Virtue vs Politics! Stefan Molyneux Interviewed!

Stefan Molyneux

Jeffrey Wernick and Stefan Molyneux discuss morality, peaceful parenting, and philosophy. Molyneux defines morality as "universally preferable behavior," emphasizing the importance of respecting autonomy and property rights. They explore the implications of parenting styles, advocating for non-coercive, autonomy-building approaches. Wernick shares personal experiences from his upbringing and critiques societal norms that permit abusive parenting. The conversation touches on the role of government and the potential of Bitcoin to enhance personal freedom. Overall, it offers insights into moral philosophy and its relevance to parenting and societal structures.   GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND AUDIOBOOK!   https://peacefulparenting.com/   Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!   Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material, as well as targeted AIs for Real-Time Relationships, BitCoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-Ins. Don't miss the private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!   See you soon!   https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022

Transcript

00:00:00Hi, I am Jeffrey Warnick, and I'm pleased to have my guest here with me, Stefan Molyneux.

00:00:06If I mispronounce that, please correct me.

00:00:09That's fine.

00:00:10Okay, I did good. Okay, good. First, I'd like to apologize for starting actually 10 minutes late.

00:00:17It's on me, entirely on me. They were ready. I had tech issues. It's totally on me. Sorry.

00:00:22This stuff happens and we apologize for being on late, but here we are.

00:00:29I was a listener early on to Free Domain. I characterized myself as an anarcho-capitalist,

00:00:40and there were not many anarcho-capitalist podcasters. There still aren't many,

00:00:48but I remember that Stefan was, I guess he might have had the most widely listened to

00:00:56a podcast among people who might have been self-described as anarcho-capitalists.

00:01:02And so I listened to some of the episodes. I wasn't necessarily a faithful listener

00:01:09to any podcast or many podcasts at all, but I did occasionally listen when I found myself

00:01:16with nothing better to do. No offense, Stefan, but I prefer reading, and I was also busy working,

00:01:24but I did find your podcast interesting and probably listened to it more than most podcasts

00:01:30that I listened to, which was not many. So I understand the topic that you want to discuss

00:01:36today is upon peaceful parenting. I'd also describe what you do as philosophy.

00:01:44I think sometimes you describe it as moral philosophy, but I would like to start off

00:01:52questioning you is how do you define morality and moral philosophy? I think many people consider

00:02:00themselves moral philosophy, and many people who describe themselves as moral philosophers,

00:02:05other people would describe as either immoral or amoral philosophers. So the question is who

00:02:11controls the definition of what it means, what moral means, and who defines what a moral person

00:02:18is. That's a great question. And the reason that I do that is that morality is the one area

00:02:25in philosophy that is exclusive to philosophy. Now, philosophy is like the all discipline.

00:02:29You have a philosophy of science, you have a philosophy of morals, you have a philosophy of

00:02:35politics, you have a philosophy of self-defense and property rights, but the one thing that

00:02:41philosophy should focus and center on is the primary differentiator in the general spread

00:02:48of human knowledge, which is morals and virtues and so on. So it's not who gets to define morality,

00:02:57it's what is morality. So my definition of morality is it is universally preferable

00:03:03behavior, behavior that can be achieved by everyone at all times, under all circumstances,

00:03:12and does not logically self-contradict. Now, this is taken to some degree out of

00:03:16science and physics, right? So if you have... Well, it's got a Kantian.

00:03:21Yes, I'm sorry, I hate to say yes and no, but... So Kant would say act as if the maximum of your

00:03:27action becomes a universal moral rule, but that is not objective because let's say you're the

00:03:33strongest guy in the village and you say arm wrestling is how we should determine who gets

00:03:38the bride. Well, you'd be happy to have that be a universal rule because you are

00:03:43the strongest guy, so you're going to win that contest. Or the tallest guy saying the tallest

00:03:47guy should get all of the wheat or grain or something. So it's in terms of universality

00:03:54for sure, but what I'm looking for is a rigorous logical universality. So if you're in physics

00:04:02and you say, I want to come up with some conjecture or hypothesis about the behavior

00:04:08of matter and energy, well, the first thing that you have to do is show that your

00:04:14proof or your conjecture, really, your proof comes later, that your hypothesis is logically

00:04:19consistent. So you can't say, well, the basis of my physical theory is that gases both

00:04:25expand and contract when heated. It's like, well, no, no, they can't do both. You can't say,

00:04:30well, the foundation of my approach to how the universe works is that gravity is when

00:04:35mass both repels and attracts each other simultaneously. It's like, well, no, no.

00:04:39So it has to have an internal logic to it. That's the first test. Now, once the physics theory

00:04:46passed the test of internal consistency and logic, then we can start to say, does it accurately

00:04:51describe and predict what occurs in the world? It's the same thing with a mathematical theory

00:04:56or even a business theory. A business theory can't say, well, we're going to go from 5 million

00:05:02to 50 million by expanding and contracting the business at the same time. That would be

00:05:07the actions of a lunatic who's probably writing with poop on the walls of his padded cell.

00:05:12So you'd have to have some kind of consistency, and then your business plan should accurately

00:05:17predict and describe what happens to a large degree. So internal consistency,

00:05:21accuracy in the world is the standard we use for everything. And why not morality?

00:05:27So when it comes to internal consistency, we have to say, okay, morality has to accept that

00:05:32there's universally preferable behavior. And if you argue against that, you agree with it. You

00:05:38cannot argue against the validity of universally preferable behavior. Because if someone comes

00:05:43along to me and says, Steph, there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior, therefore you

00:05:49shouldn't argue for it. Well, they're saying that there is that which exists and is valid and that

00:05:53which does not exist and is not valid. And you should never argue for that which does not exist

00:05:57or is not valid. And you should always argue for things that exist and are valid. So that's

00:06:01universally preferable behavior. It's impossible to argue against the validity of universal

00:06:06preferable behavior because you'd have to deploy it in order to disprove someone.

00:06:10So once we accept that there is universally preferable behavior, which can't be denied,

00:06:15then the only question is, what is universally preferable behavior? Now, if we look at the four

00:06:22main aspects of morality that are consistently upheld and no sane person would disagree with,

00:06:28which I know is not a proof, but let's just do a little shorthand here for a moment.

00:06:32And you say, well, the big four bands are rape, theft, assault, and murder, right? So rape is

00:06:38the violation of bodily autonomy. Theft is the violation of property rights. Assault is another

00:06:43violation of bodily autonomy. And murder, of course, is the ultimate denial of bodily autonomy

00:06:49by making the person unaligned. We're talking about, basically,

00:06:52part of the Ten Commandments, which basically says, don't covet anything that's not yours.

00:06:57Right. And thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. And rape and assault would be included.

00:07:04Assault is a minor form of physical damage compared to murder.

00:07:08So then we have to say, okay, so let's just say-

00:07:11Because we have property in ourselves like we have property in any other

00:07:14asset. So any violation of us, our body, or our body is a violation of us. Madison said,

00:07:22we have rights in our property and property in our rights. So in that respect,

00:07:27anything that's a deprivation of our rights, which is our property, is a violation of us.

00:07:34So it would fall into that principle of kind of consistent with the Ten Commandments is

00:07:41that if it's not yours, not only don't take it, don't even covet it, don't even desire it.

00:07:46Right.

00:07:47So to the extent that that's possible to do, but that's the obligation. The obligation is

00:07:52not only to not do the act, the obligation is not to even think about doing the act,

00:07:56because coveting is more than just doing it. It means even thinking about it and contemplating it

00:08:02and having a desire to do it. And we're not supposed to even have the desires on anything

00:08:07that's not ours.

00:08:09Right. Yeah. I mean, it's a lot easier to stop evil in the mind than it is in the hands, right?

00:08:15So let's look at stealing. So if somebody says stealing is moral, stealing is universally

00:08:26preferable behavior. It is universally preferable that everyone steal at all times,

00:08:32under all circumstances, everywhere, no matter what. Okay. So that's a hypothesis, right?

00:08:37And if that hypothesis or that argument, that moral argument, if what it does is it results

00:08:43in immediate self-contradictions, then it's invalid because self-contradictions

00:08:51are exactly what Socratic reasoning is designed to tease out and reject, right? So in the same

00:08:56way that science, if your theory contradicts itself, it cannot be valid. So then we say,

00:09:01okay, so let's look at stealing. What is stealing? Well, stealing is the unwanted

00:09:07taking of someone else's property. Now you can take other people's property

00:09:12and they want you to, right? So if you are at a restaurant and they are like, hey, free samples,

00:09:20right? There's someone out front with a little tray. They got the chicken and the little toothpick

00:09:24in it. And they say, here's your free, it's their chicken, but they want you to take it.

00:09:30If you take an old couch and you put it out on the side of the road with a sign that says,

00:09:34take me, then someone comes and takes your property, right? So it has to be the unwanted

00:09:39taking of somebody else's. That's not a taking. You're being given and you're accepting a gift.

00:09:45Right. You're removing the property, but the person wants you to, right?

00:09:48Yes. So that's not, I wouldn't consider that a taking.

00:09:52Okay. But you are transferring property. It has to be the transfer of property against will.

00:09:57It's transfer of property based upon mutual voluntary consent.

00:10:01Right. And so that's lovemaking as opposed to rape.

00:10:05There's no coercion involved. There's a complete absence of coercion.

00:10:08Right. Yeah. So, I mean, I appreciate that clarification. That's a very good way to put it.

00:10:14So if we say that there's a moral theory called theft is universally preferable behavior,

00:10:21can this be logically sustained? And the answer is an emphatic no, completely. And that this is

00:10:28at two levels. One is that if theft is the good, then anybody who's not actively stealing must be

00:10:35doing the bad. Because if theft is the good, the opposite of theft, which is respecting property

00:10:40rights must be the bad. Now there's a general principle, which is a common sense principle.

00:10:46I call it the coma test, which is a guy in a coma can't be evil because he can't act. He can't make

00:10:52any choices. He can't execute on any of his choices in a coma. A guy who's asleep, a guy

00:10:57can't be evil while you're in a coma. Now, if theft is the good, then the respecting of property

00:11:03rights, i.e. not stealing, must be the evil. But a guy in a coma isn't stealing anything.

00:11:09He can't steal anything. And therefore, he must be evil because he's not engaging in the act of

00:11:13theft. Therefore, he's respecting property rights in that he's not stealing anything. And that's

00:11:17just a kind of common sense thing. So that's the first layer. The second layer is it's like

00:11:24ontologically, by its very definition, tautologically almost, it is impossible for

00:11:30theft to be universally preferable behavior. Because theft is the unwanted transfer of property.

00:11:37The undecided, unagreed to, unwanted transfer of property. Sorry, you wanted to mention?

00:11:41I think there's something to it. This is a moral argument on why many people say,

00:11:46which I would assert as well, that a free market capitalist system, not the phony system that we

00:11:52have in the US, which is not a capitalist system. There are very few capitalists in the United

00:11:57States. Anybody, my definition, anybody that knocks on the door of government and asks for

00:12:02a privilege or a benefit is not a capital. They're a crony. So anyone who wants to tilt the playing

00:12:09field outside of the context of the marketplace, to me, is a crony. So real capitalists wouldn't

00:12:19rely upon all transactions being voluntary and mutually agreed upon. And if all transactions

00:12:29are voluntary and mutually agreed upon, then there's nothing done by coercion. Everybody

00:12:34is doing a trade. They're doing it based upon their own free will. And they're doing it because

00:12:39they're satisfied with the results of the exchange. Because if they weren't satisfied,

00:12:44they wouldn't do it. And maybe sometimes after the fact, they might not be satisfied.

00:12:49But at least they won't think there was anything inappropriate about it. They just might have said,

00:12:54gee, I made a bad decision. And I hopefully will learn something that the next time I engage in

00:12:59exchange and trade, I'll be smarter than I did the last time. But the only person I have to blame is

00:13:05myself, not the other person, as long as there's not an act of deception. And if there's an act

00:13:10of deception, there's usually some recourse associated based upon the documents that are

00:13:14agreed upon at the time the exchange is entered into. So that makes capitalism, in my opinion,

00:13:22the most moral system in the world. I agree. So let's just finish the proof for theft,

00:13:30and the other ones are very easy after that. So can theft be universally preferable behavior?

00:13:35No. Because for theft to be universally preferable behavior, everybody must want to

00:13:42steal and be stolen from at the same time. But that's impossible. Because if I want...

00:13:48And many people want to steal, they just don't want to be stolen from.

00:13:51Well, if I say...

00:13:54Then you're getting into lack of internal consistency, which basically... But lack of

00:13:59internal consistency is a very human attribute. So...

00:14:03Well, no, but we're talking about not individual scientists, but a scientific

00:14:06theory, right? So individual scientists can be bad at science, but that doesn't invalidate

00:14:10the scientific method or the logic of the proposed hypothesis. So if, let's say, two guys,

00:14:17Bob and Doug, right? So if we say Bob and Doug must both want to steal and be stolen from at

00:14:22the same time, it's impossible. Because, first of all, they can't just keep stealing from each

00:14:27other because there's, you know, the property, let's say it's a phone, they keep stealing the

00:14:31phone back and forth from each other. But if Bob wants Doug to take his property, it's not theft.

00:14:37If Doug wants Bob to take his property, it's not theft. Then it's in the realm of a gift or

00:14:42something by the roadside or a food sample or something like that. So theft is when one person

00:14:48does not want the property transfer to occur. But if you say theft is universally preferable

00:14:53behavior, then everybody must want to steal and be stolen from at the same time. But if you want

00:15:00to be stolen from, it's not theft, and therefore the category completely disappears in a giant

00:15:05flailing of self-contradiction. So you cannot ever say with any logical consistency theft is a

00:15:12universally preferable behavior. Now, the opposite of theft is respect of property rights.

00:15:19Is it possible, in other words, do no logical contradictions arise from everyone respecting

00:15:27property rights all the time? Like, let's just take the phone and Bob and Doug, right? So it's

00:15:31Doug's phone and Bob doesn't take it. Can both people achieve that without self-contradiction?

00:15:37Of course. Absolutely. So the fact that respect for property rights is universally preferable

00:15:46behavior that results in no self-contradiction because it is possible. The guy in the coma,

00:15:51is the guy in the coma stealing Bob's phone? No, he's not, right? Therefore, he cannot be

00:15:57categorized as evil, so it passes just that common sense coma test. And also, there's no

00:16:02logical self-contradiction in the respect for property rights. However, if you say theft is

00:16:09universally preferable behavior, there is an immediate self-contradiction in that theft

00:16:13vanishes as a category if everybody wants to steal and be stolen from, and therefore you have a self...

00:16:18You're saying that this is a valid principle, but the principle evaporates the moment you try to

00:16:22apply it universally. So it's asymmetrical, is sort of what I'm saying, that two people cannot

00:16:27both achieve the morals at the same time. Let's look at rape. So, I mean, it's a sordid example,

00:16:34but it's one of the few unambiguously evil things. Like, you could say, well, I'm stealing something

00:16:38back, or, you know, the guy hit me first and therefore assault, or it's a boxing. Like,

00:16:42rape is one of these things. It's unsavory to talk about, but of course, it is one of the few things

00:16:46where there's no moral ambiguity. So if we were to say something as evil as rape is universally

00:16:52preferable behavior, then everybody must want to rape and be raped at the same time. But if you want

00:16:57to be raped, it's not rape. It's then some, I don't know, weird kinky sexual thing or something

00:17:02like that, but it's not rape. If you sign a consent form saying this person is allowed to have sex

00:17:07with me, then it's not rape. And it's the same thing with assault. It's the same thing with

00:17:11murder. So rape, theft, assault, and murder are all completely... Sorry, go ahead. The same concept is

00:17:18if it is mutual consent among consenting adults who have the capacity, the mental capacity to

00:17:24know what they're doing, and they mutually consent, then it's okay. It's not okay when

00:17:31one party does not consent and there's coercion involved. So it's the introduction of coercion

00:17:38that makes the act evil and immoral. Right. So when it comes to defining what morality is,

00:17:49morality is universally preferable behavior, and a respect for persons and property is the only

00:17:54ethical system that accords with the need for universally preferable behavior. All other moral

00:18:01systems are not consistent with the requirements of universally preferable behavior. They all

00:18:08self-contradict to one way or another. And of course, if you try to enact a self-contradictory

00:18:14goal, you will simply fail, which is why coercion fails, which is why government systems fail,

00:18:20which is why fiat currency fails, and national debts, and government education, and just everything

00:18:24that is based upon asymmetrical coercion. None of it accords with universally preferable behavior

00:18:30and objective proof of secular morality and morality that does not need the guns of the

00:18:34government. It's generally, it's not voluntary. There is coercion involved, but many of these

00:18:41things are generally accepted acts of coercion. People accept, parents accept the school system,

00:18:48they send their kids to school. Of course, there's coercion involved because there's a

00:18:52consequence associated with not going. If you, well, there's more people homeschooling now,

00:18:56but the reality is, you know, if you have to show up, if you have to show up for, like when I was

00:19:04a student, when I was in school, you know, I try and cut as many days as I could. I was a good

00:19:13student. So, you know, I got high test scores, you know, so I didn't need to be in the classroom.

00:19:19But why was I in the classroom? And why did the schools force me to be in the classroom? Because

00:19:25how much money they get from the government each day is a function of how many people are sitting

00:19:29in the seat in the classroom. So I was forced to be in the classroom against my will, you know,

00:19:35it was an act of coercion. And, you know, for me, I was a rebel. So teachers, you know, on the one

00:19:43hand, they probably would have preferred I was not in the classroom either. But, you know, so,

00:19:52but that is a generally accepted principle, even though it's an act of coercion, like government

00:19:59is considered, you know, people have a trade off where they say, you know, I'd rather have this

00:20:04government than I'd have, you know, what they think would be the consequences of, you know,

00:20:09of living under, you know, an anarchist system, which they probably don't even understand very

00:20:15well. They understand the caricature of it. But they don't understand they don't understand that

00:20:20with respect to anarchy. Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean an absence of rules.

00:20:24It means an application of rules where all the parties who are in that ecosystem agree to live

00:20:32under those rules. And there's free entry and free exit from that if they decide they don't

00:20:36want to follow those rules. So what they enter into with consent, and there's no party that can

00:20:42force them to consent, nor can they force them to withdraw their consent. So these are rules that

00:20:48people mutually agree upon, because they think there's a benefit for doing so. So they think it's

00:20:53a trade off that they they think they benefit from that trade off. And when they think they

00:20:57no longer benefit from that trade off, you know, the transaction cost of exiting that community

00:21:03and going to another community is very low. So but we but the world accepts a system where

00:21:10the transaction costs associated with deciding to exit a community and enter a new community

00:21:16when there are a lot of restrictions on you entering into a new community,

00:21:19and there's a high cost associated with exiting community.

00:21:23Well, unless you vote for a bigger government, then you're welcome to cross the border.

00:21:27So, so, you know, so I think one of the questions asked, and also get into audience comment,

00:21:38children cannot consent, they do not have the maturity needed to do so. So here we have a

00:21:44system where except hierarchy, where you have kids don't have the development to, you know,

00:21:52I think many psychological studies show that, you know, our cognitive skills we develop,

00:21:57well, it seems to me, I think most of society never develops cognitive skills. So that are,

00:22:05that are free of, you know, significant amount of biases. So I think, I think, I think we're not a

00:22:11cognitively advanced species. But I think what is what I've seen in scientific studies that

00:22:19we don't become really cognitively aware, maybe there's a better term than that,

00:22:24until we're in our late teens. So the question is, is when people are developing their cognitive

00:22:29skills, you know, what degree of autonomy should they have? And to what extent? You know,

00:22:37to what extent should they have to be? And what's to say that the parent necessarily is more mature

00:22:44than the child? Well, I guess we would cross our fingers on that one. I think the general principle

00:22:49should be you should get maximum liberty, based upon your capacity to foresee the consequences of

00:22:55your actions. Right? So when we're adults, and we see a bunch of candy at Halloween, we're like,

00:23:00oh, well, I don't want to get a cavity. And I don't want to gain weight. And I don't want to

00:23:04court diabetes, because we can see the consequences of that. So we're not just based

00:23:08on this mammalian taste good kind of eat as much as you can. But as kids, they don't really see

00:23:13that the future is a bit of a blur. They live in this kind of hooded moment to moment existence.

00:23:20So the, the parents have to be the future selves of the children restraining the appetites of the

00:23:26children in here and now because children will just eat until they get sick for the most part,

00:23:30right? So as soon as children begin to develop a sense of consequences, then we let them have more

00:23:36and more liberty. And then of course, the goal is by the time they reach, as you say, their late

00:23:40teens, they are able to navigate their way through life, knowing that there are consequences to

00:23:46particular actions. I always told my daughter, the same thing over and over again. I said, you know,

00:23:53with freedom comes responsibility. The more responsible your behavior, the more freedom

00:23:58you have. So as she developed better and better, uh, as she became more and more responsible person,

00:24:07I gave her more and more freedom and I wanted her to have as much freedom as quickly as possible.

00:24:14You know, and I wanted her to demonstrate the responsibility that she understood that freedom

00:24:18and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. So, uh, you know, in the real world,

00:24:24what happens if I have freedom and I go rob somebody, rape somebody, murder somebody,

00:24:29or commit something where I violate somebody, I use my freedom to deprive somebody else of

00:24:33their freedom. Then I ultimately lose my own freedom myself. So, uh, uh, and, and, and, and so

00:24:42in the, in, in, in society, it works pretty much the same way. If you behave responsibly,

00:24:47you have a lot of freedom. If you stay irresponsibly, you know, that freedom is,

00:24:51is, is constrained. So, and restrained, uh, so suppressed. So ultimately how much freedom we have.

00:24:59And I, and I think that's, you know, if, if people look at the literature of, you know, the founders,

00:25:06uh, of, of, of America, uh, who, who hoped that we would succeed in this exercise and experiment

00:25:12in self-government, uh, one of the things they, they talked about, there are several things they

00:25:18talked about. Uh, they said, ultimately the, the, the constitutional republic, uh, would not last

00:25:25if people were not virtuous. So, uh, they thought you had, you can't have self-government with

00:25:31people who lack virtue. So, um, you know, you could say, you know, virtue or morality, uh,

00:25:37but if people lack virtue and morality, then ultimately the consequence will be the, the

00:25:43exercise in self-government is not going to succeed. And they also expected people to be

00:25:51well-educated. So they expected people to be literate, well-read, uh, you know, Benjamin

00:25:57Franklin said the responsibility of every citizen was to be knowledgeable on politics, economics,

00:26:02rhetoric, and law. And if you looked at a lot of the stuff that, you know, like, like Thomas Jefferson

00:26:08and George Washington talked about, they were big advocates for what now would be considered,

00:26:12you know, a STEM curriculum. So they, they want the people to pursue, uh, science. I mean,

00:26:19and look at the brilliance of, you know, Thomas Jefferson who designed and engineered,

00:26:24you know, Monticello. So he was not just a great writer of a declaration of independence.

00:26:29You know, he was a polymath as many people were polymaths at that point in time, uh, because they

00:26:34had, uh, a different form of education than we have today. Uh, they were taught to think and

00:26:40develop their mind. You know, now we teach people skills. So they become good employees,

00:26:46uh, or mediocre employees. So probably is a better description. You were going to say

00:26:51something, sorry. Oh yeah. I was just saying, if you look at the legal system, the legal system

00:26:56that was developed in the common law traditions of the West was a very complicated legal system with

00:27:01lawyers and advocates and evidence and rules of evidence and chain of custody and all kinds of

00:27:06complicated stuff, which can only work if you have a few crimes. If you go over a certain number

00:27:11of crimes or a certain percentage of crimes, the system can't work. And this is why you end up with

00:27:16this horrible travesty of plea bargaining, where you go to jail for bribing a judge, but the

00:27:21prosecution can bribe you with 10 years additional sentence in order to plead guilty. And that's,

00:27:26this is why 2% of, of criminal cases go to trial these days, because the system can't,

00:27:32the system was built for people who are mostly moral with a few exceptions.

00:27:36And that's why it can be so focused on all of these complicated rules to try and get to the

00:27:41truth. But when you have an overwhelming sort of tsunami of criminality, then the system

00:27:46completely breaks down. And so where we lose morality, we lose justice in that sense.

00:27:51How much of a tsunami of, of criminality do we have is because of the facts that we have a

00:27:57proliferation of, of a criminal code, where much much activity is, I mean, like, like, you know,

00:28:04people might not like it. But if I decide I want to consume drugs, you know, as long as I don't do

00:28:11anything bad while under the influence of drugs, it might only it might be bad for me. You know,

00:28:17it might be bad for my family, but you know, my wife could divorce me, she would get custody of

00:28:23the kids. So there'd be consequences. I ultimately I would suffer the consequences of my own behavior.

00:28:29So a lot of people are in prison for actions, you know, that might not have a victim other than

00:28:38themselves. So how much of this criminality is associated with really a system designed to have

00:28:48a lot of criminals? So is the goal of our criminal code to prevent criminality, or to call many

00:28:56people criminals, because they engage in activity that somebody desires that they not engage in

00:29:02from their own sense of, of morality that they want to impose on other people, you know,

00:29:07prostitution, the same thing. If you have two parties willing, you know, to consent, you know,

00:29:13what's what's, what's wrong with that? So money is exchanged. But it seems to be that they're

00:29:19each getting the value that they negotiate. And it's a voluntary act. So I mean, what would have

00:29:26what would a criminal code look like? You know, if basically, all activities done by consulting

00:29:32by mutually consenting adults were legal? So how many? How many? How much less crimes would we have?

00:29:39You know, if that's, if that's the case, why is it their right to I had a I had a very good,

00:29:46I had a very good friend, he passed away a number of years ago, one of my closest friends in my life

00:29:52and a mentor to me. And I remember one day, we had a restaurant and we were talking about

00:29:56freedom of association. You know, and I'm someone who my ex wife is, is black. You know, so I would

00:30:05consider myself, you know, someone that is very accepting of anybody, I just I judge the person,

00:30:11I don't judge any other attribute besides who they are. I'm not not, not, not how they not

00:30:18have, you know, their, their history of their birth, and their race and religion, I don't give

00:30:23a I don't care about any of that stuff. You know, and yet, I told him that people had a right to

00:30:28discriminate, like, you know, as me as a Jew, if I go to a restaurant with somebody who hates Jews,

00:30:34I want to know that they hate Jews, and then I won't go to that restaurant, because why do I want

00:30:39to give money to somebody that hates Jews, you know, so if people want to ban me, because I'm

00:30:44Jewish, I'm happy to know that they, they don't like me for Jewish, and then now I know not to

00:30:50give them my business, you know, and, you know, and vice versa, if somebody doesn't want to, you

00:30:55know, somebody doesn't want to do business with me, you know, for whatever reason, they have the

00:30:59right, they have the right to do that we have freedom of association. So I think there's a

00:31:03fundamental right, you know, to discriminate. I don't like discrimination. I personally, I

00:31:09personally think it's horrible. But a lot of things I think are horrible that people have a right to

00:31:13do. Well, and you would want to let the economy punish those who have irrational discriminations,

00:31:19right? So if I run a business, and I say, I'm never hiring a redheaded person, because a redheaded guy

00:31:24beat me up when I was a kid, the last thing I okay, well, I've just reduced the talent pool

00:31:28for my business by whatever percentage there are of redheaded people, I guess it's different in

00:31:32Ireland than it would be in Somalia. So if I if I'm discriminating in an irrational basis,

00:31:38and then I say, I'm reducing my talent pool, my business is going to do worse. Right? And if I

00:31:45want to run an NBA team, and I'm never a market consequence to it, yeah, there's a financial

00:31:50consequence, the market, what will happen is, if I have a mentality that I don't hire the best,

00:31:57I just hire people, because of the way they look, and, you know, what religion they might be,

00:32:02or any other attribute, other than, are they really the best at what they do? For what,

00:32:07for what I need, you know, ultimately, the talented people that might come into that company

00:32:11will not stay there. So ultimately, you know, they'll, they'll, they'll, they'll, they'll,

00:32:16they'll keep the worst element, and there'll be an unproductive business. And there'll be a business

00:32:21of a bunch of people who are losers, you know, either being largely profitable or going bankrupt,

00:32:26and, and, you know, and then the business owner will have to figure out what to do with their

00:32:29life, and the employees who lived in that environment, you know, will also have to,

00:32:33have to, you know, live with the consequences of, of, of doing that.

00:32:38Well, and boycotts are perfectly fine as well, that if you find somebody be discriminatory in

00:32:42business, you can publicize that, it's not defamation if you're telling the truth, and

00:32:45the market can punish them, and the lack of talent can punish them, and let's, let's decentralize

00:32:52the punishment of people who are not committing direct violent crimes. Just decentralize it,

00:32:56make it part of the community standards so that people can deal with it in a peaceful fashion,

00:33:01rather than giving power to a small group of people which will always end up being abused.

00:33:06Correct. I completely, at least I strongly agree with that. Now, going back to the, the topic,

00:33:12even though I find this more an interesting topic than Peaceful Parenting.

00:33:14It's your show, man, wherever you want to take me, I'm on, I'm on the jet train.

00:33:17If you want to talk about peaceful, how did you come up with the name Peaceful

00:33:20Parenting, and what inspired you to, you know, to write this book? What do you,

00:33:24what do you think you have to contribute to, you know, for me, being a parent is too late. My

00:33:29daughter's grown up, and, you know, so. But you have, you have kids in the environment.

00:33:35Everyone has kids in the environment. There's always kids that you can, you can talk about,

00:33:38and parents that you can influence. So, I come from a very business background, right? I was

00:33:46an entrepreneur in the software field for a long time. Before that, I had various jobs. I did

00:33:52manual labor. I gold-panned and prospected up north, which sounds irrelevant, but it's really

00:33:56not. So, I'm used to sort of very practical, solutions-based, prediction-based, actionable

00:34:02things. So, when I was writing business plans in the business world, I was a chief technical

00:34:05officer for many years in a software company I co-founded. I had to have practical solutions.

00:34:11I had to say, here's how we're going to market. Here's how, here's the conferences we're going

00:34:14to go to. Here's the price point. Here's how it covers the payroll. Here's the growth scenario.

00:34:18Here's the market opportunity. Here's the competition, you know, your standard strengths,

00:34:22weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis. So, I'm used to very practical things, and I'm

00:34:27used to working with what is rather than very big abstract, you know, because when it comes to

00:34:32ethics, a lot of people are like, well, there's a trolley coming down the road, and there's this,

00:34:37and it's like, you're never going to experience that in your life. It's not a real scenario,

00:34:41right? It's like me saying, well, I have a business plan for how we're going to open our

00:34:45first software office on Mars. It's like, that's not going to happen. Let's deal with what is in

00:34:50the world. Let's deal with what we can actually act on rather than these bizarre academic

00:34:55abstractions. I mean, I spent time in academia. I got a graduate degree.

00:34:58So, what are the main advices you would give to a parent?

00:35:02Right, right. So, but I'm just giving you why I started down this whole road to begin with. So,

00:35:08like yourself, I think we're both on the same page, Jeff, regarding the non-aggression principle,

00:35:12right? Thou shalt not initiate force against others, right? Now, I love the non-aggression

00:35:18principle. I kneel before it. I light candles to it. I do incense. I'd make sweet love to it

00:35:23if I could. I'm very, very much down for the non-aggression principle. But as a practical

00:35:28entrepreneur, what I have to say is, okay, okay, I want to advocate for the expansion of the

00:35:34non-aggression principle. What can I do about central banking? Nothing. What can I do about

00:35:39foreign policy? You can advocate for Bitcoin. Well, okay, I can do that. But in terms of direct

00:35:46changes to violations of the non-aggression principle, I can't change foreign aid.

00:35:50I can't uproot government schools, though I'd love to. So, what can I do? So, what I did was

00:35:55I looked at what is the widest violation of the non-aggression principle that we can do something

00:36:01about, that we can act on immediately if we want, right? So, it's not that hard, I mean, to figure

00:36:07this stuff out, at least for me, is I say, okay, well, the biggest violation of the non-aggression

00:36:12principle would be, say, child abuse. And that's something we can do something about, right? You

00:36:19cannot beat your kids. That you can do, and nobody's going to throw you in jail for it. You don't have

00:36:24to protest. You don't have to risk people turning off your bank account. You can advocate for the

00:36:30peaceful treatment of children, reasoning with children, negotiating with children, rather than

00:36:35initiating the use of force against children. Because the only way you can reasonably use force

00:36:40is in self-defense, and children hopefully are not running at you with a chainsaw. So, you're

00:36:43probably okay with not initiating the use of force against children. So, then I realized, of course,

00:36:50much though I love politics, economics, and law, and all the stuff that we're talking about here,

00:36:54if I want to have the biggest effect on reducing violations of the non-aggression principle, I need

00:36:59to talk about parenting. I need to talk about how to not initiate the use of force against your

00:37:04children. And I did a sort of back-of-the-napkin calculation, because I've been doing this for

00:37:08almost 20 years, and I have over a billion views and downloads of my shows. I think it's about a

00:37:13billion to a billion and a half reductions in violations of the non-aggression principle through

00:37:20what I'm talking about with regards to parenting. And I could have spent the whole time railing

00:37:25against government education, but I wouldn't have closed any schools. I wouldn't have privatized

00:37:31anything. So, I really want to depart this veil of joy and pain with having tangible, measurable

00:37:39results, because that's manual labor. You need tangible, measurable results. When it comes to

00:37:43running a business, you need tangible and measurable results, because otherwise, you can't

00:37:46have a payroll. So, when it came to moral philosophy, I'm like, hey, I love the theory stuff.

00:37:51I love arguing trolley problems, and you're hanging from a flagpole, and you have to kick

00:37:57in someone's window to survive, and can the hungry guy steal a loaf of bread? These are all

00:38:01very interesting things, but they don't actually happen that much, really, in our lives.

00:38:06Getting back to the issue of the violence with respect to parents. So, it is illegal for parents

00:38:10to abuse their kids. Well, not here in Canada. Maybe it's not. I don't think in America, in

00:38:18most places. So, in America, you are allowed to initiate force against your children.

00:38:21What should be the consequence? Is mental abuse less worse, equal to, in badness and

00:38:33evilness, compared to physical abuse? Well, okay. So, let's get to your first issue.

00:38:40You're focusing on corporal abuse, but I don't know if kids are more damaged by

00:38:47mental abuse than corporal abuse. So, I think there are many forms of parental abuse, but then

00:38:54the question is, how does a young child get recourse, and what's that recourse? Because

00:39:01what's the option? I have my parents who are dysfunctional parents who still might love me,

00:39:08but they're dysfunctional because they've got their own problems, and so it's not like they

00:39:13are – the consequence of their behavior is evil. It's not that their intent is evil. It's the

00:39:18consequence of their behavior is evil because of their own limitations as individuals. So,

00:39:25but then the question is, if you're not raised by your parents because they behave that way,

00:39:30then what happens to you? Right. So, as far as child abuse not being illegal, well, of course,

00:39:39you and I would not want to take the laws as the ultimate arbiters of morality, but

00:39:44it is perfectly acceptable in most places in the world to initiate the use of force against your

00:39:48children by hitting them, by spanking them, by forcibly grabbing them and sitting them down

00:39:54on a stair in a timeout, by locking them in their room, by denying them food, all things that would

00:39:58be completely illegal against any adult in your environment, but which we allow to be perfectly

00:40:05legal with regards to children. But again, how many kids would prefer that to the option

00:40:10of what their option was if they don't have that? Do they prefer that to being in a foster home?

00:40:15You know what I mean? So, what's the option available for kids who are completely dependent

00:40:21upon an adult if their parents – again, their parents love them, but their parents are – look,

00:40:28I had personal experience. I mean, I was physically abused and I was mentally abused,

00:40:32so my father wasn't a bad guy. He had – my parents didn't have a great marriage and

00:40:37so sometimes somebody has to suffer the consequences of – so it was a dysfunctional

00:40:42relationship and I think I turned out reasonably well. Many people might argue that, but the point

00:40:52of it is if I have to take a look at the options of trying to figure out how to survive in my own

00:40:57house versus, you know, being out there and being picked up by a foster home or stuff like that,

00:41:03I didn't doubt that my parents didn't love me. I mean, so I was sure they loved me,

00:41:09you know, but they were just – had their problems. So, and their problems caused a problem for me,

00:41:15you know, and it was an effort for me to learn how to deal with those problems,

00:41:20but still, you know, I think that, you know, I think that to some extent it helped shape me to

00:41:30be a better person having to deal with those problems. So, you know, you have to toughen

00:41:34yourself up when you deal with those problems and, you know, and maybe you can turn out to be a

00:41:41person of greater empathy because you know what it's like to live in an environment where there's

00:41:46an absence of empathy. So, you know, so I understand all this is bad. The question is,

00:41:55are the options better? So, I mean, me given the choice, well, I can't say one day I actually,

00:42:03you know, one day when my father was teaching me how to drive and didn't like how I was driving,

00:42:09he left, he got out, he had me get out of the car and on a highway and he took off and he left.

00:42:19So, I walked to a local police station and I asked to be put in prison. So, the police asked

00:42:28me what I did wrong. I said, all I want to do is I think I'd rather be in jail than go back home.

00:42:35So, they ended up calling my parents and my parents came for me and the police were not

00:42:42sympathetic to keeping me in jail. They felt I was better off at home and maybe there was a benefit

00:42:47for me going back home, but I actually did at that moment, at that moment, maybe I would have

00:42:52regretted it five minutes later, but at that moment I felt I would rather be in jail than go

00:42:58back home. But, you know, I think at the end, you know, later in life, my father and I became

00:43:04good friends and, you know, and I harbored, you know, little to no resentment, you know,

00:43:09towards him because I recognize that he's a human being like I am and we're all flawed.

00:43:17But again, I didn't doubt that he loved me. You know, he had his own way of showing it,

00:43:22but I didn't doubt it and is that better off than being in an environment where you get no

00:43:28love but you don't get any corporal punishment either? You know, who's to say which is a better

00:43:34environment? Yeah, as a society and for those individuals, what are we, you know, what are we

00:43:41better off? Do we want to fill up prisons with every parent that abuses their kid in any form,

00:43:48whether it's yelling at them with insults or spanking them, you know, I'm not talking about

00:43:55physical violence in a way that's really brutal. You know, it might sting for a few minutes,

00:44:01but it's not leaving a permanent scar on you. Well, it might be an emotional scar,

00:44:05but again, the question is, is really, really, what's the option to that? I still want to know,

00:44:14what is the option to just the fact that there are certain problems, you know, where things,

00:44:19the situation's not great, but the alternative is even worse? Well, yes, but of course,

00:44:25the foster care system is a statist invention, like there are lots of other options that you

00:44:30can have. I mean, and we certainly would want to take out children from an environment where

00:44:36they would be killed or raped or assaulted with grievous bodily harm. And I just wanted to say,

00:44:41like, I know for both of us, childhood is quite a ways ago, but I really am sorry for what happened

00:44:46with you as a kid. That sounds, to want to be in prison is tough. I have no regrets because I think

00:44:53I became a better person because of the challenges I've faced in life. I think that

00:45:02it's given me a sensitivity to things that I might not have the sensitivity to if I didn't go

00:45:07through what I went through. So I insist, I think it made me a better person. So it wasn't fun going

00:45:13through it, but I think as a, I think the benefit I've had the rest of my life for going through it,

00:45:19I think, of course, at the time I was going through it, I didn't see the benefit. But now

00:45:24as I'm older and I have more maturity, hopefully, I'm able to now enjoy the benefit of living in a

00:45:34challenging environment. So, and yes, it could have gone either way and it's up to us to determine

00:45:40which way it goes. That's life. Yeah, but you're like the Samuel L. Jackson character in Pulp

00:45:46Fiction where the bullets just happen to go all around him rather than through him. So the fact

00:45:51that you flourished, which is really testament, Jeff, to your great morals and resolution and

00:45:58willpower and maturity, but most people don't, right? Most people do not flourish under situations

00:46:05of maltreatment as a child. So you judoed that adversity into a positive, which is to your

00:46:11eternal credit and massive congratulations for changing that direction. But most people don't,

00:46:17you know, most people don't. And so as far as the solution goes, well, for me, of course,

00:46:21the solution is advocacy and education, not with the goal of saying, well, everybody who touches

00:46:28a child in anger is irredeemably evil. I understand that people grow up with their own histories.

00:46:33They believe that what they're doing is the right. They may never have heard of the options

00:46:37in the same way that if I meet a guy who's a big fan of the government of some government program,

00:46:42I don't say evil, evil. It's like it's a matter of education and listening to people and having

00:46:49them understand that violence is really not the solution to our complex social problems. It's not

00:46:55the solution for charity. It's not the solution for drug addiction. It's not the solution for

00:47:00other forms of social dysfunction. It's not the solution for the military. It's not the solution

00:47:05for children's education. Violence is not the solution. And it's no more the solution in the

00:47:09house than it is in the city. Sorry, go ahead. You and I are having this conversation on bitshoot

00:47:15and what's the philosophical principle of bitshoot. The philosophical principle of bitshoot

00:47:19is that, you know, I view demonetization and deplatforming as acts of violence.

00:47:26So I think however unpleasant any conversation is, you know, the only way to resolve any conflict,

00:47:36even if you don't resolve the conflict, at least you create a better sense of mutual understanding

00:47:42is through dialogue. And dialogue means what we're having right now, you know, we're each talking and

00:47:48we're each listening to the other person and that's dialogue. And I think the only hope for

00:47:54humanity, you know, is dialogue. So that's what bitshoot represents is the fact is that people

00:48:02should never stop talking and anything that interferes with people being able to speak

00:48:08and somebody willing ability to listen to that person who speak to me is an act of violence.

00:48:15And no acts of violence should be condoned. And the fact that we've become so insensitive

00:48:22to many forms and expressions of violence is a sad statement about us as a species, in my opinion.

00:48:31Well, I certainly agree with that and very heartfully spoken. So, yeah, so I would say

00:48:36that educating people about the use of peace in negotiations is really, really important. And

00:48:42negotiation and nonviolence, and I will say it because I'm not a pacifist, I'm, you know,

00:48:47self-defense is fine. But when we talk to people about negotiation, communication and nonviolence

00:48:55as the way to solve human problems, well, we have to start teaching that language to our kids as

00:48:59early as possible. Right now, of course, you know, like when I have a daughter as well, and, you know,

00:49:04we put her in the baby cage, right? We put her in the crib, right? Which has a little bars and that's

00:49:10because she would roll off and fall over. So, you know, obviously a certain amount of care and

00:49:15restraint and all of that is, you know, if your kid is running towards the traffic, you pick them

00:49:19up and so on, right? And so that's all fine. But the problem is if we use force to teach our children,

00:49:28then what happens is they grow up thinking that force is good. Because look, force protected me,

00:49:35force, you know, you've probably heard these people who were beaten within half an inch of

00:49:38their lives and they say, well, I was a real brat, I deserved it. My kids, my parents were doing the

00:49:42right thing. I would have done very badly without that. And so then they're saying force in authority

00:49:48is necessary for life. Force in authority is necessary for virtue. Force in authority is

00:49:54necessary for social functioning. And then if you take that approach to children, they grow up

00:50:01thinking, well, we have to have a government, otherwise everything will be chaos. And it's like,

00:50:04but that comes from the fact that they were treated with violence as children, and they've

00:50:09internalized it and said violence is good in the service of a social good. Violence is good in the

00:50:14service of moral growth. And we need violence because if my parents didn't beat me, I would

00:50:20have just run into traffic and then they grew up thinking, well, without a government, everything

00:50:23would be chaos. Nature red in tooth and claw, dogs living with cats, you know, the old jokes, right?

00:50:28So that's why, well, that's the mentality that politicians feed. I mean, what they sell is fear.

00:50:37That's the product they sell is fear. And they're the answer to the fears. So they want us to be,

00:50:44they want us to surrender our freedoms. And the best way to get us to surrender our freedoms

00:50:49is to instill fear in us since the bottom of the Maslow pyramid is the need to survive.

00:50:54So as long as they keep us at the level of the bottom of the pyramid, where we're always

00:50:59concerned about our survival and our survival depends upon them, okay, then they make themselves

00:51:05a lot more important. When we're an advanced species, you know, where we're at the top of

00:51:11the Maslow pyramid, then they become irrelevant in our lives because we're fulfilled and we're

00:51:16enlightened individuals. And we understand that ultimately this is our personal responsibility.

00:51:22And so once we have that sense of personal responsibility, then we don't want to

00:51:29engage in coercion against other people, nor do we want to be coerced. But if we live in fear,

00:51:35we embrace coercion because it's the coercion that protects us against our fears.

00:51:39So, ultimately that's what they need to sell. They need to sell, there's always the boogeyman

00:51:45out there. There's always the enemy, the terrorist. Somebody's got to be caricatured,

00:51:50you know, in a way that makes them somebody that we should be fearful of. And they're

00:51:59adversely impacting our life. They're the scapegoat. And the only people capable of

00:52:08solving this problem for us are the people and politicians. And that's why these campaigns,

00:52:14negative campaigning works much better than people talking about the things they're for.

00:52:20So, you know, we got to put tariffs on because China is evil. You know, we got to,

00:52:27every person entering the border, you know, was hand selected, you know, by Maduro as a rapist or

00:52:36a criminal or a drug dealer. And that's why they're being sent to invade the country,

00:52:41to overthrow the government, you know, or, you know, Democrats telling us, you know, that we

00:52:48can't make decisions for ourselves and we should be deprived of free speech because then our

00:52:54democracy can't be preserved because misinformation gets in there and they need to be

00:52:58the gatekeepers to make sure because we don't have the capacity of taking care of ourselves.

00:53:03You know, ultimately, if the way the politicians describe us, we really should not have the right

00:53:09to vote. If we are that dumb, if our judgments, you know, one day I was at an event and I was

00:53:16sitting next to some politician, and I was trying to speak to them about school choice.

00:53:23And the guy, and the politician told me, you know, well, what I worried is, is the fact is that,

00:53:29you know, in my district, I think the parents would make bad choices. So have you ever thought

00:53:34about the fact that you're a consequence of that bad choice? You know, if you're telling me the

00:53:38parents, the same parents who you think can't choose a school well, they're the ones that

00:53:43voted you in office. So how confident could I be in your opinion, given the fact that you're

00:53:48acknowledging that you're in office because you got picked by people who you think suck at making

00:53:54decisions? So that's our political process. Our political process is the politicians think we're

00:54:01stupid. They think we make bad choices. And yet they're the ones who are the product of those bad

00:54:08choices with the power of coercion over us. Think about how perverse that is.

00:54:14Well, and people don't really choose in a political sense. They're just bouncing off

00:54:19fear and greed, right? So, well, if this person gets into power, it's going to be the end of

00:54:24democracy, and it's going to be the end of the world, and there'll be World War III,

00:54:28and we'll all be nuclear shadows on the sewage plant wall, as opposed to, but if you vote for me,

00:54:34if you vote for me, I'm going to double your income. I'm going to give you free stuff. I'm

00:54:38going to, you know, there's just bribery and threats, bribery and threats, which goes back

00:54:42to bad parenting. Sorry, Jeff, go ahead. I said, we already know right now that this is the last

00:54:49election we're ever going to have in the history. Ever, apparently. Okay, both parties, both

00:54:54candidates agree with that, you know, for different reasons, but this is the last election. So at

00:54:59least we'll never have to worry about making a decision again in the future about who represents

00:55:03us. So we might be better off if that was the case. I don't know. But, you know, people should

00:55:10go out and register and vote now, because, you know, this is your last chance at ever voting,

00:55:15you know, in an election ever again in your life. By the way, anyone who believes that, call me,

00:55:22and I would like to make a bet with you, you know, text me, whatever, and I'd like to bet with you

00:55:26that there will be subsequent elections. So I want to know how many people, you know, will back up

00:55:32this claim that they're making, you know, including Elon Musk, that, you know, there won't

00:55:37be another election if, you know, if Trump loses, you know, either way, but come on,

00:55:46just, just, just, just, I don't care. I just want anyone who's making a claim that after this

00:55:51election, there'll never be another election, you know, that I want to, I want to do a friendly bet

00:55:56with you. I don't want to do anything illegal, but, you know, a dinner, something like that.

00:56:00I want to see how many people are really willing to collateralize that bet and risk something of

00:56:05value to them with that statement. Well, I, to defend Elon, and I don't want to speak for him,

00:56:11of course, I think his argument is that there will be other elections, but there'll be so many people

00:56:16in the country that have been imported or incentivized in through a lot of free stuff who

00:56:21were going to vote for the Democrats, that it's kind of like California used to be Republican.

00:56:26Now it's, you know, almost completely Democrat and will be pretty much until the end of time.

00:56:31So his argument is not that there won't be any elections at all. His argument will be

00:56:35that they're importing so many people who are going to vote for the Democrats that there's

00:56:39no functional chance for the Republicans to win in the future. I think that's his argument.

00:56:45Yeah, I heard, I heard that. I heard that argument that basically we're going to,

00:56:50we're going to, that somehow all these people are, we know what that, well,

00:56:54it seems Trump is talking about how well he's doing with the Hispanic community.

00:56:58So he seems to be doing reasonably well with all these people that supposedly only vote Democrats.

00:57:03Apparently they don't only vote Democrats. And from what I see, long-term studies show

00:57:08that when people, you know, that the second and third generation, they tend to represent,

00:57:14they tend to be not any different than any other cohort. So it might be true of those who've coming

00:57:20in now might have a tendency to be more Democratic and Republican, but their kids, and, but that

00:57:25doesn't mean that kids and grandchildren will be different. It doesn't mean that they'll have,

00:57:29you know, a permanent, a permanent majority. And, and, and, and I challenged Elon Musk's

00:57:36point of view that, that what made California a one party state was, was illegal immigrants

00:57:42because California became a one party state before there was a huge influx of illegal immigrants.

00:57:49So it's just, it's just, it's just, it's actually, it's actually incorrect statement,

00:57:55but there was the amnesty and illegal immigrants, you know, illegal immigrants,

00:57:59you know, don't, don't vote, you know, and that is a myth, you know, and I guess he thinks that

00:58:04they'll all be made legal. But, you know, you know, to be made legal, there needs to be,

00:58:10you know, the president cannot legalize illegal immigrants. So it has to be an act of Congress,

00:58:17you know, to do that. And, and, and, and I have not seen, I have not seen there to be that type

00:58:23of majority that, that the public will find accepting the fact that we're going to take 20

00:58:30million people who came here illegally and we're going to all in one year, make them all citizens.

00:58:36You know, I doubt that, that, that, that will be something that Kamala will be able to implement

00:58:42on her own. So, and we should have better trust for the American people. I mean, so Elon Musk's

00:58:49statement is basically says we don't trust the American people at all. So we got to trust an

00:58:54authoritarian leader, you know, rather than the American people and that the American people are

00:58:58that stupid, that, that basically, you know, all these policies will be implemented and Congress

00:59:04will bless all these policies and the people who do that, you know, will, will end up getting

00:59:10reelected over and over again. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm very skeptical of that. I'm skeptical that

00:59:16ultimately people vote their wallet. People are not that there's a small group of people who will

00:59:21vote party no matter what. And then there's a lot of independents that will vote what they view as

00:59:26their self-interest. And that's including the, the, the immigrants that come in and become

00:59:32assimilated and their values become not much different than anyone else's values. So I think,

00:59:38I think these statements are, are just untrue and, and, and there's no evidence and to take one state

00:59:45and, and, and generalize the whole country for one state, you know, based upon a very poor

00:59:52evaluation of the data you know, is a sort of like anecdotal. I think Elon Musk, I think is

00:59:59smarter than to apply anecdotes to, to situations for you know, so I, I, I heard what he had to say

01:00:10uh, and uh, I, I think it's, I think it's as dumb as his statement that you could have freedom of

01:00:16speech without freedom of read. If there's no freedom of reach, there's no freedom of speech.

01:00:21So, uh, you know, if you can say something, but nobody's allowed to hear it, then what's the point

01:00:27of having freedom of speech? If the fact is that you're, that you're, you, you know, it's like you

01:00:33and I having a conversation, I say, Stephen, you and I got to have a conversation. You're here,

01:00:38you can talk, but I'm muting you. So nobody hears any, the audience doesn't hear anything that you

01:00:42have to say. You can talk, you know, all you want, but you're muted. Um, and you know, would that be

01:00:48considered free? Well, Elon Musk, that's Elon Musk definition of freedom of speech. So, uh,

01:00:56I think that's, I think it's an asinine, stupid, moronic comment. Uh, and I think his comment about

01:01:01California is equally moronic. So, uh, but I guess he's gone, he's gone all in and, you know,

01:01:08on this, on this election and, you know, I'm all out on the election. I don't care who wins.

01:01:13Uh, so, uh, my Bitcoin will be worth more, no matter who wins. And I'm confident of that.

01:01:19And, uh, you know, so I, I take responsibility for myself and I don't worry about what Washington

01:01:26can or can't do for me. I'm more concerned about what it wants to do to me or for me.

01:01:32But if we, you know, if people were really realistic about the situation, now we're getting

01:01:37a little off topic, I'm sorry, but really how much has the tax code changed from, from Trump

01:01:44to Biden? Are Americans paying significantly higher taxes? No, I think their capital gains

01:01:50went up, if I remember rightly. So yeah, capital gains went up, but ultimately people are not

01:01:56paying significantly higher tax code. The tax code doesn't look, doesn't look very different.

01:02:02No, but it's the, uh, the spending, right? I mean, uh, deficit spending is just deferred taxation.

01:02:07So if, if you don't raise the taxes regarding the border stuff.

01:02:11But Biden over four years increased the deficit more than, less than Trump increased it. And,

01:02:16and, and as, and as people have been scoring, as third parties have been scoring who will add more

01:02:21to the deficit in the coming four years, based upon the economic proposals, you know, reasonably

01:02:27responsible. It doesn't mean they're right, but, but people who are considered reasonably neutral

01:02:33third parties who evaluated the proposals have said that Trump will add about seven,

01:02:38seven and a half trillion dollars to the deficit. And, and Kamala will add about three and a half

01:02:43trillion dollars to the deficit with the proposals that they've made. So, you know,

01:02:47if we're taking a look at spending, sorry, I'm not sure if we're still here. You've,

01:02:50you've raised about 30 points. So I'm not really sure if we're having a dialogue or not anymore.

01:02:54Sorry, go ahead. All right. So, um, with regards to the deficit, I of course,

01:02:59criticized Trump at the time for the deficit spending as well, to be fair, he did get hit

01:03:03with COVID and it was pretty hard to keep the economy going when the governors were shutting

01:03:08everything down. So that's one issue. With regards to, you say, well, but the immigrants

01:03:14in a couple of generations, they might be more conservative, but you understand that the

01:03:17conservative or the Republican party is not very well satisfied with, well, but maybe in a hundred

01:03:24years you might get some votes back. I mean, that's, that's not something that any responsible

01:03:28party would be, would be down for. Regarding legalizing 20 million people in order to win the

01:03:34election, you don't need to do that. I mean, if Trump won by 70,000 votes, you don't need 20

01:03:39million people to swing the election. You just need enough to, cause you know, they're often

01:03:43quite narrow, which is almost partly by design. So there's that aspect. With regards to California,

01:03:49it wasn't a influx of illegals. It was Reagan's amnesty, which he later regretted,

01:03:54that tended to turn the state pretty solidly blue and has remained there forever. And with regards

01:04:00to illegals voting or non-voting, well, there's no ID requirements, so who knows who's voting?

01:04:05I mean, I think they're actively blocking measures to have people show, I mean, you had to show ID

01:04:12to do just about anything, particularly over COVID. So with regards to illegals not voting,

01:04:19I mean, yeah, I get that that's the law though. There does seem to be some trying to get people

01:04:23signed up pretty quickly, but in the absence of a strict voter ID requirement, and again,

01:04:28I'm not a big fan of voting. I'm not a big fan of government IDs. I mean, I understand all of that,

01:04:32but just from a sort of practical short-term standpoint, the argument is that without strict

01:04:38voter ID requirements, then it's going to be very hard to keep people who are not allowed to vote

01:04:44from voting. Yeah, but I think, I'm not convinced that it was Reagan's amnesty that was the complete

01:04:56reason why, or the major reason why California has been, you know, basically a democratic haven,

01:05:05but let's not dispute that point. I think with respect to, the point I tried to make with respect

01:05:13to, if we take a look at the size of government and spending, again, Trump's proposals have been

01:05:19scored at adding seven and a half trillion dollars in the deficit. Kamala has been scored at about

01:05:25three and a half trillion. It's a proposal that we have with respect to social security and

01:05:32Medicare and their impending bankruptcies. The Democrats want to increase taxes. The Republicans

01:05:39want to do nothing, okay? So, regarding the tax code, I don't think if the Democrats got

01:05:49in power, you know, I don't think there'd be substantive changes in the tax code, because if

01:05:54there were, many people who would identify as Democrats would not accept significant increases

01:06:00in the tax code. Because somebody votes Democratic or Kamala and voted for Biden and voted for

01:06:05Clinton, doesn't make, if a Democrat came in and Kamala said, I want to have an, I want to

01:06:10increase taxes to 70%, you know, that everybody's going to go along with that and think they're

01:06:16going to win again when they run for office, and they think that even people who come in illegally

01:06:24are going to be really happy to have their taxes taxed, you know, at that rate. So, the middle class

01:06:31is not going to allow, you know, that type of, you know, punitive taxation. This is why I think

01:06:36we haven't had significant changes in the tax code. We have had some. Tax rates are, you know,

01:06:42are a little bit higher. Trump's average, Trump's, the first three years of Trump's administration,

01:06:51he added more to the deficit than Obama's last three years. So, even before COVID, Trump had,

01:06:59was averaging over a trillion a year in deficit spending. So, he was a big deficit spender,

01:07:04more so than Obama was in, you know, in the last three years. So, I mean, I just,

01:07:14so, I trust more, one is we supposedly have a decentralized system. So, we have more states

01:07:20governed, I think, by Republican governors than Democratic governors. So, you know, so,

01:07:28I believe, I don't like the policies of, I mean, I was a Reagan supporter. So, I mean, I was a

01:07:36fan of Ronald Reagan. You know, I don't, the only time I've ever voted in an election was

01:07:421980 when I voted for Reagan, but outside of that, I've never voted. You know, I've never,

01:07:48I've never donated to a Democrat. You know, I don't support Democrats. I don't vote at all.

01:07:55I have no interest in voting, but I have an interest in good policies, and I don't want

01:08:03to instill fear in people. And do I think that, do I think that we will move towards a more

01:08:10socialist system? Look, we have right now, we have now populist parties. We don't have

01:08:18capitalist parties. We have populist parties. Who would ever thought, you know, now that we have,

01:08:22you know, a Republican party that wants to talk about having these type of tariffs?

01:08:27You know, we basically have parties advocating, you know, industrial policy. So, you know,

01:08:36you know, you were going back and you said you focused in on the issue of how to reign

01:08:40in big government. For me, the best way to reign in big government is money. People,

01:08:46I think people should all, what's the benefit of holding Bitcoin? Get the money out of the banks.

01:08:52The banks are the main instrument for surveillance. The banks is the main instrument of how government

01:08:57funds itself. The big part of what the money that you go into deposit funds government because

01:09:04government banks hold a lot of government securities. They hold more government debt

01:09:10than lending, than they do lending. So if you want to deprive the government the money,

01:09:16keep your money out of banks. So I think that would shrink government to more and more people

01:09:20just kept their money out of banks and put it into, you know, I don't like the other crypto.

01:09:26I think they're all shit coins. But, you know, Bitcoin is different than I think people should

01:09:32keep, you know, their money in Bitcoin and starve the government through starving the banks. So I

01:09:37think there's, I think that's the most effective way. And even the, you know, people like Ben

01:09:43Franklin, and others, Thomas Jefferson, believed that, and James Madison, that as long as we have

01:09:52a fiat regime, that tyranny is inevitable. So, you know, so the question is, if we want to avoid

01:09:59the inevitability of tyranny, it's through the money. I mean, I'm very sensitive to,

01:10:10you know, people being good parents and people being moral individuals, and people being decent

01:10:15human beings, and people living by the non-aggression principle, and people living in a

01:10:20way that you talk about as being internally consistent behavior. And I think you've been

01:10:25a great spokesperson, you know, on those issues. And I think we got to keep focusing on those

01:10:33specific issues and really avoiding politics, because I think politics brings out the worst in

01:10:40people, not the best in people. I think the work you do in philosophy has an opportunity of bringing

01:10:45out the best in people, you know, not the worst in people, you know, which is why, you know, I'm

01:10:50happy to have you as a guest and advocating not only peaceful parenting, but peaceful in all

01:10:56attributes of human life and engagement. So, what more do you plan on doing to advocate the fact

01:11:06that, you know, your perspective on moral philosophy and how you can continue to influence

01:11:14more people? Well, I mean, of course, I've been pro-Bitcoin since 2011. I think I did my first

01:11:20show on Bitcoin. I've spoken at a number of Bitcoin conferences. I would rather replace the

01:11:25phrase, orange man bad, with Trump with orange money good. And so, I've really focused on that

01:11:32and how Bitcoin could end war, how Bitcoin can end up the predation on the next generation known as

01:11:38deficit spending. And the hard money that's decentralized is really our only chance to,

01:11:44and it's a technology race, right, because the technology of Bitcoin and decentralization and

01:11:49places like BitChute and so on, that's racing against centralized social credit scores,

01:11:5615-minute cities, CDBCs, the Great Reset, all of this terrifying anarcho-tyranny that seems to be

01:12:04technologically thundering across the landscape like the four hellish horsemen of digital death.

01:12:09And so, yeah, keep focusing on wherever you can focus on decentralized solutions,

01:12:16wherever you can focus on non-violent solutions, whether it's parenting or crypto, Bitcoin in

01:12:21particular. I'm really not a huge fan of the other ones either. The king is the king and shall not be

01:12:26enthroned. So, yeah, I think focusing on that, ways that you can practically enact virtue within

01:12:32your own life, honest conversations with people about the violence they don't even know that they

01:12:36support. I want to give people the free will to choose between good and evil rather than

01:12:41propagandizing, rather than being in the matrix of propaganda where they can't really make any

01:12:46decisions other than going with the herd and the flow. So, yeah, just continue to have these kinds

01:12:50of conversations, continue to talk to people about truth, reason, and virtue, and hopefully that'll

01:12:55be carved on my tombstone and people will occasionally drop a flower or two in the

01:12:59centuries to come. How do you think people like you and I and people where we might have

01:13:03differences in, you know, subtle differences, but the overall themes we're in, I think we're

01:13:09in general agreement on, how can we all collaborate together, cooperate together

01:13:15to have more of an impact on our respective countries and the world? You mean other than

01:13:23by doing what we're doing and have these kind of conversations? I think this is great. I think

01:13:27this exchange of ideas and perspectives is really important and, you know, everybody who sees this,

01:13:33you know, if I'm too controversial to share, that's fine. I don't particularly care. Just share

01:13:37the ideas, share the arguments, share the data, and we can hopefully, you know, we have this

01:13:43incredible technology which absolutely unguessed of in our youth. I would have just faded like a

01:13:49comet seen by no one a million years ago through the intellectual landscape, but because of this

01:13:55technology, I can speak and be listened to by tens or hundreds of millions of people over the years

01:14:01and last forever. And so we have this incredible technology which should fill us with absolute deep

01:14:08and giddy joy every day. It certainly does for me to have these kinds of conversations. So, you know,

01:14:13enthusiasm, have a life that people want some part of, you know, don't be the fat guy on the diet

01:14:19book cover who doesn't want anything, makes people not buy the diet book, you know, have energy,

01:14:24positivity, enthusiasm, virtue, clarity, and look at not telling people that they're wrong,

01:14:32but encouraging them to have a better life through truth, reason, and virtue. And I think that's

01:14:38really the best. After that, it's just in the hands, you know, you can be as engaging as possible.

01:14:42You can be as entertaining as possible. You can really try to connect with people, but it really

01:14:47does come down to their choices, which are fundamentally beyond. We can influence a little,

01:14:51but foundationally, whether they choose virtue over vice is up to them. And I have only myself

01:14:57to control. I cannot control anybody else. And as long as I feel I've done the best job

01:15:02in promoting philosophy and virtue and truth and reason and all those good

01:15:08trivium virtues, then I can sort of rest relatively content with a good conscience.

01:15:13And if evil arises from other people listening, and I've done my best, that's not a responsibility

01:15:18I can take on. Excellent answer. I want to just ask a couple more questions. Are you working on a

01:15:24new book? Yes. So I actually started off in the art world. I was an actor at the National Theatre

01:15:31School here in Canada for a couple of years. I've produced plays, written plays. I've acted. I

01:15:36played Macbeth and so on. So I'm working on a novel. I'm really, really interested in...

01:15:44So for many, many years now, I've taken call-in shows with people. And they can talk to me about

01:15:51anything, but what they most want to talk to me about is when their life has hit significant

01:15:54problems. And what I do is I go through their childhoods, I go through their histories,

01:15:59and we try to unpack which turn they made. Which turn they made, like I was talking with you,

01:16:05the turn that you made to become a better parent despite having been badly treated. So

01:16:10we go back to the origin story and where, you know, if you're a couple of degrees off in a very

01:16:15long voyage, you can end up in a completely different continent. So it's all those little

01:16:18decisions at the beginning of things. So I'm working on a novel where a man and a woman's

01:16:24life are terrible, and then it's in reverse. So it starts at the end, and then we go back and we

01:16:29see the decisions that are being made that have them end up in that bad place. And then the last

01:16:35the last chapter in the novel is the first time they make a bad decision. So that it really tells

01:16:41people the end, like you can then taste the recipe by looking at the recipe book and make better

01:16:46decisions thereby. So it's the philosophy is about prevention, not cure. It's like nutrition.

01:16:51Like if you're having a heart attack, you don't call a nutritionist because the nutritionist is

01:16:54going to say, you got to get to the ER, man, I can't help you. If you call me 10 years ago,

01:16:59maybe I change your diet and help you, right? And so I really want to remind people of it's

01:17:04the small decisions you make today, that is the quality of your life in five or 10 or 20 years,

01:17:09and trying to get people to remember that and focus more intently on the little decisions

01:17:14they're making now, rather than trying to wrangle the big messes that come down the road. That's

01:17:18what I'm working on at the moment. Well, that's why I like listening to your podcast when I first

01:17:23got exposed to it. Now you have a BitChute channel, so people can find you on BitChute.

01:17:31What's the name of the channel that you have here on BitChute?

01:17:34Yeah, it's Free Domain. So for people to find me, I'm on a variety of social media platforms.

01:17:39You can go to freedomain.com slash connect and you can find every place that I am. It's still

01:17:44a variety, though I have been significantly wiped. The shadows remain and the mammals still run

01:17:50through the feet of the giant social media dinosaurs waiting to evolve.

01:17:54So a lot of your content has been removed from other platforms?

01:18:00Oh, yes, absolutely. I went through that. It was in the election cycle in 2020. So yeah,

01:18:05I was yeeted off the planet for the most part. Do you have an archive of all this stuff?

01:18:11Yes, yeah. Actually, on BitChute, it was synchronized with my YouTube channel,

01:18:14and there's a bunch of other places where... FDR Podcast is where people can go. If they're looking

01:18:19for a show, they can look for it. If there's a video, which there usually is, it'll be linked

01:18:23underneath the show notes. I haven't listened yet, but there's been a couple of other podcasts

01:18:29that you've been doing with some regular now with Keith Knight. Is that who I've seen?

01:18:37Yeah, no, I mean, I'm dipping into doing other people's shows. I used to do that a lot more than

01:18:42I worked on my own stuff for a while. So yeah, I did a great series of interviews. I think,

01:18:46if I do say so myself, I did a great series of interviews with Keith Knight, and I worked with

01:18:51the Lotus Eaters as well. And of course, now with this wonderful conversation. So yeah, I'm happy to

01:18:57chat with people about all aspects of philosophy anytime, virtually day or night.

01:19:02Well, I encourage people to read... One is to go to FDR stands for Free Domain Radio. Is that

01:19:10what the FDR stands for? Yes, I dropped the radio, so now it's just freedomain.com.

01:19:15Freedomain, okay. But it's still FDR you refer to it, so...

01:19:18Yes, yes, it is. I should probably fix that at some point.

01:19:21I encourage everyone to become a lot more familiar with Stefan's work. I find it

01:19:25very, very interesting. I've enjoyed this conversation very much. I'm happy to really

01:19:30have met Stefan now after having been somebody who was a listener of his podcast, and now get

01:19:36to know him not actually in person, but face-to-face to some extent. And I appreciate this conversation.

01:19:44I apologize for talking as much as I did. So I...

01:19:49I put it down to enthusiasm, and I appreciate that.

01:19:52Yes, I'm a little too passionate, a little too enthusiastic. I don't mean to be rude,

01:19:58but I think sometimes I am.

01:20:00No, it's not rude. It's enthusiasm. I have no problem with it, and I appreciate the conversation.

01:20:04So have a great day, and thank you so much for joining us.

01:20:08Thank you so much. Take care. Bye-bye.

01:20:10Bye.

Category

Transcript

Recommended