All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
41:58
Help! I'm a Recovering Political Activist!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, great to talk to you, Steph.
We've talked via email a couple times.
I sent you my band's album a couple months ago.
That was some pretty funky stuff.
I'm calling because I am a recovering political activist.
In fact, yesterday was the I live in Georgia.
Yesterday was our state convention.
And so I went to that.
And the thing is, of course, I got into Ron Paul back in 2007.
And so I campaigned for him in a rural county in Georgia.
And then between the elections, I moved to Atlanta.
And then I started campaigning for Ron Paul in 2008 again.
It was quite successful, actually, in politics.
I became a delegate to the National Convention.
Sorry, I just want to interrupt you for a second and point out that to be successful in politics, in libertarian circles, means that you got a job in politics, not that you actually impacted the state in any way, shape or form, in terms of making it smaller.
But anyway, I just wanted to point that out.
To me, success in politics is, we're making the state smaller, we got rid of income tax and all that kind of stuff, but in libertarian circles, success in politics means you got a paid gig.
Anyway, I just wanted to point that out, but go ahead.
Well, it was not a paying gig.
Oh, okay, so medium success.
But yeah, basically, long story short, is that a lot of people know me.
A lot of Ron Paul fans know me.
I was one of three people that went to Tampa for Ron Paul from my state.
And by success, you know, you're right.
There is a sliding scale for success, obviously.
And I know I've listened to a lot of your stuff.
I know that you gauge the success of libertarianism as quite low over the past 30 years, in fact abysmal.
I'm willing to hear arguments of the contrary, but who would care about my opinion?
I don't.
I think libertarians should have a different logo.
That would be sort of an opinion thing, but if there are successes in shrinking the state that I'm not aware of, I'm certainly happy to hear them.
Right, right, right, right.
But that is the position you put forward and that is a position that you, by facts, have.
I agree with you.
Let me mention one other thing, which is that when you read the predictions from the Libertarian campaign managers over the past 40 years, I don't know if you've ever, it's pretty esoteric, right?
But I think it's an important thing to do if you're into politics and think that politics is going to do something.
Just go back and read the predictions from Harry Brown's campaign, from Gary Johnson's campaign, from, you know, you name it, right?
And they all say, you know, we got a good chance to win this thing.
Of course.
Right?
They don't say, well, we haven't got a hope in hell, right?
I mean, good Lord, we've never, we've only once cracked 1% of the vote, right?
And that was, you know, during the Vietnam War exhaustion and so on, right?
It's a little bit after that, but during the Reagan, I think it was 80 or whatever.
So historically, we have no chance of winning this thing, right?
That would be a sort of empirical realistic way to say, you know, well, you know, this happens and this happens, we could totally win this thing.
And I remember seeing lots of things about that, right?
Now, either these people are liars or fools, right?
Because, you know, if you've got 40 years of evidence that you get, you know, half a percentage of a vote, quarter of a percentage of a vote, maybe 1% of the vote, thinking that you're just going to somehow win is you're either lying Or you're a fool because you're just not dealing with the realities of the situation.
Now, I get why they have to say that because they say, well, if we say we're not going to win, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We've got to put our best foot forward.
We've got to pretend like we're going to win and so on.
But, you know, it looks like William Hung from the first, you know, if you've ever seen that guy sing during his audition, he's a bit pitchy.
You know, if William Hung says, I've got a total chance to win this thing, he's either lying or he's delusional, right?
He's just never heard himself sing or something like that.
And so the other thing, too, is that Again, this comes from evaluating people's business proposals and being in the investment world, not that I was any kind of big investor or anything like that, but being in that world, you learn to have skeptical eyes on things in a way that politics and religion, but I repeat myself, Don't have, right?
So, you know, which is it?
Are you delusional or are you a liar?
Neither of these things bode well for people who want to be in charge of other people, right?
They're either compulsive liars saying they have a chance when they statistically have no chance at all, or they genuinely believe that they have a chance despite 40 years of evidence, in which case they're completely delusional, neither of which qualifies them to run anybody else's life since they're completely incapable of running their own lives with any sense of reality or integrity.
But anyway, I just want to sort of point that out.
Right.
Well, so that, you know, you just laid out that position quite well.
And, um, you know, as a side note, actually, uh, Gary Johnson made this campaign stop in our town.
And so I just went pretty early on in his campaign.
And it was funny because I don't know if you remember, but he had been in two Republican debates and then he got denied in all the rest, but His main argument for his campaign was that they were going to get, and he even talked about how the polls were gerrymandered to keep them out of those debates.
And then he went on to say that the American people were ready for a change and that they were going to get the 15% poll they needed to get into debates and make a difference.
And it was total, I was like, wow, you know, it really is delusional.
But my politics has mainly been inside the Republican party.
And my, uh, experience going to, I guess the biggest party for the Republican, you know, country club, uh, which is the Republican national convention.
You know, it definitely, uh, made me much more, um, open to your arguments because you kind of see how it all works.
Uh, but here's my problem.
And that is, I know a lot of very, very good people, right.
Who I've met during this process.
And because of my past activism, and because for years, like you, I've known it's going to be a long-term process.
I never thought we were going to take over the system in one election cycle or whatever.
Of course, I know you don't think we're going to take over any system.
I've always told everybody to stay the course.
They beat you down, but we do gain ground every time a little bit.
I told everybody, stay the course.
I know it's looking bad, but we're gaining ground, etc., etc.
Sorry, stay which course?
The course in the Republican Party.
Because, I mean, they beat you down, they beat you down.
But we do gain ground every time, a little bit.
And the convention yesterday, actually, we lost, our candidates lost, but we actually – Sorry, what do you mean by we gain ground?
I'm just trying to understand better.
Okay, well, the people who are involved are, you know, swiftly becoming, in the view of, say, the party as a whole, at least in Georgia, they're not crazy, you know, Ron Paul supporters or whatever.
They are, you know, They are at least starting to listen to them.
I would view the Ron Paul supporters as the sanest among politics, but I understand how a lot of people would view them as the craziest, but go on.
Oh yeah, believe me.
Yeah, you know, right?
You're a supporter too, right?
Right, right.
So for example, we had about 30% of the vote at the state convention last year.
This year, our chairman candidate got 40%.
Despite the actual Ron Paul numbers going down.
So there's kind of a little bit of cross pollination going on, but it's, it's long and slow progress, but I'm, I'm with you.
I, I see, I see the state for what it is.
I see the party definitely for what it is, which is just a, uh, an influence brokering money.
Yeah, exactly.
And it's the nature of the beast.
The Tea Party candidates – sorry, the Tea Party candidates already went to Washington, right, a couple of years ago?
Right, right, right.
And what happened?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean they just went nosedive straight into the trough like everyone else.
And it's the nature of the beast.
I mean even amongst our own people, people who are friendly with each other, basically use approximately the same – Politics has created schisms and, you know, hatreds for other people, or dislikes, rather.
And I think it's just the nature of the beast, because there's no win-win.
There's always a win-lose, you know.
Somebody wins, somebody loses.
So, I just had a son in February.
Oh, congratulations!
Yeah, he was two months premature.
Which, he's completely fine.
Everything's great.
He's home now.
That's fantastic.
Good for you.
How scary, though?
It's 3 pounds, 13 ounces.
Oh my God.
So, during this whole convention cycle, I've really distanced myself from everything.
But, it's just like, you said it before, and I said it before I heard you say it, so I was like, dang, he got to me before it.
But, it's like the Godfather quote, right?
Actually, I think it's Carlito's way, because I keep getting corrected.
No, I think it's the Godfather.
Yeah, they keep pulling me back in, right?
Yeah, every time I try to get out, they pull me back in.
I've distanced myself, and, you know, honestly, I've been hiding behind my son.
You know, everybody in the movement's kind of stopped bothering me, because they're like, oh, well, you had a premature son, he's really busy.
And, of course, I was, obviously.
I was at the hospital every day for five hours a day, you know, just kind of hanging out.
So, I mean, that is true, but it's kind of beyond that point.
I'm still kind of distant and vacant.
And, you know, essentially I have a moral conflict with people's expectations of me through what I've said in the past and encouraging people, you know, to always be patient and stay the course and whatever.
And then my newfound rational beliefs.
Which I've come by mostly thanks to you and my experiences.
And it's, it's, it's, I don't know how to, and in fact, last night, somebody who's a very good friend of mine involved in this, we had like an after party at a restaurant and two were saying, what can we do to, to, to try and, you know, Make things better, right?
To have better outcomes for us at these conventions.
And he said, you know, one thing we could do is, you know, there are less of us, but we know people who used to come and they don't anymore.
We need to call them and encourage them to come.
And, and he even said, you know, the defeatists, you know, who are poisoning the well, right?
By saying that, you know, oh, it's pointless and give up whatever, you know, we need to Have private conversations with them and tell them, you know.
So I was like, oh man, that's me.
I mean, I haven't gone and poisoned the well, so to speak.
I haven't really.
Sorry, just to just interrupt for a sec, right?
Because I mean, the language there is very important, right?
Right.
Yeah, of course.
So people who say defeatists, right?
And then let's say somebody comes along and says, you know, circumcising our children and doing a rain dance isn't doing a damn thing because there is no volcano God.
And people say, but you're a defeatist, right?
You're sabotaging.
You're a naysayer.
You're a denier.
Well, you just want us all to get burned up, right?
It's like, no.
The whole point is that if what we're doing isn't helping, then we need to stop doing it and look for alternatives.
Right, so people get heavily invested, right?
It's the fallacy of sunk costs, right?
Well, I've spent an hour walking north and it turns out I'm walking in the exact wrong direction and people don't want to turn around, right?
Let's keep plugging on, right?
If you're waiting for a bus that never comes, if they're waiting for a bus that never comes, there's not much point sitting at the bus stop anymore, right?
Because the bus ain't gonna come.
So then people say, well, you're just, you're just, you know, you just don't want us to get anywhere.
It's like, no, I do want us to get somewhere, which is why I'm pointing out that the bus is never going to come and just sitting here is getting us nowhere.
Right.
So the language is really, really important.
And I think that the onus is upon the people who believe that political action works.
You know, after you have, say, a couple of thousand or at least a couple of hundred or at least a couple of decades worth of years of data, it is incumbent upon people to make the case, right?
If the government is still growing and growing ever faster despite thousands or hundreds or decades of years of political action, the proof is upon people.
The burden of proof now rests upon the politicals, right?
The burden of proof now rests upon the politicals.
Sorry, I hate to say it, but it's just a reality.
Sorry, I hate to say it, but it's just a reality.
If something hasn't worked for many, many, many, many years, and it's worked the exact opposite of what was claimed, right?
If something hasn't worked for many, many, many, many years and it's worked the exact opposite of what was claimed, right?
And government is now five to seven times bigger, not even counting unfunded liabilities, than when libertarianism started as a political party, when it was supposed to shrink it from when it was 10% to 15% its current size.
And now it's still claiming that it's going to shrink it.
I mean, this is just becoming ludicrous when you look at the facts, right?
And so the burden of proof is now upon the politicos, and if the politicos are going to do more of the same, then they are, in fact, working against freedom.
Because they're continuing to do something that doesn't work out of a selfish desire for money or power or confirmation, but the reality is we owe it to the world to look at the facts.
I do not like the anti-fact people in the liberty movement, because the liberty movement should be based upon reason and evidence.
So all the people who are against, say, Chemo without providing evidence, all the people who have all these conspiracy things, all these people who claim things without evidence, are doing a massive disservice to the movement.
We need to be strict on reason and evidence.
We can't reject reason and evidence in our own belief systems and then demand that other people live according to reason and evidence.
That's just a great way of discrediting anything that you're trying to do.
It's self-indulgent, it's petty, it's childish, it's immature, and it's so destructive that there aren't even enough words to describe how destructive it is.
So, the political people, look, maybe you're right, but doing more of the same is self-indulgent, destructive bullshit.
When you claim to liberate mankind and you continue to pursue the same actions that are certainly not impeding the increasing enslavement of mankind, then you've got to stop being selfish and you've got to look at the benefit of the community as a whole.
You've got to look at the benefit of the planet.
and of mankind as a whole and be willing to reevaluate every position that you have.
The creative destruction that we all worship in the free market should also apply to political thinking as well.
You cannot assume that yesterday's solution is tomorrow's solution.
You can't do that in the free market and you certainly shouldn't do that in something far more important, which is the liberation of the entire goddamn species.
So look at the facts, look at the reason, look at what's happened and be willing to re-examine the possibilities.
Or just recognize that you're a political hack who's in it for his own money, power, or emotional gratification, and recognize that you are actually impeding the progress of mankind through your own selfishness.
Or approve how it's going to be done differently and better.
But to continue to do the same old same old, it just becomes destructive and exploitive at this point.
Right.
Well, you know, I had lunch with A friend of mine yesterday who's, well, he's actually my boss.
Uh, he was at the convention as well.
And, you know, I told him basically, I was like, man, I'm, we're talking about, you know, the scumbaggery that goes on and whatnot.
And, and I was like, you know, I think I'm just, uh, going to be getting out.
You know, he was like, really, you're getting out?
Like, what do you mean by that?
Are you quitting?
That's what he said.
Are you quitting?
And I was like, well, you know, I feel like it's more like moving on.
I've done that.
I've seen how it works.
I've been in the middle, I've been all the way around it, up, down, sides, seen what there is to see, and it just, like you say, maybe seeing is believing for some.
I'm not going to be smoking anymore!
Quitter!
Yes!
Yes, exactly!
Quitter!
That's the point!
I'm quitting something that is destructive and pointless, and now that I'm a dad, blah blah blah, right?
Right.
It's going to be hard for me to disappear quietly.
People are going to notice that I'm gone.
They're going to say, hey, where has Rich gone?
And what happened to that guy?
It doesn't serve my vanity at all.
I don't need that positive reinforcement, at least I don't think I do.
I mean, yeah, it feels good to walk in a room and everybody's like, hey, how are you doing?
Hey, it's Rich.
That's nice and all, but I don't feel like I need that, you know, for my livelihood or my self-esteem or whatever.
And I know some people might, or they might like it.
Of course, everybody likes to be appreciated, but how do I keep in my conversations with people?
I mean, I've had a few anarchist, I guess you'd say, conversations with people, and I agree with you, but at the same time, it takes a while to get people there from, especially like you said, when they're invested.
I mean, I've literally spent years doing this, you know, and I'm just uncertain how to move forward.
I can't hide behind my son forever.
Although, I mean, maybe I can.
I mean, I've told people that several times yesterday, people are like, Rich, you need to run for something.
And, um, in fact, even though I already had listened to thousands of hours, probably of you earlier in the year, people had me convinced to run for chairman of my party.
I got it.
I finally, I was like, I can't do that.
You know, I was writing when my son was born prematurely.
I was like, you know, perfect timing.
And, uh, um, basically I've told them, I'm like, look, uh, I'm going to spend this time raising my son.
I don't want to be driving all over the state to meetings, and that's what I'm going to do.
I work from home, so I'm going to be a stay-at-home dad.
So yeah, we'll just hide behind it.
Again, I think you're looking at it still, and I completely understand why, and I appreciate your ambivalence about this.
I really do, and I think I really get it.
Everybody who has a solution wants to claim a monopoly.
It's funny because libertarians see this very clearly with the government.
Only the government can help old people who have no money.
Only the government can help sick people who have no money.
Only the government can protect us by arming foreign dictatorships.
Only the government can keep peace and order.
Only the government can build the roads.
Everybody who has a solution or who claims a solution Once a monopoly, because then it's like, well, do you want the government to build the roads or do you want no roads?
Well, of course, we can't have no roads.
So you're right.
It limits people's thinking to the point where thinking becomes a kind of physics, like you let go of a ball, it falls down, right?
If you have a monopoly on the provision of a solution, then you will always get resources.
Does that make sense?
Right.
Yeah.
But you see, libertarians see that very clearly.
in the government but they fail to recognize political libertarians I would argue they fail to recognize that libertarianism is caught in the same trap in other words the libertarians say if you're not working for politics you're not working for freedom in other words they want a monopoly on how we become free called political activism and this is the false dichotomy so they say well of course it's ridiculous to say that if you don't want the government, you don't want roads.
But then they say, well, if you don't want political activism, you don't want freedom.
It's like, but that's exactly the same principle.
How on earth could political activism claim any kind of monopoly on how we free the world?
Especially when it's had such a series of catastrophic failures where its percentage points are going down as, even after 15 years of the internet, its percentage points of votes are going down well, the government gets bigger.
And they can't claim that the message isn't out because there's the internet, right?
So, it's this false dichotomy.
It's like you say, well, I'm going to hide behind my son.
And I would argue, if you were to do politics, you would be hiding in politics from the real work of freeing the world, which is being a good father.
You raise a child, Who is going to be intelligent and articulate and not indoctrinated and peaceful and know how to negotiate and be skeptical of authority and require proof, reason and evidence for all positions put forward.
That is driving a stake into the heart of the vampire.
Whereas chasing around politics, that's hiding from the real work, which is to raise children peacefully.
There's nothing else.
Nothing else that is going to work that has ever been proven with any kind of scientific or statistical reliability.
There's nothing else that has been proven to work.
And again, Psychohistory has got a lot of actual quite detailed information.
Read Robin Grill's Parenting for a Peaceful World.
He goes into quite a bit of detail about how good parenting creates a better society.
So you'd be hiding in politics from the real work of being a good dad if that was your choice.
But you're not hiding behind your kid.
That's where the real work is.
Maybe another good metaphor would be, uh, just cause you're good at playing a certain game doesn't mean you, you, uh, you know, have to be playing it all the time.
Cause you know, politics is a game.
I mean, we realized that one of my, uh, cohorts I work with, uh, a lot on it.
He's a brilliant guy.
He's a former chess champion.
And so, I mean, strategically, the guy's brilliant and he has this way of just making things happen.
He's one of these people.
And, uh, And we both talk about it like it's just a game.
Because it is just a game, really.
A political game.
I mean, of course, in the grand scheme of things, a game, you know, steals from people and kills people.
But on the local level, it's just moving chess pieces around and making things happen.
Yeah, it's that great line from Harold and Kumar go to White Castle, just because you have a big dick doesn't mean you have to do porn.
Right, exactly.
I mean, Just because you're good at playing the political game doesn't mean it should be.
Exactly.
I'm obviously at a crossroads there.
Like I said, I'm heavily invested in it.
With time, effort, reputation, etc.
And so divesting is just going to be an interesting path, I suppose.
I had several people yesterday saying that they missed me being around and whatever because I've been kind of absent lately.
They're like, you know, look forward to seeing you some more, glad you're here, blah, blah, blah.
It's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, well.
There's a sense that I'm letting them all down, right?
Sure.
Does that make sense?
Oh, totally, yeah.
Because, I mean, you're needed on the front lines.
You know, praise the Lord, pass the ammunition.
If you break ranks with us, how are we going to hold back the horde of the state?
I mean, I get it.
I mean, this is the kind of polarized thinking that occurs when you get involved with win-lose situations.
And this, you're either with us or you're against us, is, um... Well, it's not with us or against us.
Oh, you're sorry, sorry, you're either with us or you're not helping.
Right, yeah, yeah.
Or, you said you'd be with us, but you're not with us, right?
It's, I mean, you've gone back on positions before, at least I've heard you mention that you have, you know, and so it's, It's a hard thing to do.
It's not the easiest thing to do.
No, it's not the easiest thing to do, of course, but we're asking the world to revise its assumption that we need a state.
So we have to be willing to revise our assumptions.
We're saying to people, listen, I'm giving you better information and better arguments.
You should really revise your opinion on the existence of a deity, on the necessity of spanking, on the value of the state.
And the best way to make sure that people never listen to you is to not obey your own rules, right?
So I love how you lie to the government, you go to jail.
The government lies to you, and if it's really cornered, it might say, I'm sorry, and that's it, right?
I mean, this is the good thing about the IRS controversy is it helps people to understand with a little bit more vividity just what nonsense the moral rules imposed by the state are.
Obama fires the head of the IRS.
Who was going to quit anyway, you know?
Mike still gets pensions, still gets separate packages.
I mean, come on!
This is ridiculous.
It's just laughable.
I've been trying to think of ways to... I mean, I've been racking my brain with ways to... It's also a big part of my identity.
Several years ago, I was like, well... I was just a 20-something standard, kind of lost in the wilderness guy.
Ron Paul came along.
And I was like, man, this is gonna make some sense when it comes to politics.
Politically, it was just total whatever.
You know, I was an idiot, okay?
And then he came along.
I started looking into the stuff he was talking about.
And I was like, wow.
And of course, then, you know, the rabbit hole goes deep.
And basically, I was like, well, you know, I think this might be kind of part of my life's work is to restore sort of sanity to, uh, to government at the time.
So I thought, right, to, to restore the Republic or however you want to say it.
And, uh, and now, I mean, I guess the overall mission state hasn't changed.
You know, I still want the government out of my life and out of my friends' lives and all that.
But, um, you know, that kind of political action defined a lot of, uh, So it's just a big kind of, okay, well, I'm getting out of this, so now I'm racking my brain.
Okay, what can I do now?
You can still chat with all the political people.
I mean, it's not like they're evildoers or something like that.
I mean, chat with all the political people, but I would say, you know, if I were in your shoes, and nobody can tell you what to say, but if I were in your shoes, I'd say, well, like, I'm really interested in exploring the non-aggression principle in my personal life.
Like, I have a lot more control over my personal life than I do over the Fed.
And, you know, I mean, Ron Paul's out of the race.
Rand Paul is I mean, pro-war, he's just affirmed to a bunch of evangelical Christians his extreme enthusiasm for the war on drugs.
To be fair, he wants some less harsh sentences, maybe more treatment and so on.
But I mean, Rand Paul is, boy, you know, I mean, how on earth is Rand Paul supposed to educate the average muggle when he can't even get his own son on board with principles?
But his son, of course, much like Greenspan coming out of the Objectivist Collective, I say Collectivist, this sort of joking self-referential name that they had for themselves, you know, he's about ambition and he's been drawn in by the lie of having an effect.
And, of course, if you want to have an effect in American politics, then you have to take your marching orders from some seriously deranged people, right?
The socialists like the welfare state, people like the welfare warfare state, like the evangelicals and so on.
I mean, you just have to.
I mean, this is why, to me, politics is of no appeal whatsoever.
I'd just be a slave to fools.
And so where's it going to go?
Sorry, go ahead.
Well, you made the analogy before that it's the very ambition that you need to have to be successful in politics.
I can't remember the exact word.
It will completely do you in morally or what have you in politics.
Yeah, I mean it's the same.
The two-party candidates got elected because they're very good at making people like them.
And then the fact that they then start playing the game with all the powerful elders of the party who will withhold approval if they don't and will give them approval if they do.
People are good at being liked because they want to be liked.
being liked because they want to be liked.
People are good at chess because they want to play chess, generally.
People are good at chess because they want to play chess generally.
People are good at being liked because they really want to be liked.
People are good at being liked because they really want to be liked.
And then the idea that they're going to act against everyone's interest in favor of people who aren't even born yet, who can't give them any praise at all, is asking the impossible.
I mean, it's like asking a man to give birth.
It is asking the impossible.
People who desperately want to be liked are the only people who make really good politicians because they're really good at being liked.
They've got lots of practice.
They've been working at it their whole lives.
People who really want to be liked cannot act with integrity because the moment you start acting with integrity, particularly the more abstract forms of integrity, the people who dislike you are in the here and now.
And the people who like you are in the long away future when you might not even be alive, right?
So, I mean, some people really dislike me now.
Fine, that comes with having integrity.
The people who really like me are the people who are going to grow up, and when they're 20 or 25 or 30, they recognize just how great it was to not be yelled at, hit, or abused as children, and they're going to say, wow, that stiff guy who was able to convince my children to drop spanking and to negotiate with me, that guy is really great.
And so in 20 or 25 years, I might get a whole bunch of love mail from people, whereas right now, not so much, right?
from people, whereas right now, not so much, right?
But that's because I'm not in it to be liked.
But that's because I'm not in it to be liked.
I'm not in it to be liked.
I'm not in it to be liked.
I'm in it to do good.
I'm in it to do good.
And doing good, the more good you do, the more you're disliked in the here and now by people who are profiting from immorality.
And doing good, the more good you do, the more you're disliked in the here and now by people who are profiting from immorality.
And politicians are just those who want to be liked in the here and now.
And politicians are just those who want to be liked in the here and now.
I mean, because the unborn don't vote, you know, the people who benefit, like, let's say someone stops getting welfare and ends up getting a job.
And they've got a couple of years of hell and annoyance and irritation and problems.
And then maybe in five or 10 years, they're like, wow, that was a really good thing.
But it's like an addictions counselor is going to be somebody you don't like in the moment.
You're going to hate that person in the moment.
But five or 10 years later, you might be like, wow, that person was really pivotal in changing my life.
And so the people who are doing real good in the world are the people who don't give a shit about being liked in the here and now.
And in fact, welcome not being liked by bad people.
That's a sure sign that you're doing good.
Asking politicians to do that, I mean, it's like asking a man to give birth, or like asking a woman to pee standing up without significant artificial aids.
Right.
Well, I know it's past 12 now, but my one last question is, you know, the one kind of political thing I hang on to is that, um, I think you've given your thoughts on it before, but I can't recall, you know, had, had Ron Paul not done what he did, uh, which was, you know, climb the, you know, play the game, climb the ladder, become a politician, get in the national debates.
Um, you know, Granted, I guess there's no excuse for me not to have the information, but having the information, like you said, watered down earlier in the call, watered down and made palatable enough to where he could get on national TV and then kind of change the narrative.
Had that not happened, I don't know where I would be at.
Yes, for sure.
There's no doubt that some people have found philosophy, or me, or their own self-knowledge, or whatever, through the Ron Paul.
It's a bit of a circuitous route, and as you can see, the exit strategy is not always the most comfortable.
But the two things, of course, I mean, I've talked about the Ron Paul campaign, and it's not particular to Ron Paul, who I'm sure is a very nice guy, but the two things this has done is, one is, of course, it has associated libertarianism with things like a rejection of evolution.
That's not good.
I mean, that's just not good.
I mean, if you're going to start promoting the truth, you can't have some little pocket or area where you can just be blindly irrational for the sake of popularity or for the sake of your own ideology, because that poisons the whole thing.
Because then people look at Ron Paul and say, okay, well, he's kind of a Christian, heavy Christian.
He rejects evolution, and he's for the free market.
So, in areas where I have some expertise, as in most people accept evolution, And Dawkins' book is, I think, the greatest show on earth.
It does a really great job.
I didn't realize there was quite so much proof for evolution.
So most people, particularly those who are interested in science and so on, they accept evolution, right?
So what they do is they say, they look at Ron Paul and they say, okay, well, I mean, the racism thing I think was kind of nonsense.
But anyway, let's just drop all of that and say the stuff that he's admitted to, that he rejects evolution, people say, well, Okay, I don't know anything about the free market as he talks about it, but I sure do know something about evolution.
So he rejects evolution and he is for the free market.
So I'm not going to look much into the free market stuff because there's some expertise in it he doesn't accept.
You're talking about the optics.
Well, it's not just optics.
I mean, it's not just optics because that's perception.
I mean, this is statements that he's made, right?
So he's irrational enough to reject evolution.
He's superstitious enough to reject evolution and to accept some Judeo-Christian deity.
And he's for the free market.
It's like, oh man!
Right, so I already know he's not rational in areas I have some expertise and competence in, and so why would I look into other things?
You know, maybe the 19th, I mean, to take an extreme example, maybe the 19th thing that the crazy guy in the corner screams is true, but who sits around waiting and checks the other 18, right?
Because it doesn't make any sense, right?
And the other thing that even, but even if we reject all of that, what Ron Paul's campaign has done is draw people into libertarian politics, right?
Right, and if libertarian politics is like a fly trap, if it's like a sticky paper flypaper trap...
Then it has actually deactivated people from doing work that's necessary to reject the non-aggression principle in their own lives.
It has deactivated people interested in the non-aggression principle by drawing them into politics and away from an area where they can actually have some effect and make real change happen.
So, it's not positive from either of those standpoints.
Now, to the degree to which a few people have made it through to the non-aggression principle, that's great.
That's fantastic.
That's wonderful.
But, you know, it's the unseen that we need to focus on, not just the visible.
Right.
Well, fantastic.
I continue to appreciate your perspectives.
My work from home involves somewhat, some amount of monotony, so I have a lot of time to listen to podcasts.
Good!
I'm sorry for the monotony, but I'm glad to help break it up a little bit.
I appreciate everything you're doing.
Are you speaking at Libertopia this year?
I'm hoping to.
It really depends.
I go for my next round of chemo next week.
And I do know that there's going to be a progressive deterioration, but so far the deterioration has been quite minor.
So it is certainly my hope and goal too.
But it really depends where my white blood cell count is at.
If I have no immune system, then it probably is not a great idea for me to get on a plane and go meet and greet hundreds of people.
But we'll see.
We'll see where things are at.
Pogfest, I'm afraid, is a no-go.
I have to say, when I saw your personal message, you often talk about emotional reactions.
And, man, I had a visceral one.
I was like, no, I am instantly texting the people that I knew that are saying, stands a view and they say, oh no, I just saw it.
Sort of a kind of hysterical knee-jerk reaction on my behalf.
So I really hope you pull through on that.
Well, I appreciate that.
I have to confess, I did send you at least a YouTube comment about apricot seeds.
But to qualify that, I did say that at least the evidence I've seen for the apricot seed thing is it may be a preventative.
But for advanced cancers, it's not anything viable.
So, That's what the research is.
Right, and to be fair, I'm not in the answer category.
Look, and I don't mind if people say, listen, you might want to take this supplement or that.
I've got no problem with that.
That's fine.
It's just the people who say, whatever you do, never do chemo and just stick coffee grinds up your butt and stuff.
That's just, wow.
That's seriously irresponsible advice to be giving to people.
So, no, I don't put you in.
The people who are sending me good wishes and check out this, that's great.
I have no problem with that whatsoever.
I think that's fine.
But the people who are telling me how I should direct my treatment in a life-threatening illness with no evidence being provided, that's some seriously destructive and irresponsible stuff.
And I don't put you in that category at all.
I mean, I appreciate people's positive.
Douglas Goldstein, CFP®, is the director of Profile Investment Services and the host of the Goldstein on Gelt radio show.
He is a licensed financial professional both in the U.S.
and Israel.
Securities offered through Portfolio Resources Group, Inc., Member FINRA, SIPC, MSRB, NFA, SIFMA.
Accounts carried by National Financial Services LLC.
And so I haven't just been listening to the medical establishment, right?
I mean, I have contacts with listeners who are doctors as well, who've been giving me some very useful stuff.
Well, I consume some amount of apricot seeds every couple of days just in smoothies and stuff.
And my logic is, you know, if it works, great.
I don't have cancer.
I'll really never know if it worked or not.
If it doesn't work, I get cancer.
I'm out, what, ten bucks a year?
Oh yeah, absolutely.
And plus, you know, I mean, you get apricots growing at your fingernails, which is great for snacking.
So, you know, it's really no lose.
You get your fruit no matter what happens.
That's wonderful.
So, again, I'm no scientist.
But thank you so much.
And listen, I certainly appreciate everyone's donations.
I know that there was a big bulge earlier in the month and I appreciate that.
It's been pretty dry over the last week or so.
And again, that just could be the after effect of more donations at the beginning of the month.
But I would appreciate it if you haven't donated for a while if you want to help out.
Nothing to do with the illness in particular, but if you wanted to donate and help out.
Costs are going up.
We're going to start running some advertising campaigns.
Of course, Michael, who is currently working his job in a small air duct bank in a Singaporean Nike factory, of course, is somehow annoyed that he's being paid less than the Singaporean workers.
And so if you'd like to help out with some of the costs of the show as we grow, That would be great.
I also wanted to mention that Jeff Tucker, Steph Kinsella, and myself, mostly Steph Kinsella, we're aiming to do a great conference in September or October.
I think that the goal is to have it in Houston, which is going to be living libertarianism.
I don't know what the exact name is going to be, but it's all going to be about how to implement our values in our lives in very practical and positive ways.
So I hope that you'll keep that on your radar, and I will give you more information as we move forward.
Thanks so much to Steph Kinsella for setting that up, and that's going to be just a blast.
And I'm hoping to push it more to October, and I'm sure I'll be able to make it then.
I think my red blood cells do a 90-day cycle, so by the time I'm done, I should be more or less back to normal by then.
Thanks, everyone, so much.
FDRURL.com forward slash donate.
If you would like to help out, He is a licensed financial professional both in the U.S.
and Israel.
Securities offered through Portfolio Resources Group, Inc., Member FINRA, SIPC, MSRB, NFA, SIFMA.
Accounts carried by National Financial Services LLC.
Member NYSE®, a Fidelity Investments company.
His book Building Wealth in Israel is available in bookstores, on the web, or can be ordered at www.profile-financial.com.
▲
Export Selection