produced.
Right?
Of course, it's all nonsense.
I mean, I've gone over this in a variety of videos.
You can look at HouseMD for one of them.
That's a video on this channel.
And it's all just complete nonsense.
The financial regulation went up.
But, you know, the Glass-Steagall Act, well, the Glass-Steagall Act was also repealed in Canada.
Canada didn't have the same thing.
It was Federal Reserve, overprinting of money, a little tiny thing called giant imperialistic wars, and, of course, the massive Promotion of home ownership among those who had little capacity to sustain home ownership in the long run.
So zero money down, massive subsidies, and so on.
So the printing of federal money caused house prices to go up, which made everyone think that houses were some sort of productive investment rather than a consumption good that ages and gets worse over time.
So that made people want to buy houses, and then, you know, no money down, mortgages, variable rate for people who maybe didn't understand how variable rates could happen, could change in the future, combined with, you know, the massive amount of money printing driven by the need to cover up the costs of war, all this sort of artificial suppression of interest rates, you name it.
This is all government power.
But the idea is, you see, how you see a little crack of freedom got into The financial sector and that blew the whole thing up.
I mean the idea of course that deregulation caused the financial crash is nonsense.
The financial crash fundamentally was caused by the lack of moral hazard that the government was going to come in and bail out these companies.
And anyone who can tell me how government bailouts for failure has anything to do with the free market is somebody I would like to see try and navigate a zebra crossing.
So that's my argument.
I hope that it helps.
my video on the pizza war about whether or not the pizza the owners of a pizza parlor have the quote right to not serve pizza at a gay wedding Alf wrote very bad argument naughty argument spanking for the argument timeout for the argument he wrote very bad argument there's a clear difference between discrimination in the marketplace and discrimination in your personal preference yes You have a right to discriminate in making a choice to buy products and services and in your personal preferences.
But the system should be set up in a way that minimizes or even eradicates discrimination in offering goods and services in the economy.
If a firm decides to participate in the marketplace, then they shouldn't discriminate.
If they're allowed to, then where can the line be drawn?
Should firefighters, doctors and pharmacies be allowed to discriminate?
Okay, so obviously there's a mismatch of standards here.
If I'm allowed to boycott goods, but people who provide those goods are not allowed to boycott me, Then we have two standards for the seller and for the buyer, which fails the test of universality kind of required for a moral argument.
Now, what are you going to do to the people who discriminate?
Are you going to throw them in jail?
Are you going to put guns against them if they resist?
Are you willing to surround them if they take hostages?
Are you willing to shoot them if they shoot back?
Every time you say, these shouldn't, it's not just a good idea, it ought to be a law, it ought to be a law, well, you're unleashing the weapons of the state.
And as we saw, if...
The recent shooting of Walter Scott is any indication the state can be pretty brutal and you know this whole escalation may have arisen because debtors jail still exists for men who are behind on child support payments which may have been the precipitating Fear or caution that caused him to run and have the officer shoot him.
Absolute tragedy.
But that's the way.
That's the way it goes.
Every time you invoke the state, a police officer almost has the legal right to escalate force until you submit or you are dead.
So I would actually rather there be some discrimination around than have more shootings like that because that's really what we're talking about.
And the other thing too is that, let's say firefighters.
Are they allowed to discriminate?
Let's talk about a perfectly free society, private fire department and so on, competing private fire department.
Now, two representatives come to your house.
Let's say that you are against, you don't like homosexuals, right?
Two representatives for the fire department come to your house because you just moved in and they say, hey, we'd like to sell you for 20 bucks a year protection against fire.
Any fire that happens, we will come out and put it out.
And one guy says, we'll put out any fire from anyone anywhere in the neighborhood.
Any fire.
Your neighbor's house burns down.
We will come and put that fire out.
And the other guy says, well, we don't put the fires out of homosexuals.
How they know that?
I don't know.
Maybe men buy firefighter calendars?
I don't know.
But would you really want the firefighting brigade that would not put out the gay house fire?
No, of course not, because the gay house fire could spread to your house.
What about a doctor?
So we treat everyone, but we don't treat Mormons.
It's like, well, what if a Mormon gets sick with a communicable disease in my neighborhood?
I kind of want that guy treated.
So people who are willing to have their house burned down for their prejudices or who get sick with a deadly ailment for their prejudices are really, really, really rare.
So most people would rather service providers provide to everyone because of the collective security and positivity of that situation.
So I don't think you really have to worry too much about it.
And look, if you want people to not discriminate, as I do, make the case!
Make the case!
I mean, go talk to them and say, here's why discrimination is wrong, here's why it's inefficient, here's why it's bad, here's why it's disruptive, here's how it's hurtful, and so on.
Go and make the case.
This invocation of the magical power of the state to make people do what you think they ought to do when they're not initiating force against anyone.
Refusing service is not the initiation of force.
This idea that we just call in this airstrike of government power whenever we find something that is objectionable to us is really, really pitiful.
It's like invoking Odin to prove where life came from, to establish the origins of life for the universe.
Zeus sneezed us!
It's just this magical thing that we call in whenever we find something disagreeable, but it's infinitely more civilized to make the case, particularly when making the case in the public sphere is as easy as it is now.
Make the case!
Go talk to people and say, here's why discrimination is bad.
Work to convince them.
Up your rhetorical skills.
Fix up your arguments.
Go and have those personal challenging conversations with people in your neighborhood.
Don't just hide in a little booth and put an X and let someone else do violence against people you disagree with.
That is cowardly.
That is despicable.
That is vile.
That is brutal.
Go make the case.
Honestly.
You know, if you think of discrimination as a woman, anti-discrimination as a woman you want to date, go and, you know, put yourself in your Sunday best and go and ask her out.
But don't just have people kidnap her and deliver her to your basement.
I mean, that's just horrible.
So yeah, if there's things that you don't like in society, like discrimination, fantastic.
Go and make the case.
I mean, I really dislike Spanking I really dislike, and I'm not going out there advocating for people who spank their children to be thrown in jail.
I go out and make the case.
Even though there's a good case to be made that spanking is the initiation of force, I go make my case.
I go and make my case.
You do the same.
Stop calling in the blades of the state for people with whom you have a fundamentally aesthetic disagreement.
That is brutal, and you are completely in the wrong if that is your approach.
Again, from a guy named Sharky, a man or woman named Sharky.
He made the appeal to insecurity on YouTube.
Ah, you see this quite a bit.
We're going to do a whole show about things, passive-aggressive, annoying things on comments.
He wrote, sorry to see this attitude, Steph.
I've seen you argue many a suspect point, which is fair enough.
But for once, you've chosen to spin a subject I'm fairly well informed on.
And the term cringeworthy is barely cutting it.
It's a big subject and tough to give a balanced view on this.
But this is tough to give a balanced view on, but this didn't cut the mustard.
So I'm not cutting the mustard.
Cutting the cheese, yes.
Cutting the mustard, no.
And this, you get a lot of comments like this.
And if any time you do anything in the public sphere, you get a lot of comments like this.
I know infinitely more than you, Steph.
And you're so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.
So, bye!
I'm going to tell you that you're wrong in very abstract ways.
I'm going to repeat that you're wrong, but I'm never going to quite get around to actually showing you that you're wrong.
And that is just...
It's an appeal to insecurity.
Like, oh no, I've disappointed an anonymous person who claims vast knowledge, but hasn't actually given me any rebuttal.
Oh no, what am I going to do?
How am I going to choke down my Cheerios this morning?
Well, I think I'll find a way.
I just...
I think it's funny.
And, you know, the people who got...
The most hostile about my defense of the value of marriage may not be the worst idea to stay single.
Because this guy would be...
If you're going to criticize someone, yeah, fine, go for it.
Tell me how I'm wrong.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
I'm happy to hear feedback and so on.
But if you're just going to insinuate that I'm wrong and then run away, you'd be a really annoying person to be married to.
I mean, that's basically like inappropriate!
Offensive!
Wrong!
Bad, bad, bad!
I don't know.
It's like sprinting around in a revolving door and thinking you're climbing a mountain.
I mean, just, you know, if you're not going to tell me how I'm wrong, telling me that I'm wrong makes you wrong.
Next from my video, white male privilege.
Somebody writes, what if you have a philosophy that isn't an expression of universal principles?
You're basically saying that all philosophies operate with universals.
Not true!
Nihilism, relativism, doesn't have any universal principles.
I think he means don't.
It's the rejection of such principles and acceptance of a stance that tries to take no position.
The definition of philosophy can easily be demonstrated by its etymology, philo, and sophie, sophia.
It's the love or strong appreciation for something.
Sophie or Sophia is the Greek word for knowledge or wisdom.
Yeah, philosophy is the love of wisdom.
Absolutely.
And they thought the world was flat.
That doesn't mean that we take those definitions currently.
So you're basically saying that all philosophies operate with universals.
Yes.
And not true.
Nihilism or relativism don't have any universal principles.
Well, first of all, that's not true.
Nihilism says that there are no universal principles and that is their universal principle.
Relativism says that everything is relative and that is their universal principle.
They don't say some things are relative and some things are not relative.
They say everything is relative.
So they do have universal principles.
But the fact that they reject and affirm universal principles at the time means it's just bad philosophy.
You know, if I'm a biologist and I say that a tree is a mammal, I'm just a really bad biologist, and what I'm putting forward is more deranged ranting than it is biological accuracy.
So, yeah, philosophies operate with universals, and that's not...
I mean, it's like physics operates with universals, which is why there's no physics of culture or rap appreciation or...
That which is attractive to the opposite sex around the world.
It's not physics.
Physics deals with universals.
Numbers, mathematics, engineering, these all deal with universals.
And the degree to which they don't deal with universals is the degree to which whatever that is is not part of that discipline.
Yes, philosophy Deals with universals and the purpose of philosophy is moral universals.
That is really the purpose of philosophy.
Now there's a huge amount that goes into that, but the purpose of philosophy is in the same way that the purpose of medicine is the prescription of some change in behavior that Promotes or maintains health, right?
There's no point doing all this research on dropping things into mice bodies and all of these trials and so on if it never produces anything that can be prescribed or a behavior that can be changed to further promote or maintain human health.
The whole point of medicine is to promote changes which Help health.
Same thing with philosophy.
I mean, there's lots of work that goes into the background of philosophy, but the purpose of philosophy is to produce meaningful change that promotes virtue and happiness, right?
It's the old Socratic argument.
Reason equals virtue equals happiness.
If you're more rational, you can be virtuous.
Reason is consistent and universal.
Morality is consistent and universal.
If you are rational, you can be moral.
If you are moral, you are most likely to be happy.
It's not a certain guarantee.
For instance, in nutrition and health and so on, if you eat well and exercise, you are more likely to be healthy.
It's not a certain guarantee.
You could just get some weird cancer or be hit by a bus, but it is your most certain guarantee of these things.
So, yeah, I've made the case, I've made the definition that philosophy is universal, and the purpose of philosophy, right, the end game, so to speak, of philosophy is virtue.
And that's the one thing, happiness, you could say, really, in the end, right?
That's what Aristotle said about happiness.
It's that we don't get happiness in order to get something else.
We do everything else in order to achieve and maintain happiness.
But, of course, philosophy in an irrational and often anti-philosophical world cannot guarantee you.
But it can guarantee you accuracy, universals, truth, and virtue.
And it's to everyone's decision the degree to which the pursuit of virtue in a world often antagonistically opposed to virtue is worth it.
That's up to everyone.
If you are in a culture that worships fat and you decide to lose weight, you are going to be shamed and possibly stoned.
But it is the degree to which you want to be able to climb more than one flight of stairs without passing out.
That is your degree of commitment.
I myself believe you go all the way with virtue and the world comes behind you because the world is fundamentally coasting on inertia and indifference and irrationality and most people are so conditioned to follow a leader that they will pursue anybody who is the most certain and the most vocal and that's the approach that I take.
So they follow me, but so they follow me to philosophy so that they can think for themselves.
So that's my answer to that.
I hope that helps.
▲
Export Selection