- 6/6/2025
"You don't respond to comments so what's the point?"
"Are republics a natural trajectory of all human civilizations? Or are we naturally directed towards hierarchical pyramid structures in society?"
"Would Neal Peart have agreed with your politics?"
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
"Are republics a natural trajectory of all human civilizations? Or are we naturally directed towards hierarchical pyramid structures in society?"
"Would Neal Peart have agreed with your politics?"
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00All righty. Good morning, everybody. It is Sven Molyne from Freedomain.
00:04Freedomain.com slash donate. How about the show? I really would appreciate that.
00:08And let's start with some passive-aggressive Facebook comments.
00:13So some guy wrote, because I asked more philosophy questions, please.
00:17And he wrote, you don't respond to comments. So what's the point?
00:21This is a way of goading me into responding to his comment.
00:25I would have responded either way, but just this kind of passive-aggressive stuff
00:29is not good in your relationships.
00:31It means that direct and honest people really won't want to spend time with you.
00:35Anyway, so he asks, are republics a natural trajectory of all human civilizations?
00:42Or are we naturally directed towards hierarchical pyramid structures in society?
00:48So there is no natural trajectory to all human civilizations.
00:52If people are willing to think, if people are willing to reason,
00:55then there is no natural trajectory.
00:59If people avoid thinking, if they avoid reasoning, if they avoid empirical evidence,
01:05if they avoid better arguments, then there is an inevitability.
01:09I'll give you an example.
01:11So if somebody is a heavy smoker, and they avoid dealing with whatever childhood trauma,
01:19they're self-medicating with nicotine, if they avoid looking at the data about smoking
01:25and how dangerous it is, if they avoid thinking about their terrible addiction
01:31and the harm that it does to their bodies, their minds, their families, and so on,
01:36then they will not quit smoking.
01:38And therefore, the course of their decline in health becomes inevitable.
01:44So if somebody refuses to process evidence, if they refuse to think,
01:48then there is an inevitability.
01:50Free will is our ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
01:56Nothing more, nothing less.
01:58If people think there is no such thing as inevitability,
02:03if people avoid thinking, then inevitability is chosen, right?
02:09You choose inevitability by avoiding thinking.
02:14So now we can say, is it inevitable that people avoid thinking?
02:21No, it's not.
02:22That's not inevitable.
02:23And it's not inevitable at all.
02:25If somebody has a trauma, right?
02:29So one of the common reasons why, say, a woman will become obese
02:35is because she was sexually abused by a male as a child.
02:42And therefore, being, quote, attractive is dangerous.
02:47And therefore, she will make herself as unattractive as possible.
02:51It's well-known and horrible data, of course,
02:56that single mothers, the children of single mothers, vastly at risk, vastly greater at risk
03:01for abuse, and in particular sexual abuse,
03:06than if they have a father, their own biologically related father living with them.
03:11If a man is not related to the child, often the girl, right?
03:15But if the man is not related to the child,
03:16the incidence of abuse, 30 plus times higher.
03:21So, if children are sexually abused, then they become terrified of being attractive.
03:26It's no accident, or coincidence, that the rise in female unattractiveness,
03:32consciously willed and chosen female unattractiveness,
03:35has coincided with the rise, although it lags by a while, of single motherhood.
03:40However, having a non-biologically related male in the house
03:45raises the incidence of violence or abuse and sexual abuse against children
03:49dozens of times, 30 plus times in some circumstances.
03:54Now, when, let's just say, little girls are sexually abused,
03:58then they have a terrible relationship
04:01to their own perception of their own attractiveness,
04:04because they believe that it is their attractiveness or appeal
04:08that has caused the sexual abuse.
04:12Often, not always, but often.
04:15And when they grow up, and certainly when they get their own choices,
04:18or this can be, of course, the case from early teens onwards,
04:22they are then, they wish to make themselves as unattractive as possible
04:25so that they will not be further preyed upon.
04:29And so, this is one of the reasons for the rises in the rates of obesity.
04:33This is why you have people with weird haircuts and blue hair
04:37and strange facial piercings and so on,
04:40badly dressed or unappealingly dressed,
04:42because they don't want to make themselves, quote, attractive,
04:47because they were preyed upon as children.
04:51And so, you either learn to deal with these traumas
04:54and accept these traumas and work through these traumas,
04:56or the commitment to being unattractive, to protective unattractiveness
05:02is going to continue.
05:04So, I don't believe that not thinking,
05:08or refusing to think or avoiding thinking,
05:11I don't think that that is inevitable at all.
05:15I mean, it's common.
05:17It's common, without a doubt.
05:19But I don't view it as inevitable.
05:21So, the natural trajectory of human society
05:25is that when you don't think,
05:29or when you refuse to think, when you avoid thinking,
05:31you are immediately captured, almost always, by ideology.
05:37So, let's say that you...
05:38And it's not just single mothers,
05:39but we're just looking at the more common situation,
05:41or the most common situation,
05:42something which is 30-plus times more likely to happen
05:45needs to be examined first.
05:47I mean, you are many times more likely to get lung cancer,
05:53or whatever it is, emphysema, COPD.
05:55If you smoke, then if you don't smoke it,
05:57certainly people who don't smoke,
05:58I think Andy Kaufman was one,
06:00do get lung cancer, but it's very rare.
06:01So, if you want to reduce the incidence of lung cancer,
06:04you would look at smoking first, right?
06:07And when you've dealt with that,
06:08you'd move on to other things.
06:09So, when we're looking at child abuse,
06:10we would look at situations where child abuse is the most common,
06:13and one of those would be, unfortunately,
06:15a single mother household.
06:17And I say this with great sympathy.
06:19So, if children are raised in an abusive situation,
06:23in part because of the single mother household,
06:27let's say a girl is preyed upon by her single mother's boyfriends
06:32or other non-related males in the household,
06:34then if you don't think and reason
06:37and look at the causes of these kinds of things,
06:40what happens is you end up being captured by ideology.
06:44Ideology is what stands between trauma and its true source.
06:49It codifies trauma into a wild series of abstractions,
06:53and ideology protects the abuser.
06:56I'll sort of explain this mechanism briefly,
06:59or as reasonably briefly as it can be effectively explained.
07:03So, let's take the example of a girl,
07:06and it doesn't just have to be sexual abuse,
07:08it could be other forms of exploitation and abuse.
07:11Let's say that she's forced to work sort of Cinderella style.
07:14She's sort of forced to work for mother and her mother's living boyfriend.
07:18She's forced to do all the chores or take care of the children.
07:20It's exploited in some way.
07:22Now, what ideology does is it takes away
07:26the moral choices of individuals
07:29and replaces them with systematic,
07:33i.e. non-individual, motivations and causes.
07:36So, if a little girl is exploited by a male
07:43when she's growing up, an adult male,
07:45again, could be her biological father,
07:46although that's much more rare,
07:48could be a mother's living boyfriend or some other male
07:50who's not related to her.
07:52If she is exploited as a little girl,
07:55or abused, neglected maybe,
07:57then she suffers a great deal of pain
08:00based upon people's individual choices, right?
08:03Her mother's choice to be a single mother,
08:05her mother's choice to bring, say,
08:08an abusive boyfriend into the environment,
08:10her mother's choice to continue to keep
08:12that abusive boyfriend in the environment and so on, right?
08:16So, and, of course,
08:18the live-in boyfriend's choice to abuse the little girl, right?
08:24These are all choices and moral choices,
08:27and people need to be held accountable for their moral choices.
08:31I mean, certainly adults.
08:33I mean, we're continually holding children
08:34accountable for their moral choices,
08:36so we have to hold adults accountable for their moral choices,
08:40otherwise our entire society is an exploitive lie.
08:45Now, she suffers a great deal of pain,
08:48the pain of being exploited or abused or both,
08:51and also the pain of the moral choices
08:53made by the adults in her environment
08:55that resulted in that abuse.
08:56Now, ideology comes along and says,
09:00I'm going to take the pain that you experience
09:04because of people's individual choices
09:05and move it into an abstract, generalized, systemic issue.
09:10So, instead of saying,
09:13your mother made bad choices
09:14bringing in abusive men into the environment,
09:17again, I'm just talking one of many circumstances or situations,
09:21but it is the most common,
09:21and it is kind of the smoking of this kind of lung cancer stuff.
09:25So, your mother made very bad choices,
09:28wrong choices, abusive choices,
09:30and the living boyfriend, say,
09:33made abusive, bad, and wrong choices.
09:34Those are specific and individual.
09:36You hold people to account,
09:36and it's very painful.
09:37It involves a confrontation
09:38that goes against family bonds,
09:40which is unpleasant, difficult, and dangerous
09:42emotionally to pursue.
09:44But ideology will step in
09:46and take that away.
09:47Take the individual issue away.
09:50And it will not say,
09:52your mother made bad choices,
09:54her boyfriend made bad choices,
09:56wrong choices, immoral, evil choices.
09:58What it will say is,
10:00well, men exploit women in general,
10:03and men are cruel in general.
10:06Now, if you move something from individual choices
10:10to, say, physics or biology,
10:12you can't really blame the individuals.
10:14You have this sort of generalized issue with,
10:17like, sort of, I'm not very clear, sorry.
10:19So, an example would be,
10:21if someone dies of old age,
10:23we don't hold anyone individually accountable,
10:28or any person as a whole,
10:30because human beings are mortal, right?
10:32We're born, we age, we get old, we die.
10:36Now, so that is not murder.
10:38It is not like the world is murdering
10:40and somebody just dies peacefully
10:41in their sleep of old age.
10:42They're not killed, right?
10:43They're just, we have an expiry date.
10:46So, that's not anybody's individual choice
10:51that is bound up in the very nature of biology, right?
10:55We're only alive because people die,
10:57and therefore life is a gift
10:58cast in the shadow of death.
11:01If people didn't die,
11:02people wouldn't need to be born.
11:03There would be no evolution or whatever, right?
11:06So, and entropy demands that all systems
11:09decay over time.
11:12So, we don't hold anybody personally accountable.
11:16So, if you can imagine that,
11:18if you believed that
11:19there was a malevolent God
11:21who was causing people to age,
11:23or a malevolent person, let's say,
11:25not even a God, a person,
11:27who had some, you know,
11:28horrible Chernobyl-style
11:29radiation ray that caused everyone
11:32in the world to age and die,
11:33we would view that person
11:34as a, you know, almost infinite
11:35genocidal mass murderer.
11:38But if, of course, it's just nature,
11:40then we don't hold anybody
11:41individually responsible
11:42and we accept that as
11:43part of the natural order of things.
11:46Getting old and dying is just
11:47part of the natural order of things.
11:50And so, when you have pain
11:51from people's individual choices,
11:54an ideology,
11:55sorry, an ideologue
11:56will come along and say,
11:59well, it's not that your mother
12:00made bad choices.
12:01It's that men in general,
12:03there's a patriarchy
12:04that exploits and harms women
12:06and your mother is, in fact,
12:07a victim.
12:08And this allows you
12:09to protect your attachment
12:10with your mother
12:11because you've transferred
12:12her bad decisions
12:14to a generalized ideology
12:16of male exploitation
12:17that portrays her as
12:18a victim,
12:20that she has no choice, right?
12:21If somebody is 90
12:23and, you know,
12:24unable to do gymnastics,
12:26we don't say,
12:27well, that's just because
12:28they don't exercise, right?
12:30It's their fault, right?
12:31And we don't blame them
12:35for that.
12:36That's just, you know,
12:37they're going to be kind of creaky
12:38because they're 90, right?
12:39So, they're just going to be old
12:41and, you know,
12:43they might have arthritis,
12:44they have joint issues,
12:45they might,
12:45they certainly would lack
12:46some strength and flexibility
12:48and so on
12:48because they're 90, right?
12:50So, we don't blame them
12:51for that
12:52because that's inherent
12:54to existence as a whole,
12:57biological existence,
12:58you're going to age, right?
12:59So, we don't hold
13:00individuals responsible
13:02for systemic issues
13:04beyond their control.
13:05We don't hold somebody
13:06responsible
13:06for having wrinkles
13:08when they're 90
13:09or having gray hair
13:10or health issues
13:11that are related to aging, right?
13:14So, in the same way,
13:15we would not hold
13:17our single mother responsible
13:18if there's a generalized system
13:21called the exploitive
13:23and abusive patriarchy
13:24that our mother
13:25is a victim of.
13:26So, if you refuse
13:27to hold people accountable,
13:29the accountability
13:29shifts to the ideology
13:31which removes
13:32individuals
13:33from their choices.
13:36In Marxism,
13:37a sort of traditional
13:37class-based analysis
13:39of society,
13:40it's not
13:41that the individual workers
13:43choose
13:44to be workers
13:45rather than
13:46owners of the means
13:47of production.
13:48It's not that
13:49the worker could
13:51save money
13:52and study at night
13:53and learn
13:56how to become
13:57an entrepreneur, right?
13:58I mean,
13:59the worker could
14:00take his money
14:01and save it
14:02and then study
14:03plumbing
14:04or how to be
14:06an electrician
14:06and then start
14:07his own trade business
14:09and become the owner
14:10of the means
14:10of production, right?
14:11It's not that
14:12individual workers,
14:13it's not a complaint
14:14or criticism,
14:15it's just sort of a fact
14:16that individual workers
14:17are not choosing
14:18to remain workers
14:18and there is no law
14:21which says
14:23you have to be
14:23an entrepreneur
14:24but there will be
14:25certain choices,
14:27certain results
14:28of that choice
14:29and of course,
14:29I've worked with
14:30a lot of people
14:30who would be considered
14:32lower-class workers, right?
14:33I worked in
14:34the manual labor environment,
14:37I worked as a waiter
14:37and so on
14:38and there were people
14:39who spent their whole life
14:40as waiters
14:40and there were people
14:42who went to work
14:43and did their job
14:44and they came home
14:45and they enjoyed time
14:46with their family,
14:47they enjoyed time
14:48with their friends,
14:48they went bowling,
14:49they did barbecues
14:50and they had a lot of fun
14:51rather than coming home
14:54and studying
14:55how to become
14:56an entrepreneur
14:57and how to open
14:57their own business
14:58which is a lot of work
14:59and a lot of risk
15:00and they viewed
15:01the bosses
15:03or those who were workaholics
15:04or those who studied
15:05at night as,
15:06you know,
15:06kind of nerds and losers
15:07and so rather than say
15:10it is somebody's
15:12individual choice
15:12if they wish
15:13to receive a paycheck
15:14rather than
15:15become an entrepreneur
15:16or work their way
15:17up to becoming
15:20an owner of the means
15:21of production
15:22rather than an employer
15:23hired by somebody
15:25who owns the means
15:25of production
15:25it's a choice
15:26and the ideology
15:30comes along
15:30and says
15:31well,
15:33it's not the choice
15:35of the worker
15:35it's baked into
15:37or inherent
15:38in the economic system
15:40that the bosses
15:42own the means
15:43of production
15:43and they exploit
15:45the workers
15:46who then
15:46have no choice
15:47right
15:48and so
15:49let's say
15:50that you're a kid
15:51and you grew up
15:51and your dad
15:53is kind of lazy
15:55and unreliable
15:55and he gets fired
15:58he can't really
15:59keep a job
15:59and you kind of
16:00have to keep moving
16:01and you're hungry
16:03and you worry about
16:05you know
16:06where food
16:07and shelter
16:08and heat
16:08are going to come from
16:09and it's kind of stressful
16:10and you have to get a job
16:11kind of early
16:11I mean
16:12this was certainly
16:13my experience
16:14I got my first job
16:15at 10
16:15and I remember
16:17trying to contact
16:17my mother once
16:18when I was 12
16:19or 13
16:19and I had to go
16:20through a whole list
16:20of places
16:21that she had worked
16:23there was a whole list
16:24of phone numbers
16:25and I had to go
16:26through that list
16:27and I remember
16:28calling people
16:28and say
16:28oh no
16:29your mom was let go
16:31last year
16:32that kind of stuff
16:32right
16:32I had to try
16:33and get in contact
16:33with her
16:33and I mean
16:35my mother obviously
16:36was unstable
16:36it wasn't just
16:37a matter of laziness
16:38but she had a lot
16:38of mental instability
16:39you know
16:40being a young girl
16:42during the war
16:43and in the post-war period
16:43when German population
16:45was preyed on
16:46unbelievably
16:47I think you can look
16:49at a documentary
16:49called
16:50Savage Peace
16:51or The Savage Peace
16:52for more on that
16:53but
16:54my mother
16:55obviously never became
16:57an entrepreneur
16:57she never achieved
16:58when I was young
16:59any kind of financial
17:00stability
17:01and
17:02she got fired
17:04a lot
17:05and
17:06I can either
17:08look at that
17:08and say
17:09okay well
17:09my mother
17:09decided not to deal
17:11with her
17:11trauma
17:12she decided
17:13to externalize
17:14right
17:14she decided
17:15to externalize
17:16her trauma
17:16she herself
17:18was not
17:19she did not
17:20have mental challenges
17:20according to her own mind
17:21it was the doctors
17:22who poisoned her
17:23so she went to ideology
17:24rather than
17:25personal responsibility
17:26and
17:27I mean
17:28her childhood
17:29was much worse
17:31than mine
17:31so
17:32I'm not even
17:33I'm not even
17:34going to judge that
17:34at this time
17:35I'm just saying
17:35that that is
17:36what happened
17:36I'm not sure
17:37how much choice
17:37she practically had
17:38but
17:39this is
17:40what she did
17:41was she went
17:41to ideology
17:42and externalization
17:43and blame
17:44rather than
17:45internalization
17:46and
17:46free will
17:47and taking
17:48responsibility
17:49so
17:50so if you grew up
17:51in a situation
17:52where your dad
17:53can't really keep a job
17:55and is constantly
17:56running from place to place
17:57then you can either say
17:58well my dad made bad choices
18:00or my dad was irresponsible
18:01or my dad was kind of lazy
18:02or my dad drank
18:03and shouldn't have
18:03or whatever right
18:04or
18:05right
18:06which would be
18:06sort of personal responsibility
18:07and
18:08taking ownership
18:09of the pain
18:10that you were experiencing
18:11or
18:12you can say
18:13well it wasn't my dad's fault
18:15it's just that
18:15in capitalism
18:16people
18:18get
18:18exploited
18:19and
18:20there are these
18:21you know
18:21mean
18:22it's funny because
18:22the
18:23workers are innocent
18:25but the factory owners
18:26are guilty
18:27right
18:28so the workers have no
18:29free will
18:30but
18:31the owners
18:32are in a bad
18:33and wrong
18:34and guilty
18:35which of course
18:35doesn't make a whole lot of sense
18:37when you think about it
18:37if
18:38there are two people
18:39trapped in a system
18:40which destroys free will
18:41then the owners
18:42would have no more free will
18:43than the
18:44employees
18:45but of course
18:46the employees
18:47outnumber the
18:47owners
18:48and they're not looking
18:49for logical consistency
18:50they're looking for
18:51protecting those
18:52around them
18:53who've made bad decisions
18:54by blaming a generalized system
18:55and attacking people
18:57distant from them
18:57rather than close
18:58to them
18:59right
18:59so
19:01if you grew up
19:01with a dysfunctional
19:03provider
19:04let's say a father
19:05and you know
19:06he's kind of lazy
19:06and irresponsible
19:07and drinks and so on
19:08then
19:09you don't
19:10want to get mad at him
19:12because that threatens the bond
19:13and you have to bond
19:14with people when you're growing up
19:15and you have to protect
19:16their reputation
19:16within their own mind
19:17especially if they're
19:19aggressive or violent
19:20or dangerous or neglectful
19:21because you might be
19:22evolutionarily speaking
19:23you might be killed
19:24or abandoned
19:24or not protected
19:25or left behind
19:26or something like that
19:26so you have to bond
19:28so you have to protect that bond
19:29so you're angry at your mother
19:30you're angry at your father
19:31for bad behavior
19:32but you have to protect the bond
19:34so you can't just
19:37eliminate the anger
19:38but you don't want to get angry
19:40directly at your mother
19:41and or father
19:42because you have to protect the bond
19:45so what do you do?
19:46well
19:46sophists and ideologues
19:49come along
19:49and they give you an ideology
19:50that allows you to express
19:52your anger
19:53without threatening
19:54the bond
19:55and they do that
19:56by saying
19:57there are these
19:58institutional factors
20:00it's not
20:01free will
20:02it's physics
20:02it's not choice
20:03it's biology
20:05it's not murder
20:06it's just old age
20:07why people die
20:08and this allows you
20:09to protect your bond
20:10with your particular
20:11parent
20:11by viewing them
20:12as the victim
20:13of a quote system
20:14right
20:14there's a system
20:15that oppresses
20:16there's a system
20:16that exploits
20:17and
20:18your
20:19single mother
20:20was not
20:21morally responsible
20:22for her choices
20:23she was the victim
20:23of the patriarchy
20:24right
20:24and your father
20:25was not lazy
20:27or inattentive
20:27or chose things
20:28other than
20:29making money
20:29he was exploited
20:31by these sort of
20:31evil capitalists
20:32and so on
20:32and this way
20:33you get to
20:33express your hatred
20:34against abstract
20:35classes
20:36and sexes
20:38and so on
20:38like males
20:39and capitalists
20:40and so on
20:41right
20:41so you get to
20:43express your anger
20:44while maintaining
20:46your bond
20:47right
20:48so you get to
20:48get angry
20:49at the capitalists
20:49while maintaining
20:50your bond
20:50with your father
20:51by viewing him
20:51as a victim
20:52not as a
20:53person who chooses
20:53you get to
20:54get angry
20:55at the
20:56quote patriarchy
20:56and
20:58you get to
20:59protect your bond
21:01sorry
21:01with your
21:02single mother
21:03and
21:04this way
21:04you get to
21:05express your anger
21:05without threatening
21:07the bond
21:08right
21:08so
21:08this is what
21:09a refusal
21:11to think
21:12and to
21:12accurately process
21:13the choices
21:14right
21:15so
21:15the people make
21:16and the reason
21:17that we know
21:18this
21:18right
21:18is that
21:19the reason
21:19we know
21:20this is false
21:20is because
21:22say for instance
21:23my mother
21:24would get angry
21:25at me
21:25for my choices
21:26as a child
21:27as a
21:27as a little
21:28child
21:28she would get
21:29angry at me
21:30and I remember
21:32when I was very little
21:34maybe five or so
21:35I had a coloring book
21:36that I really liked
21:37and my mother and I
21:38were crossing
21:39the street
21:40and
21:41it was
21:42not at the lights
21:43it was a dangerous
21:44situation
21:45and
21:46I dropped my coloring book
21:48so I turned
21:49to pick it up
21:49and a car
21:51drove over
21:51half of my coloring book
21:52while I was picking up
21:53the other half
21:53and of course
21:54it was incredibly dangerous
21:56for a car
21:56to be racing past me
21:57while I was picking up
21:59my coloring book
22:00and my mother got
22:00very angry at me
22:01and sort of
22:02hit me
22:03quite a bit
22:04on the other side
22:06right
22:06although she of course
22:07had put me into
22:07that dangerous situation
22:08I was just picking up
22:10my book
22:10I was
22:10again
22:10I don't know
22:11I was about five
22:12maybe a little younger
22:13and so my mother
22:15held me responsible
22:16for picking up
22:17my coloring book
22:17and beat me
22:19for making
22:21a bad choice
22:21even though
22:22of course
22:22it was her
22:22who put me
22:23in that situation
22:24so
22:25if I am to be held
22:26responsible
22:28for a
22:29quote bad choice
22:30when I'm five
22:31then of course
22:31I can
22:32hold my
22:33mother responsible
22:34for the choices
22:34that she made
22:35in her 30s
22:3540s
22:3650s
22:3660s
22:3670s
22:3780s
22:37and so on
22:37right
22:37you can't say
22:39well you
22:40had to be beaten
22:41for a bad choice
22:42you made
22:43at the age of five
22:44but you can't
22:45hold me accountable
22:46for any choice
22:47I've ever made
22:48as an adult
22:49right
22:49that would be
22:50I mean that's
22:50perverse beyond words
22:51right
22:52so
22:53you know
22:54if I were
22:55an ideologue
22:56if I were
22:57not a thinker
22:58if I
22:58took sort of
22:59pre-digested food
23:00like a mom
23:01a mama bird
23:03spitting
23:03half-digested worms
23:05into the baby beaks
23:06if I
23:06were drawn towards
23:07sophistry
23:08and of course
23:08sophists make this
23:10offer to people
23:10all the time
23:11right
23:11so if I was
23:12drawn to sophistry
23:12what I would do
23:14is I would say
23:15well
23:15it's not
23:16my mother's fault
23:18that she was
23:19a bad mother
23:20because
23:21there is this
23:22capitalist system
23:23that exploited her
23:24and underpaid her
23:26so she was always
23:26stressed about money
23:27and there's this
23:28patriarchy
23:29that my father
23:29was part of
23:30that abandoned
23:31and
23:32exploited her
23:33and
23:34abused her
23:35and neglected her
23:36and she had no chance
23:37so
23:37she was just
23:38an innocent victim
23:40struggling against storms
23:42not of her own creation
23:43right
23:44and
23:45sort of like
23:46the Titanic
23:47right
23:47if your mother
23:48struggles to
23:49save you
23:49and grabs you
23:50and leaves bruises
23:51on your arms
23:51and throws you
23:52into a
23:53lifeboat
23:54and so on
23:55we wouldn't say
23:55well that's really
23:56abusive
23:56we'd say
23:56well
23:57your mother
23:57is struggling
23:58to save you
23:58in a situation
24:00called
24:01the sinking
24:01of the Titanic
24:01that's not of her own
24:02making
24:02she's just struggling
24:03to survive
24:04a circumstance
24:05that she didn't
24:05create
24:06right
24:06so
24:06ideology
24:07allows you to
24:09express your anger
24:10at mistreatment
24:11without threatening
24:12the bond
24:13and
24:14it
24:14I mean
24:16it's a terrible answer
24:17I mean
24:17just factually
24:18honestly
24:18it's a terrible answer
24:19you can go to
24:21significant extremes
24:22and I talk about this
24:23I have a
24:24premium presentation
24:25for subscribers
24:27at
24:27fdrurl.com
24:29slash locals
24:30or
24:30freedomain.locals.com
24:31or
24:31subscribestar.com
24:33slash freedomain
24:34I have a presentation
24:34on the French Revolution
24:36right
24:36in the French Revolution
24:37the people who were
24:39abused as children
24:41blamed the
24:42clergy and the aristocracy
24:43now
24:44were the clergy
24:45and the aristocracy
24:45back then great
24:46no
24:46but who harmed
24:48the children more
24:48right
24:49was their own parents
24:51and I talk about
24:51the child abuse
24:52that was endemic
24:53throughout
24:54French society
24:55at that time
24:56and
24:58when you start
25:00blaming
25:00abstract categories
25:02of human beings
25:03rather than
25:03holding the individuals
25:04in your life
25:05morally responsible
25:05for their choices
25:06you unleash
25:08this
25:09highly directional
25:10hatred
25:11at entire groups
25:13that can be easily
25:14weaponized by ideologues
25:15into
25:16creating
25:17I mean
25:18honestly
25:20mass murder
25:20can be the result
25:22of that
25:23right
25:23so
25:25it's a very
25:26it's a devilish bargain
25:27to attempt to
25:28maintain
25:29your bond
25:29with people who
25:30made immoral choices
25:31by
25:31allowing ideologues
25:33to
25:34place those
25:35who harmed you
25:36in the victim
25:36category
25:37and
25:38designating
25:39entire classes
25:40of people
25:40as
25:42exploiters
25:43and abusers
25:43which allows
25:44you
25:44it allows
25:45them to
25:46weaponize
25:46your anger
25:47at your own
25:48immediate
25:49it could be
25:50family members
25:51or others
25:51and
25:52and
25:52it then gets
25:53weaponized
25:54so that
25:55you hate
25:56entire
25:56classes
25:57or groups
25:57or sexes
25:58of people
25:59and then
26:00this is used
26:00to dismantle
26:01your society
26:03and of course
26:04if you doubt
26:04any of this
26:05we can just
26:05look at something
26:06like the
26:06welfare state
26:07the welfare state
26:08is predicated
26:09on the idea
26:10that those
26:10who have
26:11money
26:11that they
26:12exploited
26:12others
26:13to get it
26:14right
26:14and
26:16as a result
26:18the rich
26:19owe the poor
26:20because the rich
26:21only have their
26:21money because
26:21they exploited
26:22the poor
26:23the poor
26:23don't have any
26:23choice
26:24they didn't
26:24make any
26:24bad decisions
26:25it's a whole
26:25system
26:26and so the
26:27welfare state
26:27is the result
26:29of ideology
26:30which is the
26:30result of people
26:31not processing
26:32their own
26:32trauma
26:32and instead
26:33allowing the
26:34black alchemy
26:35of sophistry
26:36to change
26:38or transform
26:40their anger
26:42towards individuals
26:42into hatred
26:44of abstract
26:45classes
26:45which can
26:46then be
26:46weaponized
26:46for the
26:48true exploitation
26:49right
26:49and
26:50individual
26:51personal
26:52responsibility
26:53sustainable
26:53sophistry
26:54and the
26:55hatred
26:55of abstract
26:55classes
26:56is not
26:56sustainable
26:57any more
26:57than the
26:58welfare state
26:59is sustainable
26:59or ever
27:00has been
27:00throughout
27:01history
27:02you can look
27:03at the
27:03roman empire
27:03welfare state
27:04bread and
27:05circuses
27:05you can look
27:05at speed
27:06and bland
27:06i did a
27:07show on
27:07that many
27:08years ago
27:08for peter
27:09schiff's
27:10radio show
27:11and it
27:12is terrible
27:13terrible what
27:14happens
27:15so there's
27:16nothing inevitable
27:18with regards
27:19to people who
27:20think and
27:20people who
27:21think it's
27:22not an
27:23iq thing
27:24there are
27:24many of
27:25high iq
27:26people who
27:26don't think
27:27and there
27:27are many
27:28people who
27:28would not
27:29score high
27:30on the
27:30iq test
27:30who think
27:32so this is
27:33just a matter
27:33of willpower
27:35and making
27:37that choice
27:38so yeah
27:39there's nothing
27:40inevitable
27:40except the
27:42avoidance of
27:43thought
27:43so let's
27:45see here
27:45would neilpert
27:46have agreed
27:47with your
27:47politics
27:47well i am
27:51anti-political
27:52in the same
27:53way that people
27:54in the past
27:55were anti-slavery
27:55so i view
27:58politics as
28:00one of the
28:01ultimate
28:01corruptors of
28:02human relations
28:03because it
28:04turns everything
28:04into win-lose
28:05office again
28:06not to bang
28:07on this
28:07office-ry thing
28:08but they are
28:08the natural
28:09enemies of
28:09philosophers
28:10but i view
28:12politics as
28:14a win-lose
28:15and it's
28:15the pretense
28:17of virtue
28:17covering the
28:19reality of
28:20coercion
28:21so would
28:22neilpert have
28:23agreed with
28:23my politics
28:24i obviously
28:25don't know
28:25but if he
28:27remained and
28:27i'm not sure
28:28what his
28:28political course
28:29was over the
28:30course of his
28:31life but as
28:33far as
28:33objectivism goes
28:35objectivists do
28:37not this is sort
28:38of people who
28:38follow the
28:40reasoning of
28:41ayn Rand
28:42they do not
28:43follow either
28:44my ethics or
28:45my politics
28:46right so
28:47there's probably
28:48not a
28:49dime's worth
28:49the difference
28:50between my
28:51views on
28:51metaphysics and
28:52epistemology with
28:52regards to the
28:53objectivism
28:54and i myself
28:54was an
28:55objectivist for
28:55like 20
28:56years and
28:57i've got a
28:57whole series
28:58on ayn Rand
28:59you can find
29:00it at
29:01fdrpodcasts.com
29:02you can just
29:03do a search
29:04for ayn and
29:06with regards to
29:07ethics and
29:08politics i
29:10disagree enormously
29:11and and
29:12deeply and
29:14so on right so
29:15i mean so
29:16very very briefly
29:16ayn Rand said
29:18that that which
29:18is good for
29:19human life is
29:20the good
29:21reason serves
29:22human life
29:23therefore reason
29:23is the good
29:24and that's
29:25just it's
29:26just factually
29:26not true
29:27it's not even
29:28close to
29:28true there
29:29are many
29:29human lives
29:30that flourish
29:31through
29:32non-reason
29:33i mean we
29:34can we can
29:35see them all
29:35over the place
29:36right see the
29:37people at the
29:37top of the
29:38military industrial
29:38complex how
29:39are they doing
29:39you say ah
29:40well but it's
29:41not sustainable
29:41it's like well
29:42but they're
29:43doing pretty
29:44well and
29:45Genghis Khan
29:45you know there's
29:46this pretty high
29:47proportion of people
29:48in that part of
29:49the world that
29:49trace the direct
29:50lineage back to
29:51Genghis Khan
29:51because he rules
29:53very very well
29:55very very powerfully
29:56very aggressively
29:57very violently
29:58very well in
29:59terms of like
30:00genetic spread and
30:01conquering and so
30:01on it was
30:02effective and
30:04so the idea
30:06that it is
30:07reason alone that
30:08serves human
30:09life and human
30:11flourishing and
30:11human success
30:12it's just not
30:13true it is
30:13factually not
30:14true so that
30:16is and of
30:17course people can
30:18disagree with it
30:19right so the whole
30:19point of my
30:20approach to ethics
30:21universally
30:22preferable behavior
30:23a rational proof
30:24of secular ethics
30:24you can get it at
30:25freedomain.com
30:26books it's free
30:27you should definitely
30:28consume it you can
30:28also find a shorter
30:29version at
30:30essentialphilosophy.com
30:31essentialphilosophy.com
30:33you can listen to
30:34that there's a very
30:34more concise
30:35version of UPB
30:37which UPB is
30:38quite long but
30:38you know it's a
30:39huge problem to
30:40solve so
30:40one of the
30:41problems I have
30:42with objectivist
30:44ethics is that
30:45if you disagree
30:47then it's not
30:49true for you
30:50right so
30:52sorry I didn't
30:53say right like
30:53I've proven
30:54anything let me
30:54sorry let me
30:54apologize for
30:55that let me
30:56sort of make
30:56the case
30:56so if you
30:59agree that
31:00reason is that
31:01which serves
31:02man's like
31:02whatever serves
31:03man's life is
31:03the best
31:04reason serves
31:05man's life the
31:05best therefore
31:06reason is the
31:06highest value
31:07if you agree
31:07with that then
31:08it's true for
31:09you if you
31:09don't agree with
31:09that then it's
31:10not true for
31:10you saying to
31:12people that
31:12they're wrong in
31:13their subjective
31:13interpretations is
31:15pointless it's
31:16like saying to
31:17people oh you
31:17think you like the
31:18color navy blue but
31:19you don't really
31:19you really like
31:21pink it's like no
31:21I I like navy blue
31:23right oh you
31:24don't really like
31:25steak what you
31:26want to do is eat
31:27cheesecake made out
31:28of cricket legs it's
31:30like no kind of
31:31don't right and so
31:33for sophists it is
31:36not reason but
31:38manipulation that is
31:40the greatest good for
31:42them I mean I mean
31:44look at the people
31:44who run central banks
31:46or you know whatever
31:46right I mean are you
31:49going to tell them
31:49that what they're
31:50doing is not serving
31:51their best interests
31:52I mean good luck
31:54with that right
31:54because self-interest
31:56is a subjective
31:58term should you
32:00save more or should
32:02you spend more
32:03that's subjective
32:04so if somebody says
32:06well you should just
32:06save your money
32:07okay there's value in
32:09that there's good
32:10stuff that can come
32:11out of saving your
32:12money and there's
32:14good stuff that can
32:15come out of spending
32:15your money too there's
32:16no rational economist
32:18who would say one
32:19is better than the
32:20other objectively
32:20right I mean it's
32:22fine to save your
32:22money if you're you
32:23know you're young and
32:24you want to save up to
32:25buy something sure save
32:26your money but if
32:27you're old and you
32:29have no dependence
32:30let's say what's the
32:30point of saving your
32:31money go spend it and
32:32enjoy yourself right
32:33it's not like you can't
32:34take it with you right
32:35as the old saying goes
32:36so that which best
32:38serves your life is
32:40kind of subjective
32:40right so you could say
32:43to someone oh you
32:44shouldn't you shouldn't
32:45do drugs right okay
32:46that's I think that's
32:48a good good idea in
32:49general but of course
32:50there are some people
32:51who get great
32:53inspiration right
32:55Lucy in the sky with
32:56diamonds LSD right
32:57there are some people
32:57who get great
32:58inspiration from drugs
32:58and would rather have
33:02that inspiration than
33:03be drug free and can
33:06you foundationally argue
33:08with that to me it's
33:10hard it's hard to do
33:12that I mean taking
33:13drugs is not I mean
33:15unless you have
33:15dependents who are
33:16responsible for you
33:17and then you're
33:17irresponsible and that's
33:18bad but taking drugs
33:20is not a violation of
33:22the non-aggression
33:23principle because you're
33:24doing it to yourself
33:25right I mean hitting
33:26hitting somebody else
33:27with a hammer is
33:29immoral and you don't
33:30whack someone with a
33:31hammer that's assault
33:32could be grievous
33:33assault however if you
33:34hit your own hand with
33:35a hammer could be by
33:36accident you put you
33:36can't alien that's not
33:37assault right it's an
33:39error or maybe it's like
33:40if you if you're a
33:41self-cutter like you cut
33:42yourself for reasons of
33:44trauma that is not the
33:45same as assault if you
33:46don't go to jail because
33:47you're cutting yourself
33:48right so harming yourself
33:49is not a violation of
33:50the non-aggression
33:51principle might be
33:51unwise could be wrong
33:53but it's not a violation
33:54of the non-aggression
33:55principle because you
33:56own yourself and you can
33:57destroy your own
33:58property so if you say
34:01well you should be
34:03rational because reason
34:03is what best serves your
34:04life well if you're much
34:06better at being a
34:08sophist and you like
34:09that and being a
34:10sophist gets you a lot
34:12of money and and
34:14sexual opportunity
34:15right then biologically
34:18speaking you're doing
34:19pretty well right you
34:21gather resources you
34:22spread your seed so to
34:23speak and all of that
34:24right so you run some
34:25cult right and you
34:26people give you a lot
34:27of money and then you
34:28have sex with a lot of
34:29women or men or
34:30whatever right then if
34:32you're a woman so okay
34:34you're gonna say well
34:35biologically sadly that's
34:36got some efficacy to it
34:39right and you're
34:40getting you're getting
34:40resources and you're
34:41spreading your seed right
34:42you say oh no no that's
34:44bad for you it's like
34:45well again are you
34:46talking morally are you
34:47talking biologically
34:48right these are all
34:49somewhat subjective
34:50right and again I'm
34:51not talking about gross
34:52violations of the
34:53non-aggression principle
34:53and so on I'm talking
34:55about sophistry and
34:56manipulation and so
34:57you have to have a
35:00system of ethics where
35:02you don't have to
35:03believe in it in order
35:04to practice it it's the
35:06same thing if you say
35:07well morals come from
35:08Zeus right Zeus tells
35:10you what is good and
35:11bad right and wrong
35:12okay but the problem
35:13is that if you
35:14disbelieve in Zeus all
35:15of those morals vanish
35:16right so you can just
35:17disbelieve in Zeus and
35:18then you're no longer
35:19bound by Zeusian ethics
35:21so to speak right you
35:23can say well no what's
35:24best for me is is not
35:26reason but sophistry and
35:28manipulation right which
35:29is honestly I mean this
35:31most people in the world
35:32most people in the world
35:34with regards to morals
35:35live on sophistry and
35:37manipulation right I
35:39mean if you look at the
35:40argument that Jordan
35:41Peterson had but the
35:42atheists and the
35:43atheists say well
35:44morality has evolved
35:45reciprocal altruism
35:46blah blah blah blah it's
35:47like okay so you're
35:48saying that that which
35:48best serves resource
35:51acquisition and
35:52reproduction is the
35:53moral right so well
35:54then you can just focus
35:55on I don't know
35:56reciprocal altruism and
35:57so on but if you look
35:59at say dolphins or
36:00ducks or whatever rape
36:01we would call it rape I
36:03mean if it was humans
36:04but it's not it's
36:04animals doesn't really
36:05count but a forced
36:07sexual activity is how
36:09they reproduce to a
36:10large extent so are
36:13you would you say to
36:14them that's that's bad
36:16well no I mean that's
36:17how they reproduce how
36:18the genes reproduce right
36:19it's how the genes
36:20reproduce and most
36:21people certainly with
36:22regards to the moral
36:23realm lie lie and use
36:25sophistry right so with
36:27regards to well you know
36:28evolutionarily what
36:29serves reproduction and
36:30resource acquisition is the
36:32good it's like okay
36:32sometimes that is
36:34reciprocal altruism which
36:36I guess could be
36:36considered kind of nice
36:37and sometimes it's
36:39Genghis Khan resource
36:40acquisition and
36:41reproduction Genghis Khan's
36:43sort of campaign of
36:44almost infinite violence
36:45served those biological
36:47needs fairly well
36:48genetically right I'm not
36:49talking morally it's
36:50genetically right so you
36:52can just focus on one
36:53aspect versus another you
36:55can disagree and with the
36:57framework and and UPB you
36:59can't disagree with the
36:59framework without
37:00rejecting yourself from
37:02reason and evidence as a
37:04whole now again people can
37:05do that they can always
37:06disagree that people can
37:07say that the world is
37:08banana shaped but if you
37:10meet the point is of
37:11course if you meet
37:12someone who says who
37:13says who says that the
37:15world is banana shaped
37:16then you don't take them
37:19seriously right you don't
37:20view them as somebody with
37:22anything meaningful or
37:23valuable to contribute to
37:25the dialogue or the
37:26discourse right and and
37:28that's so so if you say if
37:30you meet someone who says
37:31two and two equal a blue
37:34unicorn well you don't
37:35view them as a
37:36mathematician who's going
37:37to have much value to
37:38add you view them as kind
37:39of crazy because they've
37:40rejected basic reason and
37:42evidence right and it's
37:45not that everyone's going
37:47to be rational it's that if
37:49people reject basic
37:51reasoning they're not taken
37:53seriously or accepted in any
37:55rational discourse if
37:57someone said a gravity
37:59does not attract it repels
38:04but it is love the atoms
38:06love each other and that's
38:07why they are drawn they
38:08overcome the repel repelling
38:11nature of a gravity and and
38:15the atoms love each other and
38:16that's what draws them
38:17together you would say that's
38:19not a very helpful contribution
38:21to physics and that person
38:25would not get to present the
38:26love overcomes the repulsive
38:28nature of gravity or the
38:29repelling nature of gravity
38:30it is the atoms love for each
38:32other that draws them closer
38:32together that person would
38:34not get published in the
38:35scientific journal unless they
38:38tied it into the patriarchy
38:39maybe they would not be
38:41invited to speak at physics
38:42conferences they would not be
38:43discussed or taken
38:44seriously it would be like
38:45that's just I mean it's a
38:46crackpot I mean that's just
38:48somebody who's just making
38:48things up and is not
38:50following the scientific
38:51method and not doing
38:52anything particularly
38:53rational right so we
38:55would we would understand
38:56that and so the hope the
38:57point of UPB is well you
38:59can reject UPB but that is
39:01to reject reason and
39:02evidence because UPB is so
39:04tightly reasoned like an
39:05example being that stealing
39:07can never be universally
39:08preferable behavior because
39:10universally preferable
39:12behavior means that
39:13everybody wants to steal and
39:14be stolen from at the same
39:15time but if you want to be
39:17stolen from it's not theft if
39:18you want someone to take your
39:19property like you leave a
39:20couch out on the curb saying
39:22take me and then you can't
39:24complain that they stole you
39:25want them to take your
39:25property right so you know if
39:29you throw a ball to someone
39:30because you're playing catch
39:32you like if I've got a ball and
39:34I'm playing catch with a
39:35friend and I throw the ball and
39:36he catches it can I then film
39:38that and say he stole my ball
39:39well no because I threw it to
39:40him I want him to catch the
39:42ball so you can throw it back
39:42whatever right so that's to
39:45reject that is to reject reason
39:47itself right you can't want
39:50someone to take your property
39:51and call it theft so stealing
39:53can never be universally
39:54preferable behavior so I mean
39:57that you can't and even I
39:58remember a rationale the rules
40:00I had a debate with him some
40:01years ago and he accepted that
40:03right okay so you can you can
40:05reject all of that but that is
40:08rejecting the two and two make
40:09four and you're not going to be
40:11taken at all seriously you're
40:12going to be like well there's
40:13something there's something kind
40:14of wrong with you emotionally or
40:15intellectually like you have a
40:16problem or a deficiency or a
40:18vanity or like you simply
40:19won't admit the obvious right
40:21I mean I guess you could try and
40:25be a physicist and reject the
40:26concept of e equals mc squared or
40:29gases expand when heated you know
40:31my usual examples but you
40:33wouldn't be taken seriously you'd
40:35be viewed as a non-physicist as a
40:36crackpot because you're rejecting
40:38basic facts or if you know you're
40:40jumping up and down and saying
40:41there's no such thing as
40:42gravity you would be viewed as
40:43somebody who had significant
40:45processing issues within the mind
40:46either emotional or
40:47intellectual or whatever right
40:48so the point of ethics is that it
40:54has to be so clearly and obviously
40:56reasoned that to reject it is to
40:58reject reasoned and therefore have
41:01no credibility now it's going to
41:03take a while a century or two for
41:06that to become more common knowledge
41:08people have to be less traumatized in
41:10order to be more rational and that's
41:13why I'm focusing on peaceful
41:14parenting peaceful parenting.com
41:15with regards to politics and Rand of
41:18course was a big fan of the non
41:19aggression principle but carved out
41:21an exception for the state that she
41:24was a minarchist she wanted a small
41:26government police law courts military
41:29maybe prisons or whatever a very
41:31small government but that means of
41:33course a violation allowing some
41:35people to violate the non
41:36aggression principle and so that is
41:38just an inconsistency and having an
41:41inconsistency in your thinking is
41:43particularly bad if if you pride
41:47yourself and focus your entire
41:49intellectual output on demanding it
41:53requiring absolute consistency and so
41:56allowing that to kind of slip through
41:57and and she opposed consequentialism as
42:01a standard to judge things by which it
42:03should be consequentialism is just a
42:05form of mysticism and consequentialism
42:08invites a sophistry right hand over you
42:11know massive chunks of your money
42:13trillions of dollars or the co2 weather
42:18guards will get angry and drown your
42:20city right that's this consequentialism
42:22right and it just means that people
42:23will come up with more and more terrible
42:26consequences in order to get you to do
42:29what they want and so when the concept of
42:32dro's was explained to her i think by
42:34lou rockwell no not the rockwell sorry
42:36marie rothbard marie rothbard she said
42:40oh well what happens if one dro just
42:41doesn't agree or obey with the other
42:43dro's rules then you just end up with
42:45you know civil war and blah blah blah and
42:47so there's just consequentialism right
42:48saying well we can abandon the non
42:50aggression principle if i can come up
42:51with a negative enough scenario in my
42:52mind
42:53right and and that was brusque and
42:55abrupt and and so on right and
42:57again the reasons why i think she
43:00wanted to have a larger political and
43:02cultural effect than she did she was
43:03incredibly embittered by the hostile
43:06response particularly of conservatives
43:08to alice shrugged which is not shocking
43:10i mean alice shrugged is atheistic and
43:12conservatism is largely christian so it's
43:15not too shocking but she got very
43:17depressed and arguably stayed that way
43:19for the rest of her life because she
43:20never produced another novel even
43:22though people were encouraging her to
43:24do so
43:24so with regards to ethics i reject the
43:30subjectivity of that which is best for
43:32human life because for a lot of people
43:34that which is best for human life is
43:35deception and aggression at least for
43:38their genes and again outside of
43:40morality just in terms of like best for
43:42human life
43:42yeah for i mean i agree that people are
43:45better off being rational but we have
43:48had a lot of human beings who've adapted
43:50to falsehood and aggression and it's not
43:53better for their lives so to speak for
43:56people to be rational so that's
43:57subjective and better for your life is
43:59subjective so that's a subjective view
44:02of ethics and therefore can't close the
44:05circle and demand allegiance and with
44:09regards to politics allowing a group of
44:11people not just allowing but encouraging
44:13and approving of the right of some people
44:15to violate the non-aggression principle is
44:18a break in integrity that is a little
44:21incomprehensible but i mean i i understand
44:24it because it seems efficient and trying to
44:26shrink the power of the the power of of
44:28the initiation of the use of force down
44:29to its minimum is just like trying to
44:32shrink a tumor that's going to grow back
44:34even bigger so i hope that helps i will
44:36get to other questions in a little bit
44:38thank you so much for your time care and
44:40attention thoughts resources freedom
44:42main.com slash donate have a glorious
44:43beautiful day i'll talk to you soon
44:45bye
44:46bye
Recommended
13:10
|
Up next
2:59
2:03:39
1:44:13
1:27:47
2:28:37
25:58
47:28
2:31:15
1:42:57
1:14:42
1:45:25
2:03:44
1:41:57
1:53:37
1:34:48
32:58
1:43:58
41:18
1:48:01
55:44
1:49:13