Stefan Molyneux explores the complexities of anarcho-capitalism through the lens of risk tolerance within society. He discusses the moral dilemmas of personal autonomy versus the potential recklessness of individuals with low risk tolerance, highlighting the problems posed by coercive political systems. He argues that a variety of risk attitudes is essential for societal balance and innovation, while cautioning against empowering those with extreme risk sensitivities to impose overregulation. He critiques government interventions driven by fear, advocating for market solutions and voluntary interactions. The lecture also touches on emotional health, the significance of healthy boundaries in relationships, and the issue of censorship in digital platforms, ultimately promoting a society based on cooperation rather than coercion.
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
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
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00Alrighty, righty, good morning everybody, Stephen Longley from Free Domain.
00:04Questions from various places around the net.
00:08Number one. How does anarcho-capitalism reasoning deal with risk?
00:12Different people have different levels of tolerance.
00:15Some are so reckless that they are a serious danger to the community.
00:18Then you have the people who are still wearing Covid masks.
00:20It's a value judgment with moral implications.
00:24How do we keep stupid people from endangering others without violating personal autonomy?
00:28Well, I mean, literally not your fault because you've not maybe heard this before,
00:34but literally for the millionth time, the question is always compared to what, right?
00:39So let's say that there are people who have very low risk tolerance.
00:48They don't like frying bacon in the nude, right?
00:50They have very low risk tolerance and is really anxious and upset, you know,
00:54like you say sort of helicopter neurotic moms, right?
00:58Don't climb on that. Don't go up there.
01:00Wear a helmet when you're on a slide, you know, that kind of stuff, right?
01:03So let's say that we have people like that.
01:06Should we give them coercive political power to enforce their neuroticism on others, right?
01:11It's always compared to what?
01:13If you say that society is destabilized by people having different levels of risk tolerance,
01:21then how does giving people coercive universal power to initiate the use of force solve that
01:28problem, right?
01:30It doesn't.
01:31So it's always compared to what?
01:33There's not a perfect system that anarcho-capitalism needs to justify itself relative to.
01:40There's not, well, this is ideal, but how does your system handle it?
01:44It's like, well, the status system is to give a small group of people
01:48near universal power of propaganda and coercion.
01:52How's that? Is that a solution, right?
01:54I mean, it's sort of like saying, well, you know, in a free market of dating,
01:58some people are going to end up unmarried and unhappy.
02:02Okay, but where is the solution?
02:04Like there's no platonic solution that ANCAP is comparing itself to in any rational universe,
02:10right?
02:12So let's say you have a system where the government assigns a husband and a wife to everyone and
02:17forces them to stay married, right?
02:20The husband assigns a husband and a wife to everyone in society and forces them to stay
02:26married.
02:27Well, that would just be institutionalized financial exploitation and rape, right?
02:32Forcing someone to be married, forcing someone to have sex, forcing someone to provide for
02:36others.
02:36That would be institutionalized financial theft, exploitation and rape.
02:42So I don't see fundamentally why a system of voluntary interactions and peaceful transactions
02:50has to justify itself relative to a system of institutionalized theft, financial exploitation
02:58and rape.
02:59Are you asking an advocate for freedom to justify a system relative to near universal
03:06propaganda, lies, coercion, exploitation, the indebtedness of the next generation,
03:11the capacity to start wars and initiate the use of force?
03:15So this is a sort of fundamental mind shift.
03:19So your belief implicit in the conversation, and this is, I'll get to the actual answer
03:25to this, but this is just a mindset that will have you stop trying to keep asking these.
03:31Honestly, I mean, no disrespect to you whatsoever.
03:34I mean, I get that you're struggling to understand this mindset and I sympathize with that.
03:39But once you get this, you'll realize that these questions are ridiculous.
03:43Not that you're ridiculous, and I understand why you're asking them, but these questions
03:48are, well, there's a system, Steph, where different risk levels are handled perfectly.
03:55How does your system handle it, right?
03:58How does your system handle it?
04:01But there is no system wherein different risk levels are handled perfectly to the satisfaction
04:08of everyone.
04:09There's always going to be conflict.
04:10There's always going to be disagreements, right?
04:13There's always going to be people who think my way is the right way and your way is the
04:16wrong way and the terrible way.
04:17All of this stuff is going to happen.
04:19And the question is, do we resolve these differences with peace and negotiation and compromise
04:27or with violence, subjugation and theft, right?
04:32So, it's peace or war.
04:36It's violence or negotiation.
04:38That's it.
04:40Now, violence is the initiation of the use of forces, immoral.
04:43And you can check out my book, Universally Preferable Behavior, a rational proof of secular
04:48ethics for all of that.
04:49But let's say that you have a system where in a centralized, either theological or secular
04:55government, forces men and women to get married, forces them into sexual activity for the sake
05:00of reproduction, forces the man to provide for the woman even if he loathes her, forces
05:05the woman to have sex with the man even if he loathes her.
05:08And I'm saying we should not use force in the realm of sexual activity, because that
05:14makes it rape and sexual assault.
05:16And we should not use force in the realm of property, because that makes it theft and
05:20exploitation, right?
05:22So, you have a system of universal rape and theft, because you're forcing men and women
05:29to get married and have sexual activity with each other.
05:32And then you say to me, well, Steph, how does your voluntary system handle the fact that
05:37some people might get lonely?
05:40Come on.
05:42Do you understand what I'm saying here?
05:44Are there different levels of risk tolerance in society?
05:47Absolutely.
05:48And there should be.
05:50And there should be, because the calculations of risk are constantly changing.
05:54So, there should be different levels of risk tolerance in society.
05:58You need people who are more risk-averse, and you need people who are more risk-tolerant.
06:04So, people who are more risk-tolerant are going to be your scouts, they're going to
06:08be your entrepreneurs, they're going to be maybe soldiers, they're going to be policemen,
06:13policewomen.
06:14So, you need people who are more risk-tolerant, even risk-friendly.
06:21And then you need people who are more risk-averse in society, because you can't just have
06:27all bosses, you can't have all chiefs and no Indians, as the old saying goes.
06:31You actually have to have people who work, people who applaud along, people who are too
06:36nervous to do X, Y, and Z.
06:38You need people who are more risk-averse to design bike helmets and construction safety
06:43helmets.
06:43You need people who are more risk-averse to monitor babies and toddlers and be alert and
06:50aware of the dangers that they may experience, which can easily be fatal, like one toddler
06:55tumbles down the stairs and you could end up with a dead toddler or a toddler in a wheelchair
06:59for life.
06:59So, yeah, there's a wide variety of risk-tolerance in society.
07:03And that's good, that's not by accident, right?
07:06I mean, we've become the most successful species in the known universe, like by far
07:11not even a close second, right?
07:13Now, because we can do things that no other creature can do, such as have these kinds
07:16of conversations.
07:17That's great, it's good, that's a plus.
07:20So, when you look at the fact that we have evolved to be the most successful organisms
07:26in the known universe, and you say, well, gee, people have a wide variety of risk-tolerances,
07:30well, that's because it serves our evolution, it serves our advancement.
07:35And there should be strenuous negotiations and conflicts, as there are in families between
07:40husbands and wives, between fathers and mothers, where the fathers are saying, let the kids
07:45take some risks, and the mothers are saying, it's too awful, I can't watch.
07:49And both these things are helpful.
07:52Both these things are helpful.
07:54There are times, I mean, just think of an animal, right?
07:58So, if an animal is being hunted by a predator, let's say it's a rabbit being hunted by
08:03a fox, right?
08:05So, the rabbit will freeze and hide, because it's safer to freeze and hide than to run,
08:14unless the fox sniffs out the rabbit and gets too close, then the rabbit has to run.
08:21Because now, before it was safer to freeze than to run, but if the fox gets too close
08:29and clearly has picked up a scent, then it is more risky to stay in place than it is
08:36to flee.
08:37So, risk calculations are constantly changing, both for individuals and in society as a whole.
08:45It was very risky to fly on airplanes when they were first developed.
08:50It is now pretty much the safest thing to fly on an airplane.
08:55So, we understand how all of this stuff changes.
08:58So, how do we keep stupid people from endangering others without violating personal autonomy?
09:04How do we keep, what do you mean?
09:06Who is going to have that power?
09:07Who is going to have that power?
09:10Power attracts extreme personalities as a whole.
09:15Power attracts extreme personalities with neurotic agendas.
09:19Political power is the way that mental illness is inflicted upon the general population,
09:24slowly turning everyone mad.
09:27So, people who are neurotically attached to animals, usually in substitute of human children,
09:31people who are neurotically attached to animals are the kind of people who make Elon Musk
09:36kidnap seals to see if loud noises stress them out too much.
09:41People who are neurotically attached to particular risks will then inflict the mitigation of
09:49those risks on society as a whole, thus creating other risks.
09:54So, people who are worried about industrial accidents will create endless requirements
10:04for occupational health and safety standards to the point where businesses go overseas,
10:10men and women can't get jobs, get addicted to drugs out of despair, and die at far higher
10:16rates than industrial accidents could ever, ever have occurred or achieved.
10:22Do you follow?
10:24Well, you know, I saw this video of a guy, he was wearing a helmet, he got hit on the
10:29head by something, so now we need all of these regulations to make sure that never happens
10:33again.
10:34And you keep piling those neurotic fears on, neurotic fears, and then eventually you can't
10:39do business.
10:39It's impossible to start a business, particularly a manufacturing business.
10:45And so then, there's no jobs for the average person, so they turn to crimes and suicides
10:54and self-medication out of despair, and you end up with a far higher death count.
11:00I mean, the fentanyl crisis is directly related to the deindustrialization crisis that comes
11:06about because of neurotic concerns about safety and environmentalism and so on.
11:11In other words, in order to avoid extra particulates in the air that could conceivably have some
11:18negative effect on health in 60 years, we, instead of having those particulates in the
11:23air, we have fentanyl in the veins, which is dropping more than a Vietnam's worth of
11:28Americans every single year.
11:30Because it's about anxiety management, it's not about health.
11:34Dr. Mary Rewart, I couldn't remember her name the other day, I did an interview with
11:37her like 15 years ago where she was talking about how out of concerns for thalidomide,
11:41the FDA was established and requires incredibly strict safety standards to the point where
11:47back in the day, the estimate was 5 million extra Americans had died as a result of substances
11:53being banned in America that were perfectly legal elsewhere.
11:56And so, because there were 800 babies who were hit with, I mean, obviously terrible,
12:03severe, horrible birth defects and died and so on.
12:07So, you trade in those, you get 5 million deaths, right?
12:09Because it's all about managing anxiety rather than making intelligent and rational decisions.
12:16So, if you create political power, the most anxious will be in charge of it.
12:23You are creating political power, which weaponizes severe mental illness and dysfunction and
12:31inflicts that neurosis on the rest of the population.
12:34And it is a vector through which disordered, chaotic, neurotic thinking is inflicted on
12:42the general population.
12:44And the only way that we can deal with different levels of risk tolerance is to have a
12:49continually shifting calculation of its costs and benefits, which is only possible in the
12:53free market.
12:54The free market responds in a dynamic fashion to what is optimum based upon free choices
13:00and money payments.
13:03The free market dynamically shifts to that which is optimum in society.
13:08The political power does not.
13:11Political power freezes things in time.
13:13I mean, we know this from the obvious example of government schools.
13:16Government schools, back in the day, you had to have a couple of months off in the summer
13:20for farm work, and that still remains the same because it just gets frozen in time,
13:26right?
13:26Think of all of the technological changes that have occurred over the last 150 years,
13:30and yet you still have, for the most part, kids in rows and a teacher with a blackboard,
13:35although I think it's changed to a whiteboard as a whole.
13:38So if the alternative is violence, I don't need to justify shit to anyone as far as the
13:47system goes.
13:49If the alternative and the alternative to a voluntary society is a politically coercive
13:56society, so if you're saying, how do you justify peace and reason relative to violence
14:02and exploitation, I don't have to justify shit because you are implicitly saying, well,
14:08the option of massive amounts of violence is always on the table and is superior.
14:14You need to justify property rights relative to theft.
14:20I don't, actually.
14:22Theft is immoral.
14:23The initiation of the use of force is immoral.
14:26So I don't have to justify squat.
14:28You just have to recognize that the alternative to peace is violence, and that's what you're
14:33finding seductive.
14:34All right, let's see here.
14:37Oh yes, the comment, I think this is referring to me.
14:39He is an atheist who loves Christians but tells callers to get angry to their parents.
14:44He whines, why you not get angry at your parents?
14:47Then he bows down to Christians because he wants to be remembered as a moral philosopher.
14:52It's easy to make fun of somebody's grammar, but, well, I guess it's less easy now because
14:58you can always run it through AI to get the grammar corrected, but I try not to nitpick
15:03at people's grammar because it could not be their first language and because I suck at,
15:09I know 17 different computer languages, but only 1.2 human languages, a little bit of
15:14French, even less of German.
15:16But, so I'm not going to whine all of that.
15:24Tells people to get angry to their parents.
15:27That is, as somebody who's not listened to what I said, but I've listened to other people's
15:32interpretation of what I've said.
15:34So I don't tell people to get angry at their parents.
15:38Now, if people call me, I mean, you know this, right?
15:40But if people call me and they say that they were abused and neglected, which is, neglect
15:45is one of the worst forms of abuse.
15:47If they were abused and neglected by their parents, well, it's hard to be secure if evil
15:54doers walk all over you, trample your honesty, trample your integrity, trample your directness.
16:00So if you are being exploited and abused, anger can be a healthy emotion to establish
16:07boundaries, right?
16:09I mean, I view the suppression of anger, which is a necessary survival tactic when you're
16:16a child, if you have abusive parents.
16:18But I view, as an analogy, I view the suppression of anger as the suppression of the immune
16:25system that protects you from foreign dangers, right?
16:29Viruses, bacteria, that kind of stuff, right?
16:32So if you have an autoimmune disorder, in other words, if your immune system is attacking
16:38healthy cells, that's very bad, right?
16:41If you have some sort of disorder where your immune system is disabled, right, as the sort
16:48of AIDS used to think, used to happen way back in the day, then you also are in significant
16:54danger because you don't have protection.
16:57So if you want to tell the truth to people in your life about, you know, maybe your parents,
17:03if they harmed you, how they harmed you, if you want to tell the truth to people in your
17:08life, but you get anxious, sweaty-palmed, horrified, nervous, and you want to faint,
17:16well, then you have this moral equivalent of an autoimmune disorder.
17:21Obviously, I'm not talking about anything medical, I'm not a doctor, I'm just using
17:24it as an analogy.
17:26So anger is healthy, and if, like, just anger is healthy, right?
17:31Not manipulative bullying anger, which is just a form of rage for the purpose of forcing
17:36others to do what you want, and it's dishonest because you're not talking about your motives,
17:40you're only pretending to be angry in order to control others.
17:44So if you are terrified to tell the truth, say, to your parents, then you are, your mindset,
17:55which again, I completely sympathize with, and was almost certainly perfectly sensible
17:59and healthy when you were a kid.
18:03So if you are fearful of telling the truth, then you have the moral equivalent of an autoimmune
18:10disorder, wherein you are attacking honesty, which you should be promoting, right?
18:16It's healthy to be honest, you can't have a real relationship if you're dishonest, it's
18:20healthy to be honest, and if you are attacking yourself for wanting to be honest, like you
18:26think of just opening your mouth and telling the truth to your parents, and you are, you
18:31know, shocked, appalled, and horrified, and would, you know, feel like you're going to
18:33faint if you do it, have to force yourself to do it, the heart pounding.
18:37So you have a moral challenge in that you are attacking your virtues and find relief
18:47in vices, right?
18:48So you are attacking yourself for wanting to tell the truth, and you then will reward
18:53yourself with sweet relief if you lie.
18:56Well, that's the opposite, and that's not healthy, right?
18:58And if you attack your virtues and reward your vices, that's like an autoimmune disorder,
19:06where your immune system feeds unhealthy cells and attacks healthy cells.
19:11That's not good.
19:13That's not good, and then you don't have any protection against further exploitation.
19:17All right, I love Stefan's perspective on many topics.
19:21He does have a huge blind spot, though, with regards to human nature, that he needs to
19:25update if he's going to be the kind of thinker he thinks he is.
19:28See here.
19:29So just so you know, like from my perspective, because it's important to know how people
19:35land for others.
19:36So I love Stefan's perspective on many topics.
19:39I mean, that's nice, and I appreciate that, but that's emotional, right?
19:42You're saying that you're being driven by and run by emotions.
19:47Well, I love this take, but this take really bothers me.
19:49It's like, but emotions are not tools of cognition, right?
19:54To use an old objectivist phrase or argument, emotions are not tools of cognition.
20:00The fact that you love my perspective, and of course, perspective, that's also an emotional
20:07thing, right?
20:08We wouldn't say that two and two make four is a perspective, right?
20:11We wouldn't say that an argument that is proved through Socratic reasoning is just a perspective,
20:17right?
20:17All men are mortal.
20:18Socrates is a man.
20:19Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
20:20Oh, I love that perspective.
20:22It's like, no, that's not a perspective.
20:25That is something that is actually true.
20:29So I love Stefan's perspective on many topics.
20:32He does have a huge blind spot, though, that he needs to update if he's going to be the
20:36kind of thinker her thinks he is, my he thinks he is.
20:39Yeah.
20:40So these are all just emotional stuff, and if you're going to say I have a huge blind
20:45spot, then you're saying I don't apply a consistent methodology.
20:50I mean, I'm always trying to do that empiricism, reason, and evidence thing.
20:53So if I have a huge blind spot, you're saying that I have a massive psychological problem
20:58in that I have a consistent methodology for approaching truth, facts, reason, and evidence
21:04in the universe, except for a huge blind spot, which means I'm doing the exact opposite of
21:10my general methodology, and nobody's really pointed that out.
21:14I mean, I've been a public intellectual for almost 20 years, and you're saying that I
21:17have a huge blind spot wherein I reverse all of the principles I have dedicated myself
21:21to for, lo, these 43 years of being a philosopher or being interested in philosophy.
21:26I have a huge blind spot that I completely reverse my principles in, and nobody's really
21:31noticed it except you.
21:33So that, I mean, that's a bold claim, because it would mean that everybody shares my blind
21:39spot.
21:40We all completely reverse our principles in our conversations about what is true and what
21:45is good, facts and empiricism, accuracy and virtue.
21:51We all share this massive blind spot, and you're the only person who doesn't.
21:59This is regarding spanking.
22:01I apparently have a massive blind spot with regards to spanking, although spanking is
22:06a violation of the non-aggression principle because it's violence not used in immediate
22:09self-defense.
22:10So I have missed it.
22:13All of the experts I've talked to about spanking have missed it.
22:16Everybody I've had conversations with about spanking has missed it.
22:20So what it is is the belief that you're smart because you can invent blind spots in other
22:26people rather than reconcile arguments that go against what you prefer emotionally, right?
22:33So I love Stefan's perspective.
22:34I don't love him on this topic, but that's just feelings, right?
22:37And feelings are important, but they're not tools of cognition.
22:40So what are the odds that I and my audience and all the experts I've talked to and the
22:45reasoning that I've gone through and the data that I've cited about spanking, what are the
22:49odds that everyone has a blind spot and you're the only one who doesn't?
22:54Well, that's the idea that you can imagine that you're smart by pretending that everyone
22:59else is dumb.
23:00All right.
23:01So smacking, he says smacking, the word invokes a huge reaction from him and is pivotal to
23:07the core of his beliefs.
23:11So this is also, this is just, you know, self-knowledge 101, right?
23:16That this is called projection, right?
23:18So I love Stefan's perspective on so many topics, but I'm really, you know, he's got
23:21a huge blind spot.
23:22And then you claim that I'm triggered.
23:24Well, first of all, triggered is not an argument.
23:27And what's wrong with being triggered?
23:28What's wrong with being, what's wrong with having a strong emotional reaction to something
23:33that is immoral?
23:34I mean, if you see, is it triggered if you're, you know, on a bus and you see a guy punching
23:38his daughter?
23:40Oh, you just got triggered.
23:41It's like, well, no, it's a vile action.
23:42It's a vile, evil action.
23:44So he says the flaw as I see it is captured in this question.
23:48Are you a good parent?
23:49If you don't smack a child's hand away from an instant threat, like a child reaching for
23:53a poisonous spider, a naked flame or an electrical circuit.
23:57So I, this is not what spanking is, right?
24:02So spanking, almost always spanking is because the parent gets angry because the child is
24:06disagreeing or defying or is not following rules that the child doesn't understand or
24:10agree with.
24:11So, of course, you're going to grab a child's hand away.
24:15Let's say the child is reaching for a poisonous spider.
24:17Well, first of all, don't have a child in an environment with a poisonous spider so
24:21they can reach for it, instruct the child and so on.
24:24Don't have a child.
24:25Okay, maybe you're in Australia, right?
24:26So a child is reaching for a poisonous spider.
24:28Of course, you're going to grab the child and move the child away.
24:31And you might have to do that quite aggressively.
24:34Yeah.
24:34If the child is reaching for a naked flame, well, don't have naked flames, don't have
24:38electrical circuits around where children can reach for.
24:40But of course, you could, that's not, that's not a violation of the non-aggression principle
24:44to protect the child, right?
24:47I can't grab and manhandle adults, but let's say that there's some dog, maybe it's a small
24:52yappy dog.
24:53And oh, no, then remember this happened in Brazil.
24:56A dog jumped at my daughter, sort of came out an alley in Sao Paulo and jumped at my
25:02daughter and I lifted my daughter out of harm's way.
25:04I grabbed her and I lifted her up.
25:05Yeah, I was moving her out of harm's way.
25:07I don't understand, you know, if your child is going to run into traffic, then you grab
25:12the child and hold the child back.
25:14That's not, that's not smacking, right?
25:17They say smack a child's hand away.
25:19Well, smacking a child's hand away isn't solving the problem.
25:21You have to remove the child from the situation.
25:24So, this is called third-party self-defense, right?
25:28The child cannot defend itself.
25:30The child lacks understanding, so you act to protect the child, right?
25:35So, that is not what spanking is.
25:38So, 70 to 80 plus percent of parents hit their children and there was a study that, if my
25:46memory serves me right, it was something like 18 times a week.
25:49I mean, this was just one audio study.
25:52It's not decisive or definitive, but a significant proportion of our children are still being
26:00hit even into junior high, right?
26:03And, of course, the people that I've talked to, we do the math, sometimes they've been
26:06hit hundreds and hundreds or even a thousand plus or more times.
26:11So, it's the theory that the children are just on this conveyor belt of Indiana Jones
26:18style infinite dangers, so that the parents need to just, it's just like this poisonous
26:24spider is just coming out the walls and you just have to, you know, a dozen or two dozen
26:28times a week smack the child because the child is just continually reaching for open flames
26:34and poisonous spiders.
26:35I mean, I don't mean to laugh, but electrical, open electrical circuits, they're sticking
26:39forks in plugs, they're, you know, this continually in this cavalcade of tumbling doom and danger.
26:45And I mean, come on, man, this is not Mario Bros.
26:48It's not like Donkey Kong.
26:51So, that is not the case, right?
26:55That is not the case.
26:57I mean, you can't just go and tackle someone off a bike, right?
27:01But if your child is about to fall off the bike, you can pull them off the bike, right?
27:05Anybody who's taught a child to ride has probably gone through this situation, right?
27:10So, the idea that in an extremity where there's a poisonous spider and the child's reaching
27:15for it and you grab their hand and pull it away and, right, that that's somehow why parents
27:21hit their children hundreds of times over this course of continual danger and doom and
27:26come on, it's not a reasonable thing.
27:29So, you take a case of genuine defense of the child's interests, right?
27:34And of course, it's, you know, it is, would you do this to yourself, right?
27:39I mean, do you smack yourself for disagreeing with yourself?
27:41Well, of course not.
27:42But would you, let's say that you're, I mean, take a silly example, right?
27:47You know, your arm fell asleep, you lay on it, your arm fell asleep and there was a spider
27:52crawling towards your arm.
27:53Would you use your other arm to grab your arm and move it out the way?
27:56Sure, sure, you do that yourself, right?
27:58So, all right, so he says, obviously, if you take any time to think about it, you may find
28:02ways to avoid it and if it's true that there's trauma attached to any control you have over
28:06others, sorry, and it's true that there's trauma attached to any control you have over
28:13others, but our environment and social fabric is not as pristine as an ideological possessed
28:18person would have it.
28:18Okay, it's just a bunch of noise.
28:20Philosophy is useless when it only partially represent the environment.
28:24He is blessed with a fortunate daughter that reinforces his beliefs, but as a father of
28:27four and one who is also fortunate to have a daughter very much like his, he would be
28:31completely rocked if he had a son like one of mine.
28:34I won't go further into that, but people are innately more diverse straight out of
28:37the box than his experience is telling him.
28:40The question then becomes, when is it appropriate to stop intervening as a parent?
28:44So, he's saying, he's using the word smacking instead of hitting and now it's intervening,
28:49right?
28:49Of course you intervene as a parent.
28:51This problem extrapolates out to poorly parented individuals when their actions are at a
28:55detriment to themselves or others, not just for them, though, because the question who
28:59decides becomes even more important.
29:02Okay, so Steph is applying reductionist and ideological solutions to something that is
29:05more complex.
29:07So, no, you see, the thing is, if I say don't steal, say, well, that's just reductionist
29:14and ideological.
29:16It's really complex.
29:17It's like, no, don't steal.
29:18Now, if you say don't steal, then how you get property, how you trade, how you acquire
29:24property, how you create property, that's complex.
29:28So, when I say don't do X, right?
29:31If I say don't go to this waterfall 50 kilometers north of a town in Thailand, right?
29:39Just don't go there.
29:40Well, then you can go anywhere else.
29:42So, when I'm saying don't hit your kids, then the solutions become quite complex.
29:48See, if you have a very, let's say you have a very aggressive child.
29:52Well, if you've been hitting your child, maybe that's one of the reasons why.
29:55Say, oh, well, I'm hitting my child because he's aggressive.
29:57It's like, well, no, maybe he's aggressive because you've hit him.
30:01I mean, boys, and I talked about this way back in the day, but boys have, some boys
30:06have genetics that if they're physically abused, they will almost certainly become criminals.
30:12And you don't know, of course, if your boy has those genetics or not.
30:14So, if your child is, let's say your child is very aggressive, okay, then you need to
30:20teach that child to manage his own aggression with tools that will last him a lifetime,
30:24right?
30:24You need to teach your child to manage that aggression with tools that are going to last
30:27him a lifetime, and given that he's not going to spank himself when he's 40 and feeling
30:31aggressive in a business meeting, you need to teach him self-knowledge and mental solutions
30:36to his aggression so that it can be focused and shaped into something productive and positive,
30:41and that's not just by hitting him, right?
30:44Hitting him does not give him the tools to manage his own aggression.
30:47It just teaches him that aggression is managed with violence.
30:51Well, how's that going to, right?
30:53How's that going to work for him in the long run?
30:55In this manner, he's as useful as feminist ideologue with regards to his overall philosophy.
31:00Yeah, I mean, there's no actual argument here, right?
31:03Just it's a bunch of noise to cover up a bad conscience.
31:06All right.
31:07Steph set a chain of logic into action in my life that cleared away thickets of awful
31:10people.
31:10I live in a paradise now with only the best of friends and family.
31:14Oh, amen, brother.
31:14I'm just completely thrilled to hear that, and congratulations.
31:18It's a tough thing, but, you know, I've sort of often thought that if there was a
31:22documentary that followed me around for a day or a week, people wouldn't believe it.
31:26Like, they wouldn't believe it.
31:28How much fun we have as a family, how much I enjoy the company of friends, and all of
31:32that, and how much laughter there is, and how little dysfunction, and all of that.
31:37People wouldn't, right?
31:38What does Molly New Think about RFK Jr.
31:40wanting to ban certain ingredients to make the population in the USA, quote, healthy
31:43again?
31:44A government getting in the way of private companies adding harmful ingredients is against
31:48free market principles, according to most libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.
31:52Well, let's say that there are ingredients that are put into food that is marketed as
31:58healthy and safe for human consumption that is not healthy and safe for human consumption.
32:02Well, in a voluntary society, the executives who made those decisions would lose everything,
32:12and probably including their right to economically participate in society, right?
32:17So, if there's an executive who says, let's put ingredient X, Y, Z into these cookies,
32:23and it turns out it keeps them fresher for a little bit longer, and then it turns out
32:26to cause cancer, then all the people who can trace that causality will sue him, and there
32:31will be no corporate shields in a free society, because I want to do business with people
32:35who are going to be personally liable for bad things, not be able to pull all the profits
32:40out of a corporation and use it as a human shield, or an inhuman shield to avoid personal
32:46liability.
32:46I want people who poison others, particularly children, of course, I want them to lose their
32:50house and be taken out of economic participation in society.
32:55So, in a free society, you're personally liable for bad decisions.
33:00So, they won't make those bad decisions, right?
33:03Then he says, this cat is pure chatterbox and pretty much nothing more, a shitstorm
33:07of mixed metaphor and hyperbole.
33:09Practical act upon consciousness is something like brown crackle noise, or maybe the continual
33:14sound of shattering glass, which is, again, pure projection, right?
33:19So, that is a shitstorm of mixed metaphor and hyperbole.
33:21This cat is pure chatterbox and pretty much nothing more.
33:23Practical act upon consciousness is something like brown crackle noise.
33:26So, he's basically, somebody's writing a word salad saying that I'm just a word salad.
33:30Now, that's kind of funny, right?
33:32Tragic, but funny.
33:33I've never seen a bigger coward than Molyneux.
33:36Yeah, I guess you need to get out more.
33:38Molyneux is crazy.
33:39I liked him because of the Rothbard economics, anarchy, et cetera, et cetera, except he
33:43lost me when he said I had to cut off my family if they disagreed with anarchist stuff.
33:47Nope.
33:48I know that's not it, right?
33:51That's not it.
33:52That's not it.
33:53And it's funny because the vast majority of society said that you should cut off family
33:56members if they don't take an experimental vaccine.
34:00I mean, that was a very common belief and there's endless tales.
34:03I don't know exactly what percentage of people agreed with it, but they certainly seem pretty
34:06much down with having people lose rights because they didn't want to participate in
34:13COVID era mRNA stuff.
34:16So, yeah, I mean, you don't cut family members off because they disagree with you because
34:25disagreement is a fertile ground for progress.
34:28Disagreement is great.
34:29But let me ask you this.
34:31If you had a third cousin who said he had the right to beat up women and beat up women
34:39in your family, including your wife, mother, aunt, and daughter, you had a third cousin
34:47who believed that he had the right to beat up women and beat up women, would you ostracize
34:53him because you just had a disagreement on whether you, well, you know, he thinks that
34:59you should and can beat up women.
35:01I think that you shouldn't and can't.
35:02And, you know, we have a disagreement.
35:04I mean, I wouldn't want to ostracize the guy and not have him around my wife, aunt,
35:11mother, and daughter.
35:12I don't want to ostracize the guy because, I mean, it's really weird and mean to just
35:17ostracize someone because of a simple, silly disagreement.
35:20It's like, well, no, it's not a simple, silly disagreement.
35:22He's justifying the use of violence that is enacted against the women in your life.
35:27Right?
35:29Right.
35:30So it's not a disagreement that causes or could cause something like not having someone
35:36in your life.
35:37It's when they advocate and cheer on the use of violence against you.
35:41In other words, they're not allowing you to disagree.
35:43They're threatening you with violence for disagreeing with them.
35:46In other words, if you think that the welfare state is immoral and corrupt and damaging,
35:51and he votes for the welfare state, then he's voting to have you thrown in prison if you
35:53don't fund the welfare state.
35:54So he's not allowing you to have a choice and he's cheering on the use of violence against
35:58you.
35:59So if being allowed to disagree is fine, which is fine, you should be allowed to disagree.
36:06But if someone says, you're not allowed to disagree with me about how the poor should
36:09be helped, you should be thrown in jail.
36:11If you do disagree with me about how the poor should be helped, that's a different fucking
36:15matter entirely.
36:16Jesus, people grow a spine.
36:19All right.
36:20He says, de-platforming is house rules.
36:22It's legit.
36:22If people are too lazy to switch to a better platform that doesn't censor, then maybe that
36:27means humanity is exactly where it serves to be.
36:30De-platforming is house rules.
36:32Well, here's the thing, though.
36:34I mean, de-platforming, right?
36:36So let's say there's company ABC, right?
36:39So company ABC lures people onto its platform by saying, we're a free speech platform, right?
36:45We're a free speech platform, right?
36:47If your speech is not illegal, then you're allowed to say what you want, right?
36:52So then people invest tens of thousands of hours building material, providing videos
36:59or audio or text or whatever, on ABC platform.
37:02And then they say, well, you know, if we have a problem with you, with something that you
37:07say, you know, we'll give you, you know, one, two, three warnings.
37:10We'll give you the opportunity.
37:12We'll publish clear guidelines so that you know whether you're in compliance or not.
37:19And you'll know for sure.
37:20You'll have certainty.
37:22So if people build a platform and there's a certain, there's got to be a certain sunset
37:29clause.
37:29Like if you, if you have, let's say a video on ABC platform, you have a video on there
37:34and it's been up for five years, right?
37:37Then you're assuming it's okay.
37:39Because you can't, you can't, if the video is okay when it's uploaded, but then five
37:43years later, it's considered not okay.
37:46Well, that's a problem because that means the rules have changed and they've changed
37:51retroactively.
37:52So if you've had content up there for a long time and it's been okay, then there has to
37:58be an assumption that it's okay, right?
38:01So if a company offers people a free speech platform and they're on there for many years
38:10and their videos are okay, and then suddenly everything gets erased with no warning and
38:16no explanation.
38:18Well, isn't that sort of an explicit or implicit violation of the contract, right?
38:24So that's a complex question, right?
38:28That's a complex question.
38:29There are assumptions that you make, right?
38:34That are essential to a functional, a functional economy, right?
38:40So if for instance, you buy property, right?
38:43You buy an acre somewhere and then you build your house on that acre.
38:49And then the company that sold you the acre of land after you've built the house, the
38:56company says that they don't want to sell you that land anymore.
39:02And then they come and knock down your house.
39:05And then it turns out it's because they want to build something there.
39:07Well, that would be pretty bad, right?
39:09You have a contract that you own the land and that contract can't just be repudiated
39:14at a later date.
39:16And when you have a, let's say, a media sharing platform, again, ABC company, then what you're
39:25doing is you are homesteading servers, right?
39:30You are homesteading portions of their servers.
39:34Now, of course, it's their servers.
39:35I understand that for sure.
39:36That makes sense, right?
39:37It's their servers, but they are giving you the right to homestead their servers, to put
39:42your property on their servers in return for advertising and clicks and views and the other
39:50sort of profit sharing stuff, right?
39:51So maybe we can revisit the house building thing with a slightly better example.
39:55So let's say that you have a perpetual lease, right?
39:59You lease land and they say, well, this land is yours in perpetuity as long as you don't
40:03do illegal things on the property, right?
40:07It's like a lease in an apartment, right?
40:09Now, if you build a house on land because the lease says that the land is effectively
40:18yours, just don't do illegal things, right?
40:21Okay.
40:22So then you build a house.
40:23And if you haven't done anything illegal and then they take back the ownership of that
40:29lease and destroy your house, maybe for political reasons, well, is that a problem, right?
40:35In other words, if you had known ahead of time, right?
40:38This is one of the foundational aspect of contracts, right?
40:41If you'd known ahead of time that your house was going to be knocked down for arbitrary
40:45reasons with no warning, even though it specifically says you'll get warnings if you do anything
40:50that's illegal, you've never been charged, you've never been prosecuted, you've never
40:54been found guilty of anything and so on.
40:56And then they just, you wake up, you come back from your day at work and half your house
41:02is knocked down.
41:04Well, you wouldn't have built the house on that land if you had known that would be the
41:08outcome.
41:09Now, if they change the rules, that's fine.
41:13Then they can change the rules going forward, but you have to be grandfathered in, right?
41:17So if you don't get any strikes or problems or issues or whatever for ever and ever amen,
41:25then everything that you did before has to be covered by whatever the prior standard
41:29was, right?
41:30I mean, it's like you can't raise taxes legally or morally retroactively, right?
41:34So you can't say, well, I'm going to put a tax on house purchases and now it's going
41:39to go back 20 years, right?
41:40So now everybody owes the government a million dollars because of the additional taxes on
41:44stuff they bought and sold 10 or 20 years ago.
41:46Like that would not be rational, right?
41:48So that's the challenge, right?
41:53That's the challenge.
41:53Would you build a house if you knew ahead of time that the land could simply be taken
41:59away and your house would be destroyed with no say, no warnings, no recompense?
42:04Would you build a house there?
42:05And of course you wouldn't, right?
42:07So you build the house on the land based upon the contract when you start building your
42:11house.
42:12And now if they want to change that contract, they can do that for new purchases because
42:15people can then make that decision, but they can't do that for stuff that was 20 years
42:18ago.
42:19So, I mean, that's one of the challenges of this kind of stuff.
42:25All right.
42:25Well, thanks everyone so much.
42:26Have yourself a wonderful, glorious, perfect, beautiful, wonderful day.
42:29Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
42:31I really would appreciate your support and I will talk to you tomorrow.
42:34Bye.