Oct. 27, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
49:46
3470 Why I Was Wrong About Libertarians
Libertarians, we need to talk. Stefan Molyneux looks at his decade plus relationship with the libertarian community and his frustrations with general the lack of empiricism when presented with new information or arguments. Spanking: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUxHuvvxqH_gyaH53kZyg9r_Circumcision: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUwD50PH2JL0iLIGL4NdNM4vParenting: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUwZY7RCZnS2e5-vjaA7wSNwAgainst Me Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_1nbahAtsFeminism: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUxICsS5sl_xRKIqoyZ7OOAjPolice: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUzruZISChK6Z-K3geS1s2HjIQ: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUyYzJ5G1GgvfM59JEpDkteXImmigration: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUwSxIj73fAp6vSwN6ZynZrXDonald Trump: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMNj_r5bccUx2XNPeFH5d9xsZPra4zvySFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
So libertarians, of course, small government people.
It's a pretty wide tent.
It includes the Austrian economists, economics people, the people in the libertarian party, some hedonists who just want the government to stay out of their fun and pleasure.
Includes the Ron Paul people.
Some are political activists.
Some oppose political activism, as I used to.
There are some objectivist overlaps and so on.
But basically, they're around the non-aggression principle, the non-initiation of force.
Thou shalt not initiate force against peaceful people.
And a respect for property rights, which is kind of one of the same.
So two sides of the same coin.
Now, my show started 10 years ago or so.
And the tagline was, and I guess still is, the philosophy of personal and political liberty.
Now, personal came first.
And the reason for that was I've always liked the idea of truth and passion and philosophy and arguments that don't just sort of spin wheels in the air, but, you know, as the rubber hits the road, gets something or someone moving.
And I think that's really important.
The Platonic ideal of sort of perfect crystalline values and preferences and philosophies that shall remain unsullied and untainted by contact with the mere physical, with the messy material realm strikes me as kind of religious.
You know, values are designed to be implemented.
And of course, if you have values like the non-aggression principle and a respect for property rights, if you focus on the government, well, there's not very much you can do.
You know, prior to the last year or two, but certainly when I started, that really wasn't new.
You could be against the Fed, you could be against the income tax, you could be against the welfare state, you could be against the wide foreign interventions, but what could you do?
Well, you could write your articles, and you could make your speeches, and you could record your podcasts, but...
I mean, libertarians had been involved since the foundation of the Libertarian Party in 1971 for decades and never got more than a few percentage points of the vote and never made any particular progress, and so they were not having much of an impact on the national scene.
So I, myself, had always been desperate for Areas or arenas wherein I could apply, I could actually bring the values that I treasured and held so dearly to life.
And this is why I always focused on what we can achieve in our personal lives to become free, to spread and flourish freedom, and to confront people with the immoralities that they support, albeit often unconsciously, in their daily lives.
To be a lightning rod, to be a Socratic gadfly, to wake people up, to give them...
The red pill, as it is called.
Hopefully orally, but perhaps it doesn't feel always that way.
So I've always talked about how to bring libertarian values to life in your personal existence, in your relationships, in your sphere of influence, things you can actually change.
Now, when I... Began to make these cases, there was a tension that grew between libertarians and myself.
My belief, and I really can't find a way around this, is that if you believe something is good, you should work your very best to embody it in your life.
Clearly.
You know, my argument from way back in the day is...
Nobody but nobody buys a diet book from a fat guy for the simple reason that either he has followed his own diet in which case you shouldn't or he believes that dieting is really important but can't be bothered to follow his own diet in which case why not and so if you want people to take your value seriously You must, you must, you must embody them in your own life first.
There's no point, if you're in a fat family, there's no point nagging everyone else to lose weight if you just continue stuffing your face like a pig.
You have to lose weight yourself and hopefully that will inspire and motivate.
This is maybe because I spend so much time in the business world.
I was an entrepreneur for like 15 years before I became an entrepreneur doing what I'm doing now.
And you don't show up to sell a Mercedes driving a BMW. I mean, you have to use the products that you wish other people to use.
And libertarians, if they want other people to take their beliefs seriously...
Then they need to embody those beliefs in their own life.
First, people don't have a great capacity to learn through reason and evidence.
Some do, but most don't.
And so the question is, what is it that motivates people to adopt your values?
Well, they want to see you being successful first.
They want to see your values embodied in your life working well in your life first.
Then maybe they'll think about the theoreticals.
But if they look at your life and it seems confusing or messy or unhappy or complicated or you're in abusive relationships and you're preaching about freedom and independence and rejecting bullying and aggression and so on, Well, you're actually discrediting the beliefs, right?
If I'm a really fat guy and I go around saying ABC diet is fantastic, Everyone should really adopt ABC diet and I'm fat and unhealthy.
You understand that I'm actually harming ABC diet, right?
I'm harming the perception of it.
So, if libertarians preach the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights, but don't live and embody those values in their own life, they're actually harming the concepts of the non-aggression principle and property rights.
So, I guess this all begs the question, how?
Do you embody the non-aggression principle in your own life?
Well, I made a whole bunch of cases for this.
For instance, I wrote an article, which we'll link to below, that I'm still enormously happy with, both in terms of the intellectual content and the clarity it gave me with regards to libertarians.
Does spanking violate the non-aggression principle?
Spanking, of course, the hitting of children with the goal of correcting or changing the course of behavior.
Does spanking violate the non-aggression principle?
I won't get into the arguments.
Obviously, it's not self-defense and it is the initiation of force and so on.
And you can't say we can hit people of limited cognitive ability.
Otherwise, we can set up, I don't know, boxing rings with dementia patients in it and pow them down like a snowplow.
But...
I made this case and had a debate with a prominent libertarian and made the case in a variety of contexts and circumstances, brought forth all of the data, right?
Libertarianism requires a high IQ population because you have to focus on what is not seen rather than what is seen, right?
The thousand dollars.
That goes to create, you know, a couple of hours of government work.
You say, ooh, government work, someone's getting paid, but you've got to see all the money that the thousand bucks has taken away from other people.
You have to see the unseen rather than what's in front of you.
That requires more conceptual mind, a higher intelligence.
And so I pointed out, spanking lowers IQ. Spanking harms cognitive development.
Spanking harms emotional development.
People who are spanked are more likely to be substance abusers, more likely to be criminals, more likely to be promiscuous and so on.
These are all problems to do with spanking and other forms Of bad parenting and childhood trauma.
Now, of course, we want people to grow up stable and happy and relaxed and positive and able to negotiate and without emotional traumas and weird things going on in their minds and hearts and often loins.
And that's one way we could really build the foundation for a free society is through peaceful parenting.
And I made this case sort of repeatedly and so on.
And I thought that...
I mean, I knew that there was going to be some challenges.
To put it mildly to the adoption of this perspective.
But I thought, you know, just keep patiently and reasonably making the case.
Look, the most common violation of the non-aggression principle is not taxation.
It's not war.
It's spanking.
It's abuse against children.
And we can all do something about that.
Whether or not we have children.
We know people who have children.
We can write about it even if we don't know anyone who has children.
We can help spread the word.
We can do all of that.
So not only is abuse against children...
The most prevalent form of non-aggression principle violations, but it's the one you can do the most about.
The most prevalent, you can do the most about it.
It's a no-brainer to me.
Do you take the non-aggression principle seriously?
Then you should want to solve violations or oppose violations of the non-aggression principle that are the most prevalent and that you can do the most about.
Simple.
And if that helps build the foundation of a free society, so much the better.
People who are raised healthy, people who are raised peacefully, people who are raised without aggression, they don't need the state.
They don't become criminals.
They're not dysfunctional.
They don't have children out of wedlock in general.
They're not addicted to drugs.
They're not self-destructive.
They're not violent.
You build the non-aggression principle.
You build society-wide non-aggression principle on the childhood application of the non-aggression principle.
As Woodworth said, the child is the father of the man.
And so I made this case.
Many, many different contexts in videos, in articles, in debates, in shows like podcasts and so on.
Not, here's the logical error you made in your arguments that spanking is a violation of the non-aggression principle.
None of that.
It just, you know, eye-rolling, scorn, insults, ad hominems, change the subject, it's irrelevant, he's got a fetish, it's weird, it's, you know, right?
Mommy issues.
Mommy issues is a tell for somebody who has no argument.
Unless you're directly talking to Oedipus himself.
Anyway, so that was...
A little surprising.
And gave me my first sort of warning shot of, hey, did I just trip over a giant ant's nest of not an argument, scurrying, evasive, anti-thinking?
So I also brought up circumcision.
Is circumcision a violation of the non-aggression principle?
Well, of course it is.
It's not like the foreskin is coming out to attack you and trying to strangle you car-style around the trachea.
It is the initiation of force.
And again...
It shows up in physical body trauma.
There's higher levels of the stress hormone cortisol six months after kids get circumcised.
I mean, it's brutal.
It's done without anesthetic or the anesthetic that is used is ineffective.
I mean, it is a brutal violation of body integrity and an initiation of mutilation against an innocent and helpless baby.
A clear violation of the non-aggression principle.
Nope!
Nope!
And this was not that much discussed.
I don't know if it's because of the Jewish influence in libertarianism, or maybe a lot of parents had circumcised their sons and didn't want to look in the mirror.
But, you know, libertarians ask other people to look in the mirror, people who are dependent on state money, people who are dependent on state power.
Who have, in a sense, more to lose, not just psychologically but materially, than people who've hit their kids or who've circumcised their kids.
But if libertarians are unable to look in the mirror and say, well, something I've done or something I've supported is clearly a violation of the non-aggression principle, I gots to change, well then, how on earth do you expect other people to change?
I am relentless in allowing empiricism to adjust my views.
Right?
Reason and evidence, that's the statue.
My views are just the shadows cast by that statue.
If the statue moves, or the sun moves, guess what?
The shadow is going to move too.
People say, oh, he's flip-flopping.
It's like, nope, I'm just processing reason and evidence.
Because I'm asking other people to process and change their minds based on reason and evidence.
So if I am unwilling to do that, I have no right to ask others to do it.
You must embody the values you wish other people to accept.
And if you want other people to accept reason and evidence, and have their views be conditioned by reason and evidence you must yourself have your views conditioned by reason and evidence and if the reason and evidence changes or the reason doesn't if the argument is better or the evidence is new or the evidence has changed you must adjust your opinions otherwise you're a dogmatist and you're not only useless you're hostile to the values you claim to represent so spanking,
circumcision, the peaceful treatment of children and so on that was my first indication That libertarians may be just a little bit more on the talky-talky side and a little bit less on the dewy-dewy side.
And that was a problem.
If you put forward an argument to a group that claims to represent reason and evidence and they respond with evasion, hostility, ad hominems, blah blah blah blah blah, not arguments, then clearly they're revealed as a group.
that is not interested in reason and evidence a group that has a particular emotional affinity with a conclusion and is wed to that conclusion um like a 12 year old kid coming into sweden so i also worked with uh with men's rights and and criticisms of feminism and ah this is another thing too like so This goes all the way to Bastiat, right?
So Bastiat said something like this.
People are so stupid in general.
I'm paraphrasing a little.
People are so stupid in general that when we say we do not want the government to grow grain, they think that we want everyone to starve.
When we say we don't want the government to provide education, we wish for no one to be educated.
When we say we don't want the government to provide welfare, people think we want the poor to starve in the streets.
If we don't want the government to provide health care, we want sick people.
You get the idea, right?
The government is not society.
If you remove the power of the government to do something, you open up efficient and productive, voluntary, moral methods of providing that good and service in the free market.
Yay!
That's what we're looking for.
Now, again, I'm generalizing.
There were exceptions to all of this, but I'm talking about as a whole.
And the question is, were the exceptions, like did they fight hard, like the people who were an exception to this general rule of white knighting, mangina reaction to me criticizing, So I criticize feminism, which is a government program.
Feminism is an out-and-out government program.
It was started by the CIA. It was funded by a bunch of communists.
It was enacted by people with ties to the CIA and the Communist Party.
It was specifically designed to undermine the West, to break up the family, to move women into the workforce so that governments could tax them more, so that it could raise welfare.
It was designed to put children further under the control and power of the government by setting up kindergartens and daycares and preschools and all this kind of stuff.
So it's sort of founded and funded by a lot of statist money or a lot of ideological leftist money.
And it's been sustained and maintained and grown recently Through academia, which is another government program of monopoly, of you can't be fired, of all of this massive pay for work of very little money.
Yes, I'm looking at you.
So, feminism is a government program and very few women identify as feminists.
So, in criticizing feminism, I'm criticizing a government program.
You know, all of the government regulations and equal pay for work of equal value, Title IX... All of this stuff that was put in as the result of feminism as a political movement.
And I pointed out how feminism was founded by people who were Marxists and people on the left and they went for government money.
It's just a government program.
It's got nothing to do with a spontaneous outpouring of intellectual sentiment and energy from women.
So, libertarians, again, in general...
I'm not going to keep repeating that, you understand.
You can hold that thought, right?
Libertarians reacted as if I was like hitting women or something like that and white knighted and oh he's terrible he's a misogynist you know in the same way that you know if I don't want the government to grow grain I must want people to starve well if I criticize the Marxist government program called feminism somehow I hate women even though feminism has done far more harm to women That the most rampant misogynist could dream of because women's happiness since the institution of feminism,
women's happiness has declined decade over decade to catastrophic levels to the point where now like significant portions of women are anti-depressants and fat and miserable and lonely and it's just it's a complete been a complete disaster because it's a government program it promises happiness and independence for women and what it's ended up doing It's women being miserable and dependent on the state, which can't last.
And when the state runs out of money, nobody's going to want them as wives.
So it is a complete disaster.
But again, libertarians fell into the same trap that libertarians constantly accuse other people of falling into, that if I oppose a government program called feminism...
That somehow I hate women.
You know, like if I oppose welfare, I hate the poor.
And if I oppose government education, I hate educated people.
Like, it's just, we spend all our lives fighting these stupid battles and then libertarians fell exactly into the same trap.
And I pointed this out.
And what happened?
Squirrel!
I mean, it all goes down the memory hole.
It all vanishes.
Now, I like to be challenged.
I like bringing people on this show who give me different perspectives.
I like exploring new information.
I like being challenged.
That's how you know you're not being dogmatic, is you're exposing yourself to new information.
And the question is, do libertarians like to be challenged?
Well, I have challenged libertarians with their own moral principles.
And how's that worked out?
This white knighting, like rushing to the defense of women, it's all appeasing of the left, and we'll get into that in a bit.
So law and order, right?
So I put out facts...
About interactions between the police and minorities, generally blacks, right?
Walter Scott and Trayvon Martin, that was not the police, but, you know, other things that I have put out.
Like a wide variety of interactions between the police and usually blacks.
Or, I guess, George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
These were facts.
And the point was, of course, these are the facts which...
Oppose or push back on the mainstream media narrative of black people being hunted by racist cops and being shot and gunned down in the street with no consequence.
All the stuff that drives black neighborhoods into mayhem, riots, and flames.
So I put out facts about this.
And did people question the facts?
Did they say, well, this source is incorrect or this argument is incorrect?
No.
Well, he's just a fascist pro-cop-loving whatever, right?
And it's like...
No, these are facts.
And as I've pointed out, I mean, you can be as anti-cop as you want, and yes, there are bad cops, and I do not agree with the laws that the cops enforce, but they're a symptom, not the cause.
The cause is children being abused and libertarians not sticking by their values, but we'll get to that second part in a sec.
And so, if you want, you can oppose the cops, and then the cops can become paralyzed when going into minority or ghetto-style neighborhoods, and then you will end up with hundreds, if not thousands, of additional people killed and wounded, usually by guns.
This is the consequence.
The consequence of saying the cops are always bad, the cops are fascists, the cops are pigs, well, then the cops end up without the social support that allows them to confidently go into crime-ridden neighborhoods and deal with criminals.
And because cops are hesitant to do it, the focus in effect, as it's been called, is a fairly strong case that if you just mindlessly oppose cops and just they're always bad and always in the wrong and always racist and always fascist and so on, well then they don't have the social support to clean up bad neighborhoods, bad people take over those bad neighborhoods and people get shot and a lot of innocent people get shot and killed.
Now you may be willing to have that blood on your hands But I have the capacity, the mental capacity, the empathy, the sympathy, the emotional intelligence to recognize that the bullet that passes through the wall and strikes the nine-year-old in the head and kills him because the cops didn't want to respond to a call or didn't want to get out of their car or didn't want to get beaten up or whatever or didn't want to end up in the next media spotlight.
Well, I don't want that kid's blood on my hands.
It's horrifying.
It's horrible.
And, of course, the libertarians, who just oppose the cops and so on, or maybe some of them have had negative interactions.
Maybe they smoke a lot of drugs.
They're afraid of the cops because of that.
But that's just saying that your own personal habits interfere with your reasoning capacities.
I don't know the libertarians who live in Harlem.
I don't know the libertarians who live in the mean streets in the ghettos of Chicago.
I don't know the libertarians who live in the what looks like bombed out half-bombing sections of Philadelphia and Ferguson.
They don't live there.
So it's all well and good for you to say, well, you know, the cops are pigs.
You're not in danger for saying that.
It's other people, generally blacks or Hispanics, who are in danger because you want to indulge your cop hatred.
That is brutal.
That's hideous.
Morally, that is hideous.
Okay, at least go and live in those neighborhoods where, by the by, the honest Hispanics and blacks and others are desperate for police presence and call the cops and like the cops and want the cops to come by because they don't want their children to get shot.
So you go and live in those neighborhoods and shut the hell up.
Or at least hold up your Lady Macbeth bloodied hands and say...
Yeah!
Yeah!
Blood of kids!
That's worth it for me!
Go join Madeleine Albright on the ninth level of hell.
Human biodiversity.
Differences between ethnicities, differences between races.
You know, brain size and intelligence and IQ and all of this kind of stuff and athletic differences and so on.
I mean, this to me is one of the real tests of integrity.
Do you actually want to solve problems in society?
Well, then you need to be scientific.
You need to look at the facts.
If you reject facts, you can't solve anything.
And this to me, the question of sort of ethnicity or race and IQ, intelligence and so on.
Of course, you know, everyone goes to excess supremacy, but the reality is that no race is superior to any other race, but they have adapted to different environments and have different capacities as a result.
That's science.
Don't blame me.
Don't shoot the messenger.
But this race and IQ stuff is foundational.
It's the foundational test as to whether somebody has integrity or is scared of the left, right?
Because if he's not talking about race and IQ, immediately, facts, be racist.
You're racist and so on.
It's like, no, no, no.
You're a racist if you avoid these topics.
Because there is a difference in IQ between the racists.
And those differences play out in society in wildly divergent formats.
There's a difference in...
testosterone levels between the races, and that plays out.
If we can't even talk about these problems, we can't solve them.
Maybe the solution is environmental.
Maybe the solution is gene therapy.
Maybe the solution is something I can't even conceive of.
But we must first identify the problem, and then we can work towards solving it.
But this particular problem of racial differences in IQ and testosterone and brain size and other kinds of things...is resolutely attacked by the left because the left has always wanted to use less fortunate minorities in order to destabilize the free market and destroy the remnants of the republic.
And this is openly stated from the very beginning.
In 1922, the Comintern put this forward as a resolution, and this is how the left has been working.
They erase all differences between the races so that all differences in outcome can be used as a giant foggy club to beat white people into submission and have them give up their freedoms.
So, human biodiversity is a real fact that really needs to be understood, and it's a fact.
I've had the experts on the show, we've had the data, we've had the sources, I've talked to, I don't know, what, half a dozen people who are all giving the same information, and I've even talked to someone who says it's entirely environmental.
That's James Flynn.
Fine!
Whether it's environmental or whether it's genetic, it's a fact!
It's a fact.
And it's a fact we have to understand and live with when it comes to making decisions about how to solve social problems.
Screaming racism doesn't solve the problem of human biodiversity.
It just makes it worse.
It provokes resentment and it provokes danger for all groups within society.
And human biodiversity would have been...
I'll give you one example.
One of the reasons why...
People in the West, people in America, thought the regime change and the spread of democracy to, say, Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the reasons they thought it was possible was that after the Second World War, when Japan had been bombed out, when Germany had been bombed out, those countries made a transition to a relatively free market, relatively democratic societies.
Why?
Well, if people understood human biodiversity, well, the average IQ in the Middle East is in the 80s.
You can't have a democracy unless you have at least an IQ of 90 in the general population.
Germans have a high IQ, a little over 100.
The Japanese have an even higher IQ at 106 or so.
So you can bomb the crap out of those societies, including two unjustified nukes in Japan, and they will rebuild their society because they have that precious resource called IQ, called intelligence.
They have that.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, at the moment, on average, they don't have that.
They don't have enough to sustain a democracy.
So when you go and destroy the dictatorships they're living under, you get something even worse.
You know, go smash the emperor, you get a relatively liberal society coming out of Japan.
Go smash Hitler, you get a relatively liberal society coming out of Germany.
You can't say that they share the same cultural heritage, so the only thing they have in common is the IQ. So the idea of going in to destroy Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqis so they can have a wonderful Jeffersonian-style Western democracy and republic was not going to happen.
So if you have been pushing back against human biodiversity, you are part of the problem of the drive to war.
You are part of the whole destruction of the Middle East and the death of like a million Iraqis.
Because people weren't willing to talk about IQ and its disparate Prevalence among human ethnicities and societies.
That is how much destruction you have helped to wreak by refusing to talk about a basic scientific fact.
Brain size differs, IQ differs, grey matter, white matter, all differ.
As you would expect from groups adapting to different environments over 50,000 to 150,000 years separated.
Of course, that's what evolution does.
So that's just one example out of untold countless examples.
If human biodiversity arguments had been accepted and understood, there would have been no invasion of Iraq.
And there probably would have been no invasion of Afghanistan.
Because the idea that you would create some wonderful democracy on the other side, because Germany and Japan, would have been rejected as impossible.
This is the more blood that you have on your hands.
When you reject reality, you coat your hands in human innards.
I tell you this as a fact.
It is compassion.
It is caring.
It is love that brings forward the arguments for human biodiversity because we don't want people getting killed for delusions.
And we want to actually solve problems.
Now, I made an argument to the libertarian community.
It's called the against me argument.
And very briefly, it goes something like this.
The government is sustained not vertically because it has guns pointing down to the population, but horizontally, in that the population attack each other for questioning the value of government.
You just have to look in your own life, right?
Let's say you've spoken out about government programs, you've spoken out against government power.
Have you received more negative feedback or problems from the government?
Have you been thrown in jail or arrested?
No, usually not.
However, what about your horizontal social circle or media or whatever?
It is the slaves' willingness to attack each other that makes slavery possible.
The slave-on-slave aggression is what the state is.
And when you have people in your life who are pro-state, then they are advocating, they are for, they're happy, they're content with, they're enthusiastic for the government initiating force against you for following your conscience.
Let's say you don't like the welfare state, you believe it's incredibly destructive, particularly to the most vulnerable and the most poor in society, as it is.
Somebody says, well, I agree with the welfare state and you should pay your taxes.
Well, what happens if I don't pay my taxes?
Well, the government should arrest you and throw you in jail.
So they want you to be arrested and thrown in jail for following your conscience.
That's the reality.
And the argument is unassailable.
I mean, this is the fact.
This is how power works.
And libertarians, again, blanked out, avoided, ad hominem.
It's crazy, isn't it?
Well, that's not how...
I mean, if I've made an error in the argument, call me up.
I do hours and hours of calling Joes a week and people who disagree with me go to the front of the line.
Come on in, right?
I mean, I'm happy to hear.
But this is how you live your life with integrity.
And the point is, of course, not to destroy all your personal relationships, but to live with integrity so that people take your ideas seriously and it transfers to them.
Ideas transfer...
When you live a life of integrity and you don't compromise, that's how ideas spread.
Not through blog posts, not even through podcasts or anything like that.
It's when you dig yourself deep into your ideas right to the center of the earth and you become immovable.
That's when the world adapts to you.
That's when your social circle adapts to you.
That's when your ideas spread.
So the libertarian fear of the left is, again, one of the touchstones for me.
If you're not willing to Somehow deal or handle your fear of social justice warriors or leftist attacks or whatever, because the right generally doesn't attack and the Christians don't attack.
They are quite lovely people in many ways.
And so if libertarians are unable to deal with their fear of the left, of social justice warriors and attack and so on, then they can't be taken seriously as a movement.
Sorry, that's just the way things are.
Because...
If the fear of attack is so strong that you're willing to violate your own principles, then there's no point having those principles to begin with.
All you're doing is discrediting them in the eyes of the uninformed.
And so, if you look at the issues that libertarians...
Well, you know, this white knighting of women and this defense of feminism, well, that's out of fear of the left attacking you for being a misogynist or whatever.
Race realism or human biodiversity and so on, that's a huge hot button for the left and they'll attack you if you take this approach or accept these facts.
And again, libertarians.
Immigration, right?
If you are certainly cautious about certain aspects of immigration, then...
That's another attack point for the left.
So if you sort of look, and I can sort of go through a whole list, but you get the general pattern that what Murray Rathbard, a prominent anarcho-capitalist, wrote about in the 60s and early 70s was, beware the leftist infiltration of libertarianism.
He tried working with the leftists and...
It went the usual way that trying to work with the leftists is, which is that you try and grab hot spaghetti and it tries to suck your eyeballs out and generally succeeds.
So not on the menu for me.
So if you look at the pattern of what goes on in libertarianism, so much of it is to do with, I'm afraid of the left, so I'm going to not poke the leftist attack dogs.
And it's like, okay, but that's fine.
That's fine.
But then don't pretend you're a libertarian.
Don't pretend you're a libertarian.
People on the right are for a smaller government.
Libertarians are for smaller government.
People on the right are for separation of church and state.
And people on the right are for private education or at least a voucher system.
But people on the left, all about big government programs and so on.
And so why aren't libertarians conforming to right-leaning or republican-leaning platforms instead of conforming to left-leaning ones?
Because the right doesn't attack and the left does.
Sorry, the right doesn't attack.
The alt-right does attack.
And that's why.
Because there's no point going into...
You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, as the old saying goes.
So libertarians are kind of like social justice warriors.
They're in with that crowd.
They conform to that crowd.
And a lot of the funding of libertarian think tanks comes from people who are into big business and...
They are getting money from globalists.
They're getting money from people who want open borders.
And why do big business people want open borders?
Because they want cheap labor.
They want H-1B visas.
They want cheap labor pouring into the country.
And even if they don't hire that labor, that labor drives down the price of other people's labor, which makes them cheaper to hire for the big businesses.
So, you know, social justice warriors, you could call them useful idiots for globalists and so on.
But...
Libertarians and immigration, that's a whole other topic, so I won't sort of get into it much here other than to say immigration plus welfare, plus government schools, plus social housing, plus food stamps, plus Obamacare, all this.
It is a giant government program, right?
The movement of people across borders is a giant government program.
So when I say I oppose immigration and people say, well, you're against the free movement of people across imaginary lines, it's like, no, no.
It's not the reality.
The reality is that if you pay into a system, you have investment in that system, right?
So people who work and pay taxes to the government, part of the value that they built up is unemployment insurance and welfare and social security.
Now, people who come into the country and sit on welfare have not contributed to it and enact consumers, and therefore it could really easily be argued that they are initiating force against welfare.
The domestic population because they're withdrawing from a system they never paid into.
And, you know, if you...
Let's put it this way.
Let's say you have a big potluck dinner.
Everyone's supposed to bring a dish and 10 people come and don't bring a dish and just take.
Well, are they stealing from you?
Well, kind of in a way because they're supposed to bring food to the potluck dinner and all they're doing is coming and taking and not contributing anything.
Well, that's not a potluck...
Well, I don't want people who aren't contributing...
To my potluck dinner to come to my potluck dinner.
You don't want people crossing your threshold.
Like, no, no, I mean, come on.
Get rid of the other government programs like welfare and government healthcare and government education and so on.
Then we can start talking about these imaginary borders, but that's not the reality.
So, yeah, a lot of libertarians come out of these think tanks.
They're not market-facing, they're not customer-facing, they're not listener or reader-facing like I am, relying on donations.
And a lot of libertarians are failures in the free market, and they're academics.
Now, one other argument that I made that I'm not sure won me a lot of fans in the libertarian world, but which is an unassailable argument, is this.
Libertarians believe that they can talk people into giving up their government benefits Through the power of their rhetoric and their reason and their evidence.
So, there are academics who have PhDs in free market economics who won't let go of their government tenured positions.
So, even if we trained everyone to the PhD level in Austrian economics, they wouldn't give up their government benefits.
And we know that because...
Libertarians who have PhDs in free market economics are still hanging out in their government-controlled monopoly cartel.
It's just a reality.
So teaching people about economics, teaching people about libertarianism won't budge a single damn person because it doesn't budge a single damn person into getting out of academia.
Or maybe it's done one or whatever.
I don't know.
Maybe there is.
But of course you should get out of academia if you are a libertarian.
You should get out into the free market like I am.
And I made this case years ago.
Come join me on the frontiers of the free market you claim to love so much.
Provide value to the people.
You'll have a wonderful life.
You'll have a better life.
You won't be constrained.
It'll be fine.
It'll be glorious.
Because you always say how the free market improves quality and so you'll be doing much better work with much more effect if you're market-facing in the voluntary environment and not hiding out.
In the state blood-soaked ivory tower of academic privilege where you don't know if people are coming to you because they think you're so wonderful or they just want to give you the keys to the magic gold kingdom of academia by granting them a diploma or a degree.
So, to you, if you're sticking out in academia, you're just violating your entire goddamn principles for the sake of petty greed in the here and now.
Well, I got a pension coming!
Well, I only have to work a couple hours a week and I get paid $150,000 a year!
Free market all the way!
Well, unless you see it actually...
It pays me to only pretend to like the free market but to hang around in the state-protected cartel and just talk about how everyone else should submit themselves to the discipline of the market except me!
I am above it all.
I am wonderful.
I am glorious.
I am a giant floating head of rampant incontradiction and self-betrayal of my highest values because I'm bought.
I'm bought by tenure and I'm bought by money.
Ah, the free market!
That is where all the glory and treasure and beauty of the world resides.
Hey, you want to join us in the free market?
Gosh, don't be silly.
Because money and power.
Then people expect to be able to talk people out of the benefits of the state.
Ah, madness.
Absolute madness.
Now, is that an unassailable argument?
It certainly is.
What's happened out of it?
Well...
Nothing in particular, right?
So that is...
That is just the way of things.
I like challenging people just as I like to be challenged.
And seeing how people react to direct challenges is really, really important.
And libertarians have failed to live up to their own standards.
And this is really, really important.
Libertarians want the non-aggression principle, but they won't oppose spanking, they won't oppose circumcision, they won't oppose the abuses of children, they won't do any of that.
So it's all nonsense.
And there's also this weird libertarian purity thing that goes on, and this happens on the Republicans as well.
The Republicans say, Donald Trump, not a real Republican, to which the voters say...
Yes, that's exactly why.
We don't want any more real Republicans because they keep screwing us over.
Like Ronald Reagan was a real Republican, and what did he do?
Well, he signed no-fault divorce, which helped destroy the family, and he gave citizenship to unknown and uncountable numbers of illegal immigrants in California, thus turning California from a Republican state to a Democrat state until the end of time.
Hey, I wonder if we can extend that to the rest of America.
Well...
Don't vote for Donald Trump and that's exactly what's going to happen and you will get a group pouring across the border who overwhelmingly vote for what?
Lower taxes and bigger government, which helps produce the wonderful financial stability known as South and Central America.
So This sort of brings us to the Trump thing, which is what I want to close off with, and I appreciate your patience, and I appreciate the libertarians who are watching and listening to this.
You know, sometimes it's good to know why someone broke up with you, and here's why.
So, Donald Trump has, of course, a lot of policies that should appeal to Trump.
Libertarians, right?
He wants smaller government, wants to repeal Obamacare and increase competition across state lines for healthcare insurance.
He wants to lower the corporate taxes significantly.
He wants to negotiate better trade deals.
I know, ooh, trade deals, that's not free trade and so on, but there's no free trade as it stands.
And he wants to replace some income taxes, which is some tariffs, which is the founding father's argument.
Tariffs can be avoided, income taxes can't.
He, you know, wants to give parents school choice, which will improve the quality of education.
I mean, you could go on and on.
There's a lot of stuff that's in there for libertarians.
And he wants to simplify the tax code, wants to just get rid of entire government agencies and all that kind of stuff.
So, you know, there should be a lot in there for libertarians.
But no!
Even though, even though...
He's a free market guy who worked in business.
Libertarians spend massive amounts more time calling Donald Trump a fascist, calling him literally Hitler, and his followers neo-Nazis.
I mean, this is what libertarians are wasting their time on.
Now, Hillary Clinton has helped to destroy the entire Middle East and get hundreds of thousands of people killed, provoking a migrant crisis that is going to swamp and destroy Europe.
That seems to me a little bit more important than when Donald Trump once used eminent domain for...
I mean, come on, people, let's get some goddamn perspective in our brains here.
Eminent domain is a legal method, which...
And I've gone into this and the truth about Donald Trump.
I won't get into all the details here.
But so, you know, one time for exceptional circumstances and blah, blah, blah, after he offered the person a huge amount of money compared to destroying the Middle East and Europe.
Eminent domain, Europe and the Middle East.
Eminent domain and millions, hundreds of thousands of people murdered and societies destroyed.
And, well...
I'll let you weigh that one out.
But it's so insane.
I mean, how is it even remotely conceivably possible that people who claim to be in the free market are attacking the guy who came out of the free market who's not a professional politician, who all the media hates, and the media treats libertarians like shit.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, my friends.
And the media treats libertarians like shit.
The media treats Donald Trump like shit.
So what do the libertarians do?
Pile on with the media and treat Donald Trump like shit.
Why?
He's a small government guy!
He's authoritarian!
That is not an argument!
That is just a word!
It means nothing!
It's absolutely astonishing how somebody who defies public choice theory, defies the Inevitable ownership of politicians that is required from anyone who has to raise money.
Look, we all know the basic equation.
I actually learned this from libertarians before they forgot this shit themselves and started taking arrogant dumps on the future of Western civilization because it's got funny hair.
Libertarians taught me that.
Politicians to win must raise money from special interest groups who then get special favors from those politicians after the politicians get into power at the expense of the general population.
Boom!
Right there.
Right there.
That's the big problem with politics.
So what does Donald Trump want to do?
Well, he wants to limit lobbying.
He wants to limit terms, right?
He wants to do all of this stuff to make sure that this revolving door is minimized.
And, and you know what?
He's not taking any money from any special interest groups.
What is that number again?
He's taking zero money.
A bagel, a big fat goose egg, babkas, nothing, nada.
He is taking no money from special interest groups.
That breaks the entire cycle.
That's why I... Roused myself back into political action after spitting on it for so many years.
Because I had no interest.
And if people go back and listen to my truth about voting, they're all bought and paid for, I said.
They're all bought and paid for.
They have sacrificed your expense in order to get donor money in order to run for office.
You've already been carved up, sliced up like sushi, and served up on the platter of rampant late-style Roman democracy in order for these people to get the money to run in front of you.
Anybody who's visible in your television has already sold off your future in order to get that camera pointed at him.
And then, see, this is the thing, where new information can help you change your mind for the better.
Like Demographic Winter.
Google it.
So, Donald Trump comes along and completely breaks that cycle.
He is not beholden to special interest groups.
He is not carved up and sold off the future of the voting population in order to get in front of them to run in the first place.
That's new information.
That's a fact.
And libertarians are just completely ignoring this fact and are spending more time, more effort, more energy attacking Donald Trump, a businessman who came out of the free market.
They're spending more time and energy attacking the free market guy who wants to shrink government and who isn't beholden to special interest groups than the warmongering Hildebeest who destroyed the Middle East and is in the process of destroying Europe.
Do you understand how insane that is?
is and i hope that this perspective is giving people some utility you know you libertarians are like that that woman that chris rock makes fun of A 300-pound woman who jams herself into his shoes and says, I'm hot!
No, you're 300 pounds.
You need an accurate mirror, right?
As Aristotle said when criticizing Plato's theory of forms, we love the truth and we love our friends, but we must love the truth more than our friends because if we love our friends more than the truth, we don't bring reality to them and everything falls apart.
So, in summation, and thank you so much for listening to this.
I hope that this is helpful.
I hope this is useful.
And, you know, maybe this can be part of a dialogue.
Maybe libertarians can call in and let me know what they think.
Or maybe libertarians can talk about this amongst themselves.
Because here's the thing.
Libertarians are not revolutionaries.
They want to win by reason.
They want to win peacefully.
But that means that people have to be willing to accept reason and evidence.
Right?
Because it's reason and evidence or force.
That's all.
That's all there is when it comes to resolving things.
There's price or there's power.
So, if your entire philosophy is founded on people having the willingness To change their minds based on reason and evidence, guess what?
You better be goddamn sure that you're the first in line when it comes to changing your mind according to reason and evidence.
Do not demand of other people a standard you are vehemently opposed to submitting to yourself.
That is worse than hypocrisy.
That is the discrediting of all that is perfect and noble and holy and right and peaceful and reasonable in civilization.
Do not demand Ever demand that other people submit to a standard that you vehemently reject.
That is vicious, underhanded, undermined, ugly, hypocritical, and civilization-destroying!
I kid you not.
I am not overemphasizing this.
This is the reality.
If you want people to change their mind according to reason and evidence, you better goddamn well bow down before the altar of reason and evidence and change your most cherished, your most holy, your most foundational perspectives and opinions based on reason and evidence.
What you demand of others, you must submit to yourself.
And if you're not willing to submit it, if you're not willing to submit to it yourself, shut up.
Stop talking about it.
Stop talking about, oh, I can't believe that people won't give up their belief in this or that government program.
No, no, no.
You give up your most cherished and holy perspectives and opinions based on reason and evidence.
You think everyone's the same?
Sorry.
Human biodiversity.
You think feminism is about the empowerment of women?
Sorry.
Marxism and government program.
You think immigration is just welcoming all these wonderful people to a free market?
Sorry.
Welfare, subsidies, and political correctness.
If you want other people to give up their most cherished but unholy ideas, show them the way.
