All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 19, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
49:10
The Failures of Capitalism! Article Review
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, hey, everybody.
Hope you're doing well.
Stephen Molyneux from Free Domain.
And I think let's do a wee bit of an article review because I do find it really interesting the way sort of contemporary minds work with regards to these sort of thoughts.
And there's this general slop or goo that goes on in sort of modern writing.
I mean, maybe it's not that modern.
I mean, George Orwell was writing about this decades and decades ago.
But this kind of general, emotional, polysyllabic stretchy goo that can cover almost all circumstances, it's like somebody inviting you into a dream and Having you recorded as physics.
It's really, really a wild thing.
So sorry, enough adjectives.
Let's get into this.
This is from Sadiqa Pant.
Have you ever stood at a point where you were able to agree, to some extent at least, with two opposing sides of a debate?
Have you ever stood at a point where you were able to agree, to some extent at least, with two opposing sides of a debate?
Well, only if you have no principles, right?
Only if you have no principles.
And this is, to me, a confession of, an absence of, and an opposition to, principles.
So, okay, let's look at two and two make four, two and two make five.
Could you agree to some extent at least with two opposing sides of a debate?
Well, no, that doesn't really make any sense.
If you were to say, the world is banana-shaped versus the world is a sphere, would you be able to agree with two opposing sides of a debate, right?
If somebody were to argue in a vile manner that rape is somehow morally acceptable, well, and then somebody says, no, rape is evil, could you agree?
So, all that you're saying is that you are empathizing, not thinking, right?
You are trying to not get either person mad at you.
And you simply cannot engage in effective, robust, and truth-pursuit intellectual debate if you're not willing to really anger people.
But anger is the way, anger, hostility, attack, and so on, that is the way that bad ideas spread, right?
Because it's either reason or force, right?
And if your ideas are not reasonable, Then you have to use a kind of force, right?
You have to use whether it's verbal intimidation or reputational destruction or whatever it is, right?
I mean, aggression, bullying, these are all on the same continuum.
Of course, you know, I mean, to get angry at someone is not a violation of the non-aggression principle.
But I'm talking about things like reputational destruction, doxing, and threats of those kinds.
That's really, that's not good, right?
Those would be violations of the NAP. Now, so have you ever stood at a point where you're able to agree to some extent at least with two opposing sides of a debate?
So this is a kind of classical quote.
Sorry, I won't be this long on every sentence.
This is kind of a classical approach to mediating conflict in the absence of principles.
So mediating conflict in the absence of principles involves saying that both sides have valid points.
And again, it's when no principles are involved.
So if you are a marriage counselor, I assume that If the husband is complaining about the wife and the wife is complaining about the husband, well, you would agree to some extent at least with two opposing sides of a debate, right?
The husband says the wife is all bad, the wife says the husband is all bad, and both the husband and the wife have done negative things, and, you know, I've talked with couples many times over the course of doing philosophy in the world, and, yeah, usually both sides have Have a perspective, right?
So that's fine if you want to talk about, you know, people in relationships will complain about each other, but it's not really valid or fair to do that, right?
Because you need to be able to see the other person's perspective.
But again, this all has to do with an absence of principles.
Couples get in trouble because they don't respect principles, right?
That's really all that happens.
Couples get in trouble.
Because they don't respect principles.
So one principle could be we don't yell at each other.
We don't intimidate each other.
We don't call each other names.
We won't verbally abuse each other.
We won't punish through withdrawal when communication is necessary.
You know, there's lots of things that would be basic principles, right?
And this is just consistency principles, right?
It's just consistency principles.
So, why would you, this is always the thing that's kind of weird to me, it's like, well, why would you treat your boss better than the love of your life?
It's a wild thing when you think about it, and it is vaguely or deeply incomprehensible.
Why, why, why would you treat your boss better than your spouse, the mother of your children, the father of your children, right?
And If your boss disagrees with something, with you, right, then normally people will just sort of sit and listen and take notes and think and mull it over, and they might push back, but they're certainly not going to yell or threaten or anything like that, right?
Now, of course, you could say, well, but your spouse is not your boss, and it's like, right, right, they're much more important to you than your boss.
Much more important to you than your boss.
Your boss, you don't live with and sleep with.
You don't procreate with.
You don't have sex with, hopefully.
Your boss is not going to be with you for the rest of your life.
You don't claim to love your boss.
You haven't taken vows in front of community and or almighty God to love, treasure, honor, and respect your spouse.
And you don't give your heart to your boss and you're not vulnerable with your boss.
Your boss is infinitely less important than your spouse.
In many ways, because power corrupts, monogamy is a kind of power.
Monogamy is a kind of power.
In the same way that if your boss knew that you couldn't quit, then your boss would be potentially tempted to treat you worse, if you couldn't quit.
I mean, that's a natural monopoly in that you choose that and it's for the benefit of the children and so on, which is why even in a sort of stateless society, even in a truly free voluntary society, people would still need rigid principles because having a monopoly on somebody else's romantic and sexual and financial and parental investments Will breed corruption, right?
Power breeds corruption, but there's no way for the species to continue in a healthy manner without the power of monopoly, sexual, romantic, parental, and financial activity known as marriage, right?
So I still need that.
So anyway, so she says, it's a strange place, uncharted and raw, a land scattered with ideas that you've seen from afar but never had the nerve to wrestle down.
Again, this is very vivid and interesting, but there's no thought content yet.
To walk the line, timidly at first, dipping just a toe into that unknown is a thrill like no other.
Isn't that nice for you?
This is like all those articles that are designed for women that always start off with an anecdote.
You know, so-and-so has done such-and-such, and she feels this, that, and the other.
And it's a deep blah-blah-blah, and then finally, eventually, like, you know, 20 paragraphs in, you might get to a principal or two.
The easy road, she writes, the easy road is to dig deeper into what you already know to fortify your arguments for the side you're already on.
Lately I've been straying into that strange terrain myself, turning over ideas that clash with my own, stretching them out, writing through them.
This piece is one such endeavor and the idea I've been contemplating on, capitalism.
Okay?
Now, this is what I look for in any and every writer is a definition.
What is she talking about?
Capitalism is an intentionally occluded and opaque word, right?
It's intentionally left vague for people because those who want to manipulate you will never provide definitions so you can project your prejudices into what they're saying, right?
If you've ever been unwisely cornered into, hey, we'll get a free breakfast, we'll give you a tour of X, Y, and Z, and in return, you've got to hear our shared condo sales pitch, our free vacation club, whatever it is, right?
Well, they won't tell you the price.
Until the very end.
And then they'll tell you a horrifying price and then knock it down by 80%.
It's all, to me at least, mostly nonsense.
But I guess everyone has to learn these lessons at least once.
I certainly did.
But people will always leave definitions vague.
Because they want you to project your own prejudices into what they're saying.
So if you were to say, the idea of being contemplating on capitalism, so the next thing would be to say, what is capitalism?
Well, capitalism is a system of private property, particularly private ownership of the means of production and property rights that are universal, and the idea of voluntary trade rather than Coerced transfer of wealth and property, right?
Capitalism is the non-aggression principle and property rights as the foundation of your economic system.
It's freedom, right?
I mean, that's freedom from violence, for sure.
Socialism, fascism, communism, national socialism, these all involve the initiation of the use of force in order to transfer property.
With the cloak cover of the invisibility cloak cover of the, quote, public good, right?
Or the democratic will, right?
So, the first thing when she brings up a word like capitalism is, I want to know what the definition is.
What do you mean by capitalism?
So, this is good.
She says, I suppose before else I should square with where I stand.
Right.
Again, not trying to overly cliche the feminine, but she brings up a broad concept.
She brings up capitalism, and then she says, well, the most important part is not the definition of capitalism, but my thoughts and feelings and my life experience.
She says, I suppose before else I should square with where I stand.
As someone entrenched in the corporate world, it would be hard to argue against the very framework that sustains my livelihood without sounding like a hypocrite hacking at the branch I'm sitting on.
At least, it's good writing, by the by.
I mean, it's not got any intellectual content.
It's all feels and impressions, but it's good writing, in my opinion.
She's getting very good analogies and so on, right?
She says, I work in a field that wouldn't exist as it does without capitalism's promise of profit.
A force that fuels both innovation and competition.
Yes, innovation and competition.
Okay.
So is capitalism, is the definition of capitalism the promise of profit?
No.
No.
All life is sustained through profit.
Profit is foundational to evolution.
It is foundational to life.
So, for instance, if you expend 1,000 calories hunting a creature that gives you only 500 calories of energy, you will die.
I mean, if this is a consistent thing, right?
You have to expend...
So you're in a 500-calorie deficit.
That is a net loss, right?
So life...
It's when you have more calories from your activities than you expend in them.
And in particular, with regards to having children, you need a significant excess of calories because growing children, and let's just say for humans, right, but for animals as a whole, right, growing children requires an excess of calories.
There was an old desperate housewife from many years ago where a woman kept breastfeeding her son into like, I don't know, five, six, seven years of age because she stayed slender because she had to expend extra calories in the production of breast milk.
And so it was sort of a vanity project, right?
So all life That requires profit.
You have to have more calories coming in than you expend in pursuit of those calories, right?
Which is why cows stand there and horses stand there grazing, right?
They don't run around from one end of the field to the other to graze because that would end up with them in a calorie deficit, and a calorie deficit results in death.
That's the whole problem with northern climates, right?
That you have a whole season, a winter, where it's hard to get calories.
You need extra calories because you're cold.
And if you have a calorie deficit, and Roman talks about this in my novel, The Future, which you should definitely get at freedomain.com slash books, but you need a calorie excess.
Right?
To grow a baby, to give birth to a baby, to breastfeed a baby, to raise a child is millions of calories in excess of what you would need, right?
So you need a calorie, a significant calorie excess in order to reproduce.
And evolution is all about finding ways to reduce calorie requirements and increase Caloric excess.
So all life aims at profit and without.
So it's not just a capitalist thing, right?
Okay, well, sorry.
And even in the non-capitalist sphere, profit is necessary.
A thief, of course, tries to profit, right?
There's an old Gowan song about a guy who doesn't recognize Being a thief, he loses money because he has to go to jail for so long.
So thieves aim to profit.
In other words, they aim to get more out of their energy expenditure, and they aim to get more money out of their energy expenditure.
I mean, if you had a heist that cost $10,000 and netted $5,000, you would be $5,000 down.
So companies invest in politicians.
So that they get beneficial legislation, and for many companies, there's no better investment than a politician.
So they aim to profit from that, even though political benefits are not part of the free market.
So profit is everywhere.
I mean, she's aiming to do more good and change more minds than it costs her, so she's even aiming to profit from this.
So just saying that profit is somehow unique to capitalism is just not understanding.
The whole life runs on profit.
All right.
I'm inclined to believe capitalism is the most fitting economic system we have.
Okay, that's nice.
I'm inclined to believe capitalism is the most fitting economic system we have.
I don't know what any of that means, and there's still no definition.
There's a certain allure to its promise, a belief that the best rise through merit, that opportunity is there for the brave and resourceful to seize.
And isn't it true that many of the comforts we now take for granted, electricity, indoor plumbing, computers, vehicles, refrigerators, air conditions, are the fruits of a market-driven system that constantly seeks to outdo itself.
These aren't just luxuries.
They are the standards by which we measure our quality of life.
And capitalism has been the most fertile ground for innovation to grow.
So, again, there's no definition.
There's just this mysterious machine that produces good things.
That's kind of all she's got going on.
It's this mysterious machine that produces good things.
Even the critics of capitalism who lay at its feet problems like environmental degradation, income inequality, poor workplace conditions, and rampant consumerism are its beneficiaries.
So, critics of capitalism, environmental degradation.
Right.
So, are people saying that prior to capitalism, The environment was healthier for humans.
Is that sort of the argument?
That prior to capitalism, the environment...
I mean, if you look at sort of the Black Death, if you look at the Dark Ages, if you look at the plagues and diseases and famines and disasters and wars and so on, which were statist, not capitalist, if you look at all of these environmental issues prior to...
The rise of capitalism, it's really, really hard to say that the environment was better for humans prior to the rise of capitalism.
And of course, I mean, this is sort of an old tale.
I'm not sure if you know it, but originally, when the, you know, dark satanic mills began pumping out their noxious fumes over the apple orchards around London, the apple orchard farmers went to the government and said, well, these guys are destroying my farm.
And they're destroying the value of my apples and the governments, which were getting more money in taxes from the capitalists than they were from the farmers, sided with the capitalists and allowed air pollution to continue.
So, air pollution was not a free market issue.
It was a government corruption issue for the most part.
So, yeah.
Income inequality?
I mean, that's just a phrase.
People see the difference between rich and poor And they get upset, and they feel that it's somehow unfair and unjust, which is a child's perspective, right?
It's a child's perspective.
A child's perspective is that if somebody else gets more, I get less, right?
So you come home, there's a pie, and you and your four brothers all want a fifth of the pie.
If they get more, you get less, right?
Because as a child, you can't create and produce your own Goods and services, so the idea of production doesn't really fit in your mind.
So you end up thinking that if someone else gets more, you get less because that's the way, in general, it works as a child, right?
So this just tells me this is somebody who hasn't grown up and is looking at a zero-sum game, which is a child's perspective.
Poor workplace conditions.
Well, capitalism arose out of the end of slavery and Slaves had infinitely worse working conditions than most of the urban proletariat and so on.
A rampant consumerism So one of the things that's also tough to understand is how people criticize modern capitalism without taking into account that the education of children is socialistic or communistic.
So the education of the children is an endeavor of the state.
The state is what Trains the children.
The government is what trains the children.
So, money is taken from people through taxation and lavished upon a massive bureaucracy that the primary modern goal seems to be to indoctrinate children into lives of self-hatred and terror.
So, if people have problems with the values, In modern capitalism, and by modern, I mean I could say sort of mid-19th century, mid to late 19th century onwards, when government schools were instituted.
If people say, well, you know, people don't care about the environment.
Okay, well, who trains the children?
Well, people don't care about income inequality.
Well, who trains the children?
People end up putting poor workplace conditions on their workers.
Well, who raised those people?
Well, there's rampant consumerism.
Okay, well, who teaches the children their values?
It's the government.
The government gets the kids 12 years, 10 months of the year, 6 to 8 hours a day if you can't homework.
So if there are value problems in society, the fact that people just look at these mysterious values without talking about how the government has trained children, they're just not even remotely serious people.
Few, if any, would willingly relinquish the comforts of our modern, developed, and thoroughly technological societies, luxuries big and small, that capitalism's engine has afforded.
Again, what is capitalism?
What is the engine?
What does afforded mean in this context?
Nobody knows, but she wants to give you room to project into her non-definitions so that she'll keep reading without being upset.
She says, critics of capitalism are a plenty.
I've debated with several and pored over the writings of others.
What I rarely see, though, is a critique of capitalism that doesn't rush to present socialism or communism as the alternative.
The goal isn't necessarily to discard capitalism just because it has its share of flaws.
Rather, it's to sit with those flaws to study them long enough that we might carve out solutions.
As for the common grievances often pinned on capitalism, I won't dwell on them here.
Heaven knows there's been enough ink spilled on those already.
My complaint with capitalism, again, no definitions yet, one that I feel often slips through the cracks, is the sense of detachment people feel in their workplaces under its demands.
Sure, some might argue it's naive to attribute this to capitalism, I don't know why there's a comma there, or an apostrophe, as people are predisposed to feel discontented with their work now and then.
But this detachment isn't just a byproduct, it's a structural issue.
When profit becomes the sole driver, the value of human experience can get lost in the shuffle, and workers may feel like mere cogs in a vast, unfeeling machine.
Capitalism, with its talk of opportunity and self-made success, has an implicit promise that the individual, through hard work and ingenuity, Can find a place where they not only earn a living but derive a sense of purpose.
Implicit promise.
So capitalism just says, earn, trade, beg, and charity.
That's how you get property, right?
You create it, you earn it, you trade it, you beg for it, or you get charity.
It just says don't use force.
Don't use force.
The typical example is the dating market should be voluntary.
People should not be forced to date and have sex with each other.
And so that's really all it comes down to.
Should we initiate the use of force in human affairs?
So that's really all it comes down to.
Talk of opportunity and self-made success.
Has an implicit promise that the individual through hard work and ingenuity can find a place where they not only earn a living but derive a sense of purpose.
How on earth could capitalism?
It's like saying, well, you know, we should have forced relationships in the dating market.
People should be forced under threat of jail to date each other.
And then saying, well, there's this other system where people just voluntarily choose who they want to date.
But that system fails because some people don't find love.
You know, some people just end up dating around and sleeping around and never settling down.
And so, what?
Does that mean that there's value in forced dating, sex, and marriage?
So, yeah.
Big spoiler alert.
In a state of freedom, some people make bad choices.
In a state of freedom, some people choose To go drinking with their hard-earned income.
In a state of freedom, some people will choose to play video games rather than upgrade their skills in any economically productive way.
In a state of freedom, some people will make bad decisions.
That is not a problem with a state of freedom.
That is the definition of a state of freedom.
Now, of course, in a free society, if you make bad choices, you yourself Should bear the costs of those bad choices.
The privatization of the hedonism and the socialization of the costs of hedonism is foundational to the modern welfare state society.
That you can screw up and other people have to be forced to pay for your screw-ups.
So, this idea that, well, you know, if we don't force people to do stuff, some of them might feel that their lives lack meaning.
I mean, that's kind of a collectivist and actually kind of fascist idea.
I'm not calling this woman a fascist.
I'm just saying that this argument that meaning is derived from force, meaning is derived from being forced, that's kind of, you know, Mussolini's strong man, strong arm.
Fatherland fascist kind of thinking that in a state of freedom, people become decadent and lazy and life has no meaning, but boy, you throw them into an army and you point them at an enemy and their lives are disciplined and have meaning and purpose and it's like, it's pretty horrendous, right?
And again, that comes out of a childhood thing that children are selfish and lazy and manipulative and lie constantly and you need to bully them, force them, hit them, spank them, yell at them, time out them until they develop a sense of purpose and discipline and meaning and You know, you see this in all the YouTube comments when there's some kid who's behaving like a brat and it's like, well, this is what happens when you don't spend kids and you're in a meeting and discipline and respect and all this stuff.
Let's see here.
Yet so often this promise falls short.
Instead of a fulfilling vocation, many find themselves caught in a relentless cycle of profit-driven tasks, feeling little connection to the work they do or the people they do it for.
Right.
So, I mean, there's a funny thing that intellectuals do.
So intellectuals find great pleasure in, I mean, it's almost a tautology.
Intellectuals find great pleasure in intellectual work, right?
So this woman is taking pleasure and doing good in her mind by writing this article.
And they look at people who don't take any pleasure in intellectual pursuits and they project themselves into those people and they say, gee, you know, when I was a waiter in my early 20s, I worked in a restaurant, sort of a high-end seafood restaurant downtown, and there were waiters there, particularly I'm thinking of one guy who was a waiter and he was in his 40s.
Now, of course, for me, if I was still a waiter in my 40s, That would be pretty bad.
But he said, and I asked him about this, he's like, man, I love this.
This is great.
You know, I'm really good at what I do.
It's kind of brain dead.
I make a lot of money.
I can travel.
I can do fun things.
And this is a great life for me, right?
So if you look at somebody else's life and you say, that would be horrible for me, and then thinking it's horrible for them, you know, intellectuals live to work, right?
They do this kind of stuff for free.
They read books, they debate, they write often for free.
So intellectuals live to work.
But there's a massive contingent of people out there, really the majority of the population, that work to live, right?
They go put in there seven and a half or eight hours.
And they come home and they don't think about work and they don't want to and they just go and do their thing and they don't strive for all of this meaning and depth and influence and satisfaction.
They just go to work and do their thing.
I mean, do you think, you know, if you've got a problem with your toilet and you call the plumber, do you think that the plumber is there for depth and meaning and purpose?
No, he's there to make some money and fix your toilet.
And it's very honorable work.
It's fine work and I appreciate it and it's great.
But of course, you know, I've worked a lot with people Who do a lot of manual labor.
And if you've not talked to people who do jobs that aren't meaningful, then it's just a weird kind of narcissistic projection onto people, right?
To say, well, if I had to do what they would do, I would feel alienated and miserable.
Well, but you're different, right?
Remember, a third of people don't even have an inner dialogue.
I mean, they're NPCs, so to speak, right?
I mean, there's nothing wrong with that in particular, it's just the way that life is, right?
It's like some singer saying, well, you know, I can't believe people aren't singers.
It's like, well, they're not singers because they don't have great pitch, they don't have a great singing voice, they don't, right?
They're just not singers because they're not I mean, I was listening the other day to an old Queen song, Teo Toriate, Let's Cling Together, which is a song they sung off in Japanese.
And I mean, there's the silvery, beautiful tones of Freddie Mercury singing at the beginning of that.
It's just staggeringly good, right?
And nobody else really has ever been able to come close to those kinds of tones.
And I think that really was the album where his voice was at its peak.
But, you know, for Freddie Mercury, not that he ever did, would sit there and say, Well, he did sit there and say, well, if I couldn't do this, I'd be a stripper or something like that, right?
So, for singers, it's pretty narcissistic for singers to say, I can't believe people aren't singers.
Well, first of all, they need people who aren't singers, so they have someone to sing to, because if everyone was a singer, there'd be a very crowded stage and no one in the audience, right?
So there'd be no business, right?
So, people who have a good facility with intellectual stuff, yeah.
Enjoy it, right?
But thinking that other people are miserable, I would be miserable as a waiter in my 40s, but this guy wasn't, right?
There's nothing wrong with that.
We're different.
We're different.
So, alright.
So while capitalism has undeniably lifted the material standard of life, it leaves the question lingering, is there a way for it to serve both the pocket and the soul to create not only prosperity but genuine fulfillment?
So I'm not sure how the admonition, don't steal, thou shalt not steal, just don't rob people, right?
Don't be a criminal, don't be a thief, don't rob people.
It's like, well, that's nice, but the problem is that doesn't create a sense of deep meaning and purpose for people.
What the fuck?
Like, honestly, this is incomprehensible to me.
You know, if you say, as every society should, rape is evil, I don't rape, rape is evil, you say, yeah, okay, well, but on the other side, not raping, for some people, doesn't create a deep sense of meaning and purpose.
And it's like, how is that both sides of the equation?
Anyway, so, it's just odd to me.
We might catch glimpses of restlessness now and then, perhaps in the quiet of a long commute, or in that fleeting moment between tasks.
Perhaps we fear that if we look too closely, we might find ourselves more entangled than liberated by the very system promising us opportunity and happiness.
Still, there's dignity in a hard day's work, some structure to the day, and savings that were likely to get us through retirement, so corporate workers find much to be thankful, I think she means for, even in a career path that may not be their ultimate dream.
Sure.
Sure, so people have different levels of risk tolerance, right?
I mean, if you've ever sat down with a financial investor, the financial investor will say, you should say, I think, like, what is your risk tolerance?
Do you want high risk, high reward, low risk, low reward, right?
So people have different levels of risk tolerance.
So what?
I mean, that's partly, I assume, that's to some degree genetic, and it's to some degree people make trade-offs, right?
So people who become entrepreneurs sometimes make a lot of money and sometimes go broke.
And everybody has their own particular dial of risk tolerance.
My risk tolerance is quite high.
Other people's risk tolerance is quite low.
I'm not better.
They're not worse.
They're not better.
I'm not worse.
Society needs its ballast and it needs its propulsion systems.
It needs its momentum, it needs its inertia, and it needs its propulsion.
So, people will make trade-offs, and they will say, I prefer a life that's less exciting, because excitement goes both ways, right?
I mean, excitement, if you're on a roller coaster, there's not really a big negative other than some time and money.
Which you're choosing to spend, but a roller coaster is not the same as being an entrepreneur.
Being an entrepreneur means that you risk going totally bankrupt and living in a car.
I mean, for a lot of people, right?
I certainly remember that phase of being an entrepreneur when I had to sign promissory notes to the bank that I was personally liable for in order to make payroll, which would have put me in crushing debt for years and years had I Had we not been able to make the business a success.
So that's a level of risk that a lot of people are not comfortable with and good for them.
There's nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with that at all.
Some people like to take strolls along the boardwalk.
Other people like mountain climbing.
There's nothing wrong with taking strolls along the boardwalk.
There's nothing wrong with mountain climbing.
It's just different levels of risk tolerance.
So sure, and listen, without a doubt, everybody looks at the other side with envy from time to time.
So the people with low risk tolerance look at the people with high risk tolerance with envy.
For sure.
And people with high risk tolerance look at the people with low risk tolerance from time to time with envy.
I mean, do not think that somebody freezing to death because they are climbing Mount Everest and things went really badly, do not think that those people in the process of freezing to death, whose bodies are probably still frozen up there, for some reason they're tough to get down, but do not think that those people look at others Who are not currently freezing to death because they are real thrill junkies and wanted to climb Mount Everest?
Do you not think they look at those people with some envy?
Right?
And you can see this, I mean, Trump really personifies this, right?
So Trump is a very high risk tolerance person, right?
He's gone bankrupt a bunch of times and has started massive amounts of ventures, had like 400 lawsuits even before the modern And so he's a high-risk tolerance person.
And, you know, people ask him about that.
He says, well, you know, there are people dying in India.
It's literally not that serious what I'm doing.
So he's a high-risk tolerance person, and people hate that.
And some people love it, and some people hate it.
And so people with a low risk tolerance say, well, Trump's got bankrupt a bunch of times, therefore he's a failure.
And that's just how they would frame it to themselves.
You're a failure if you fail.
It's existentially bad and you'll be attacked and criticized and mocked and scorned forever.
And that's their low risk tolerance.
So they look at Trump and they say, what he's doing is bad or wrong or something like that.
And that's because they have a low risk tolerance.
And this woman is looking at those who have a low risk tolerance and saying, well, aren't there times where they feel empty and that they've missed the boat and they haven't pursued their dreams?
Sure.
Of course there are.
Of course there are.
And then there's the guy who, you know, put his heart, mind, soul, guts, blood, and savings into starting a business that crashed and burned.
And he has to go through bankruptcy and he loses just about everything.
And he looks at his neighbor across the street.
Who's a plumber who's, you know, dining with his kids in a well-lit, warm, comfortable house while the entrepreneur's living in his car and looks and says, I should have done that.
Sure.
So saying that we occasionally envy the opposite is saying something so banal it's barely worth stating.
Right?
I mean, yeah, it's an old Woody Allen movie where the young single swinging guy Looks at the guy who's got the stable kids and wife and dinner every night with his family and envies that.
Whereas the guy who's in the marriage looks at the swinging guy who's got a new girl every week and envies that.
Yeah, okay, so whatever, right?
Of course.
It's just kind of boring.
But saying that people with a low risk tolerance sometimes wonder if they missed the boat, sure.
And people with a high-risk tolerance sometimes regret the risks they take and wish they'd taken a safer path.
Sure, that's part of the natural correction mechanism of the mind.
But thinking this is somehow endemic to capitalism, I don't know.
All right.
And it's not as though companies are oblivious to the discontent and detachment their employees experience.
Corporate offices like those I've encountered can be quite remarkable.
Many feature buffet-style meals, meditation centers, gyms, lounges filled with video games and ping-pong tables and coffee bars, all aimed at crafting an enticing work environment.
At times, it seems those perks are designed to encourage employees to linger longer within the office walls.
Companies don't just market their products, sell their workplace, blah, blah, blah.
Capitalism leans not only on the visible market economy that drives consumer demand, but also on an unspoken shadow economy that subtly shapes its producers, drawing them into cycles of labor and loyalty that sustain the very system they serve.
Yeah, I mean, I used to stay and play Unreal Tournament and Quake with my employees and then we'd go out for dinner and usually the company would pay and yeah, it was nice.
But we, you know, all very productive and building things together, and I got them stock options, and they did well and all that.
So, all right.
The job becomes rebranded.
From employment into a complete way of life, I have friends who clock in over 12 hours a day at the office with little room left for a social life outside of work.
Their weekdays revolve around the job, they exercise at the office gym, and on weekends they unwind with colleagues over beers or participate in office sports leagues playing critic on Sundays, cricket.
Unmarried men and women...
Sure, yeah.
So if you are at work, and these are company towns and so on, right?
So if you're at work and you socialize with people at work, then you're drawing from a pool of like-minded people and maybe you can find someone to date and fall in love with and marry and have kids with.
So yeah, that seems all very good.
Makes sense to me.
What's wrong with that, right?
But it's voluntary, right?
I mean, she's not sitting there saying, you know, I mean, she's not sitting there saying, gee, I wonder if kids are alienated from schools because their needs and preferences are never taken into account, and they're just forced to learn things they're not interested in with a curriculum that they and their parents have no say in, and they're forced to do homework, right?
So for kids, right, this is a funny thing.
So for kids...
Adult time is like twice, right?
So for kids, an hour is like two hours for an adult, at a minimum, right?
The younger you are, the longer it is, right?
So for kids, I mean, if you've ever had to wait with kids in a doctor's room or a dentist's room, like a waiting room, for little kids, it's tough, right?
If you've got to wait for half an hour, that's fine, but the little kids get bored and restless, right?
So let's just say, but let's just be generous and say it's like two to one, right?
Okay.
So how would this woman feel about a company that forced people to work there, worked them for 12 hours straight, And then sent them home with two to four hours of extra work.
She'd say that's appalling.
They're forced to be there.
They don't have any choice.
And then even when they get home, they're forced to do work.
Well, that's six hours a day of school, at a minimum, like six hours a day of school, forced to be there.
That's 12 hours, right?
And then one to two hours of homework, that's two to four hours.
So, you know, at a maximum of 12 hours of work and then four hours of homework, they'd say, oh my God, that gives them no time.
All they can do is sleep.
Like, that's really alienating.
That's really weird.
But she can't see it, right?
Like, people can't see that stuff.
I mean, I don't know why.
I mean, if you're going to say, well, being alienated from your environment, oh, and also is bad, then that would be kids, right?
Kids are notoriously bored in school.
They hate school.
They're usually forced to be there or their parents are certainly forced to pay for it no matter what.
And they're sent home with homework and so on, right?
And if, can you imagine that if it also came to light that these employers who were making their employees work for 12 hours a day and then sending them home with two to four extra hours of work, If those employers were also, if anyone who really complained or got bored restless, they would drug them.
I mean, you would consider this monstrous, right?
But that's the way that government schools work.
It's strange to me that people don't see that, but I guess that's the general lack of empathy for kids, right?
All right.
One might argue that working in such an office is far more enjoyable than toiling away in a place where the only focus is on the grind, where the atmosphere is as drab as the fluorescent lights overhead.
Okay, so one might argue, uh, contend, uh, kind of careful in employers' entertainment, but should officers really take it upon themselves to fill the void in their employees' lives?
Well, they're not forcing anyone.
They're making, like, I didn't force anyone to stay and, and play video games or go out for dinner with me, right?
Uh, because anybody who left, it was like, good, have a good evening, right?
Um, shouldn't the workplace serve its purpose and then step back, allowing employees to reclaim their leisure hours?
Again, it's not being forced on anyone.
And let's say that you say, well, you know, I want to hang out and play video games with my boss because then I'll get ahead.
Okay, well, that's a choice, right?
That's a choice based upon ambition and all that, right?
Nothing wrong with that.
Imagine if officers operated with fewer demands on their time granting employees the freedom to cultivate their lives outside the workplace.
Okay.
So what do you mean allowing, right?
Nobody's forced to...
Nobody's forced to play...
What was it?
Some sport on the weekend?
Nobody's forced usually to stay late.
It's a choice, right?
Spending time with family, engaging in social activities, pursuing hobbies and gathering experiences that enrich their souls.
Well, I've witnessed colleagues pour their lives into the office culture, yet when conversations shift to their dreams outside of work, there's a palpable hesitation if they're unsure how to articulate what truly matters to them.
Yeah, so, spoiler, some people First, they like their work, they find their work engaging and enjoyable, and some people would rather work now and have leisure later.
So if you put the grind in now, you make a lot of money when you're young, you have time for a huge amount of leisure later.
And arguably, that's a pretty sensible strategy, right?
Because when you're young, you have a lot more energy and focus and you sleep better and you've pep in your step, right?
So that's the time to work hard.
And then let's say that you work really hard and then you can retire at 50 or 55, Well, you have less energy, so that's when you do all your hobbies, that's when you do your travel, that's when you do that social activities and you play sports and all that kind of stuff, right?
So, I mean, what's wrong with pouring your energy into the work when you're younger to make money so you can retire when you're older?
It's a choice, right?
I'll steer clear, she says, of commenting on the overused notion of work-life balance, a phrase that's marked countless heated discussions in corporate circles.
Right.
Blah, blah, blah.
Companies overwork their employees.
Well, of course, if you're concerned about overwork, then you should be concerned about taxes, right?
So when half of people's workday is taken away from them through taxation, then lowering taxes would give them more work-life balance.
Right?
If And if significant portions of their paycheck are taken up for some fairly useless overhead called human resources, maybe shrink that so that people have more money in their pocket, right?
Because the more money that's taken away from you, the less choice you have.
The less choice you have.
So all that takes away from the income of employees is shrinking their scope and choice.
But she's not saying, well, we need to find a way to lower taxes and lower useless bureaucratic corporate overhead and regulations because that takes away people's income and would give them more choice.
She doesn't say anything like that.
It doesn't see it, right?
And this is just going with feels rather than principles, right?
All right.
So what is the solution?
One might impatiently ask.
So, what is the solution?
Well, whatever the solution is, sorry, whatever the problem is, the solution is more freedom, less coercion, more voluntary interactions, right?
So, I think, let's just, let me do the last paragraph, right?
For the first time in the history of the human race, work is for many no longer a means to an end, but an end in itself, and perhaps we don't know how to live with this new reality.
Um...
No longer a means to an end, but an end in itself.
Not really sure what that means.
What is the solution?
One might impatiently ask.
If there is one, it's far from foolproof.
Perhaps it lies in nurturing our ability to introspect.
Yeah, sure, absolutely.
Absolutely.
When people are pillaged through taxation and people are indoctrinated as children through government, schools and so on, well, what you want is just nurture your ability to introspect.
Sure, absolutely.
Nurture your ability to introspect.
That'll solve it.
To read the fine print, if only to avoid the disappointment of waking up two decades later with only faint recollections of neglected hobbies, lost friendships, or those small dreams we once promised ourselves we'd chase someday.
Oh, to read the fine print.
Or by making our jobs a smaller part of our lives and our identities that we might want more for ourselves.
Ultimately, the answer may be simply to want more, more meaning, more purpose, more depth in existence.
Yeah, none of that's practical.
That's all feeling stuff.
There were bigger communities when taxes were lower.
There were more communities when taxes were lower and women were home building their communities and so on, right?
So, this feelings-based thing, you know, just nurture your ability to introspect and so on.
And sure, I mean, there's nothing wrong with introspection, but the idea that people who are trapped in Bad education, propaganda as kids, propaganda in university, and massive crushing taxes and bureaucracy both within the company and outside in terms of government regulation that the problem is looking at their dreams.
The problem is that the excessive force within society is driving happiness from us as it always does.
She just hasn't defined anything and there's no morals whatsoever.
So she just ends up with these vague, unactionable calls to introspection and meaning.
So how about less calls for introspection and less coercion in social and economic affairs?
Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
Thank you so much.
▲
Export Selection