The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton: Recent Episodes
mindcrimelibertyshow
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether highly informed journalists and commentators such as Scott Horton, Whitney Webb, and Ryan Dawson, not those of the BBC or CNN, are blackpilling. If you can define a problem very well in all its gory details, does that give you a way to overcome a problem? If many of the wretched power elite go unnamed and remain unaccountable then what exactly is the point of reading this material? Contrary to what many normies think, thanks to the internet one has access to some of the best commentary and independent journalism that one probably has ever had on the power elite. For all the critiques made of audience capture, the problems of corporate and marketing capture by the mainstream, who are in some cases are outright funded by the state, are way worse. This information by these renegade independent truth tellers makes the power elites look quite rotten but has genuine justice has come to the perpetrators? If genuine justice hasn’t come then how can this information not be in some ways blackpilling?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether Hans Hoppe is an anarchist or a monarchist? Many of Hoppe’s critics, as well as his disciples, take the view that he is a monarchist but is that the case? Is Hans Hoppe only backhandedly defending monarchies by arguing they are superior to the current existing regime of so-called liberal democracies, or is he outright defending monarchy? Arguably Hoppe could be read as a monarchist if one thinks that abolishing the state is utopian by stating that monarchies are superior to democracies; however, if one thinks abolishing a privileged class of bureaucracies and functionaries isn’t utopian than Hoppe is arguably the best advocate, albeit unlikely, of anarchism. This of course depends on the definition of anarchism, governments and the state. If anarchism means abolishing all hierarchies, marriage norms and customs as well as other forms of so-called voluntary rule then of course Hoppe isn’t an anarchist. If anarchism means abolishing and privatizing the managerial state then Hoppe, the cultural right-wing anarchist is arguably more of an anarchist than many left anarchists due to the character of the modern democratic state. As Hoppe states in Democracy the G** that Failed it is state welfare and income redistribution scheme, which even conservative socialists like Pat Buchanan support, that is the thing which has undermined the family and has led to the rise of feminism as well as various other isms. The libertine character of today's society is only possible to institutions such as state schools, state regulations requiring hiring of various classes of people, state pension systems and state healthcare systems all of which culturally left people, outside a few exceptions such as Ivan Illich and Michel Foucault, want to support. Hence Hans Hoppe the intellectual is a superior anarchist to most anarchists while voicing backhanded support for monarchies as being superior to the sham character of modern day democratic states.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses Kevin Carson and the broader left-libertarian movement. The left-libertarians would argue that legal and economic privilege is the cause of inequality in the world. The problem is why did certain individuals, families, societies or firms put themselves into a position to achieve privilege in the first place? If Trump, Bezos, Gates and Musk are rich because their father gave them a bunch of money and privilege, then how in the first place did those fathers (or fathers-fathers) acquire their fortunes/positions? If certain states and firms have the kinds of legal privileges as Carson and left-libertarians describes than how did they acquire them? If you do away with these in a one-time “power” jubilee what is to stop new dynasties from emerging? To be fair to the left-libertarians they aren’t as idiotic as the social democratic reformers who think somehow the state will control and reign in the powerful - on the contrary Carson makes the point that organizations like the FDA were created to help the powerful dominate other smaller firms. Nonetheless, the fact that some people are more powerful than others and it isn’t merely reducible to IP, regulations, or state criminalism, this is a problem for the left-libertarian understanding of the broader society.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses the thought of Caleb Maupin. Maupin recently declared that he is no longer a Marxist. We can get into weeds about whether ex-Marxists were ever Marxists, but what exactly is the trajectory of Maupin’s thought, especially in the US? Maupin calls himself a US patriot but what would Maupin’s innovationism look like in the US? Is Maupin merely an advocate of socialism in one country with a conservative pro-family position? Is that even possible in the USA in the 21st century considering the fact that the US is the center of both the global military industrial complex and financial industry?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, when ought life legally begin? Do the pro choice advocates prove too much? Aren't babies and young children as helpless as fetuses? When do children cease to be helpless and dependent? It clearly doesn't begin at day 1 - thinkers like Peter Singer who condones infanticide are much more consistent. On the other extreme, when does bad parenting become a crime?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Rik Storey to discuss whether social media is social or anti social? Has social media “improved” things if indeed one can believe in improvement? Is it not the case that social media is radically superior to the network television era of the 1950s to 2000s? What are the downsides of social media usage? Is social media more truthful, if indeed truth exists, than previous forms of technology for the production and dissemination of information? Is engaging in certain forms of “lifestyle anarchism” (such as giving up social media for a period of time) useful? What are the downsides of social media compared to previous technological paradigms?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why abolishing the current existing managerial state will decrease the prominence women have in society. The modern managerial welfare bureaucratic state with its highly regulated economies are a boon for the feminist movement. In five key areas including family law, justice, education, economic regulation and welfare, the modern managerial state helps the feminist cause while robbing men, particularly young men, of rights and opportunities. A curtailment of this bureaucratic managerial regime would strengthen the position that men have in society and weaken women’s position. Hence, only right libertarians who are opposed to feminism can sufficiently call themselves anarchist if one thinks through the consequences of the curtailment or abolishment of the current existing state.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether servicemen ought to be hated since most recent wars are pointless, if not outright criminal, and leave western home countries both poorer and more insecure. Are veterans merely just doing a job and following orders? In the US since Vietnam it has been an all volunteer force. What should be done about these men (as well as woman) and how should dissidents treat them? For better or worse in the US there exists some amount of veteran worship especially amongst the so-called normie right. You could say in a healthy society which doesn’t engage in pointless wars this might be worthwhile; however, these conflicts tend to make the US/West both poorer and less secure. The destabilization of foreign countries is a huge contributing factor to migration to the West. The economic costs of the wars and maintaining this expensive gargantuan standing army means less money is spent on building out the home country. One of the few areas which gets huge taxpayer subsidies is the arms industry which Western Elites for obvious reasons don’t want to outsource. A dollar spent on missiles, F35s, and air craft carriers is a dollar which can’t be spent on flood relief, children, nice houses and consumer goods. How should libertarians, paleoconservatives and anarchists view the people who staff these organizations? Would a statement that your sacrifice was pointless and made the US worse off be a good response?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses the blind spots of declinism. Recently Bob Murphy was interviewed by Reason magazine’s Nick Gillepsie about whether libertarians, or more broadly people on the so-called “right,” are unduly pessimistic. The first question is whether the areas such as economy, culture and fertility/family formation are in decline and when did they start? If it is in decline, what can actually be done about it and what are the social and psychological implications of living in a declining society? Bob Murphy’s answer to the question was he was a Christian which is a robust answer but why get out of bed in the morning, let alone start a family or a business, if indeed the pessimists are right?
The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses whether the State and the Pentagon “won” against Julian Assange. First of all, we here at this show think Assange is a hero and he will be remembered as a hero by most right thinking persons; however, did the State accomplish what it wanted? The state managed to get Assange, who is in poor health thanks to his time in prison, to plead guilty to the Espionage Act. On top of that he was confined to the Ecuadorian embassy and spent 5 years in one of Britain’s worst prisons. Will this deter both whistleblowers and the publishers of classified material? This is on top of the fact that Assange never even set foot in this entire ordeal on US soil until his short stopover at Saipon. What is the future of whistleblowing and publishing materials against the US as well as larger NATO military-security state?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether anyone is innocent on various levels. Do any innocent people exist in the eyes of god, international law (if such a thing exists) or the managerial state bureaucracy? On the theological level, why do people baptize children if indeed children are considered cute and innocent? When do children become adults? Why do antiwar activists stress the death of children in war considering that they have the potential to become future soldiers if the conflict is long enough. If the Chinese or the Russians were to wage war on any NATO country would we (or most people) be considered accessories to the regime or collateral damage? If the prominent anti war activists/critics including Julian Assange, Norman Finkelstein and Scott Horton, are “right”, are most Americans or British "innocent"? On the most petty level don’t “law abiding” citizens break all sorts of “petty” laws everyday which only rarely/selectively enforced? Are we all guilty of something?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether Plato is right in his guardian family model where children are raised without knowing their precise parents. Will keeping parents anonymous cut down on favoritism (as well as disfavoritism) and make society more cohesive and less individualistic? Why are intellectuals so boring and traditional when it comes to family and marriage? Isn’t gay marriage “conservative” as opposed to free love or the platonic guardian system outlined in Plato’s Republic? If any kind of "Heaven" or Kingdom of God exists would monogamous marriage exist in that place or would it be more like Plato's proposed system?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether there is a market for truth? Do people want to know the truth, if it does indeed exist, and can it be produced on the “market”? What are the incentives for those who want to spread the truth? Do the so-called “traditional” print media and “journalists” do so? Did the internet make things better or worse? What exactly do so-called reporters and journalists do? Can someone “report” on an event such as a war which takes place in many different locations plenty of which have restricted access or only "selected" access by local authorities? Does everyone have a bias? Why even bother reading the so-called news if you aren’t sure it isn’t merely propaganda? Outside of voting better, which as good theoretical anarchists and libertarians know is a probably a waste of time, what can a news or truth consumer do?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether anarchism, or abolishing the state, would lead to what is normally understood as right wing. There is a movement to try to transcend or render meaningless the terms left and right; however, even though the terms may not be entirely useful in all areas, this axis still reveals a lot of truth. Anarchism done in the 21st century and beyond will be abolishing the modern secular liberal managerial state not the ancien regime. If abolishing the modern managerial state one will also abolish state welfare, what Michel Foucault and Charles Murray would call warehousing the poor, as well as the state school system. If these institutions are abolished who will care for and educate the children? Who would care for the elderly and poor? The likely organizations or systems would commonly be called "right wing" or traditional. If abolishing the state merely leads to the abolishment of modern technology what scenarios will that lead to? If there is no birth control, maternity care, medicines and various other technologies it is unlikely modern gender norms will be sustained in this primitive society. Thus by common usage of the terms left and right it is unlikely that abolishing the modern state will lead to any scenario which is left-wing. Whilst there maybe fewer megacorps the left anarchists and left libertarian critics of megacorps misunderstand the progressive role they actually play in modern society. These aren't your grandad’s megacorps nor is this your great-great granddad's state which is being abolished.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether Charles Murray and Michel Foucault are right that the left hates the poor? Murray and Foucault are two intellectuals whom some might categorize as being at opposite purposes, they are in fact both critical of the modern managerial welfare state. When the modern left speaks of helping the poor arguably they are “warehousing” the poor by providing them a steady dose of just enough necessities which thereby creates dependency on the state.
Are those dependent on the state likely to criticize, let alone overthrow it? Welfare robs the poor of what Murray would call agency while also demobilizing them. Certain thinkers who at times are associated with the “right” have in the past defended welfare precisely on the grounds to co-op/prevent the revolution. The revolutionary left should appreciate this argument, which is arguably Foucault's leftwing part, by saying that warehoused poor won’t make very effective elite revolutionaries. Murray of course would make the point in coming apart and losing ground that undisciplined and unskilled persons aren’t exactly “flourishing.” Murray himself states that he first recognized this in a rather anthropological manner by working for the peace corp seeing how academics treated the so called “natives.” In this manner Foucault and Murray might be much closer than some think. As the classic aphorism states, if you give a man a fish he isn’t hungry for a day, but teach a man to fish he won't be hungry for a lifetime.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether it is possible to save for the future outside of actual material goods. Austro-Libertarians are famous for their criticisms of government backed fiat currency as either outright criminal or just a known fraud. If that criticism is the case, what value does anything denominated in US currency, as well as other fiat currencies such as the Euro, Yen and Pound, have considering state central banks have an incentive to create inflation as a silent tax? What value do the various stock markets have considering that a good portion of its value is backed up by central bankers creating “loose” fiscal conditions through a labyrinth of complicated measures? What value do public and private pensions have considering that a good portion of its value is backed up by the stocks and bond markets which in turn are backed by the printing press? What is the alternative? Is Bitcoin or precious metals the solution for long term savings? One of the problems which gold funds have is that if you don’t own the physical gold you are basically investing in a product which is only worth as much as the gold fund certificate states. In a crunch how much would that be worth? Bitcoin maybe a solution as well but considering the fact that mainstream institutions like Coinbase are very much tied into the financial system combined with the fact it uses lots of energy it poses problems. Land maybe a solution to save for the future but state expropriation through hard and soft means remains a problem. If the state makes it illegal to build anything on your land, or mine your land, it isn’t really your land. Effectively your land has been stolen from you but you keep the title. That land isn’t any more valuable than Hans Hoppe’s parents land in Eastern Europe which was stolen by the USSR (an example of hard state expropriation). How ought one to save for the future? Is the only way to reliably save for the future in material goods?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether eliminating voting would make family and friendships stronger. With the growing polarization which is occurring in the major "democracies” there is a growing trend of family, friendships, churches, marriages and business relationships being broken up on the grounds of who one votes for. Is this "rational" or a good state of affairs? Are friendships and families stronger in societies where voting obviously doesn't matter as much and/or the political system is more closed? Is this an argument against democracies? Should people date/marry and make friends with those who are strong supporters of the "other team"? Ought people care less about voting considering the likelihood of affecting the system is mathematically very low combined with the iron law of bureaucratic oligarchy?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether the “War on Covid regime failure” is a white pill (or provided many of what Sean Gabb calls collateral benefits) or was it a black pill? All three aspects of the war on Covid including vaccine mandates, masks and social distancing are retrospectively being renounced, or walked back/distanced, by most so-called experts. To paraphrase Peter Hitchens everyone thought they were a skeptic at the time but I can clearly recall that they were not. Does the fact that “the trust the science establishment” was dealt such a rhetorical blow count as a victory or is this merely a “cope”? There was no giant victory parade through London led by Neil Ferguson, nor one in Los Angeles with Fauci. Covid, which some at the time have attempted to describe as the biggest story since WWII, is being memory holed. Is the total embarrassment of the mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies and the “pink state”, counterbalance any of the nasty things that did occur or is the black pilled/pessimistic line the more correct and sober view? What should people on the Dissident Right and Libertarian movement think about the memory holed event which occurred almost 4 years ago?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether non-profits are profitable? How does one judge an organization which doesn’t have profits and losses? Are some non-profits merely front organizations for billionaires to further enrich themselves and create good PR for them? Are some non-profits merely rackets to gain further donations to keep the organization alive? Are non-profits merely holding centers for people who can’t find effective employment in a “real” job so one must work at a fake job? Do non-profits pursue goals which are in principle unable to be judged? Are non-profit organizations nobler than for profit ones? Are many effective non profit-organizations, such as Churches, really just driven by egoism?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether the extremists are more logical and clear than moderates? On a variety of issues it seems that those with the extreme viewpoints are more clear than those who are considered moderate. Is this merely a kind of genetic horseshoe fallacy or do the extremists have a commitment to consistency and rigor that “the adults in the room” don’t have? Extremists are often painted by the mainstream as being unintelligent un-nuanced persons but based on certain research, those with higher intelligence tend to hold extreme economic views. Is this the case in most areas? Do the Taliban, Leninists, Black Panthers, Maoists, Double Predestination Calvinists, Sedevacantists, Universalists, Southern Antebellum fire eaters, Jacobins, certain Feminists and Rothbardian anarchists have a kind of intellectual clarity that the moderate representatives of the positions don’t have? Are there any virtues to holding a middle position especially if it's an unprincipled compromise as Walter Block describes? Does history only remember the extremists? Do we only ever read so called extremists? Are extremist positions unliveable for the vast majority who work for and manage the state bureaucracy, state military, mainstream church or megacorps?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what an ideal, or libertarian, society ought to do with those of low abilities? One can dispute whether there would be as many in an ideal society with a freed market and stateless institutions; however, it seems that there would be a class of persons who aren’t competitive. Christians of the left and the right often times criticize libertarians for not caring about the poor namely not supporting welfare and various social programs. Libertarians would be quick to counter that many of the so-called programs are not effective and are probably harmful such as the mass schooling system as described by thinkers like Ivan Illich and Brian Caplan. Welfare itself is a system of warehousing the poor as Michel Foucault argues and destroys mutual aid networks by replacing it with State bureaucracy. What are some solutions for this problem and why would a libertarian society have less of them?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why do people get out of bed in the morning and what counts as coercive violence? Would coercive violence to force people to work exist in a stateless or an ideal society? Why do people get out of bed and work in the current existing world? Is work necessary to have a society? Does work make people happier? Assuming a society of UBI welfare is possible, would it be a tyranny? Should people work less in order to get more leisure time? If people aren’t working or raising children, why do people get out of bed?
The Mindcrime Liberty show is joined by Rik Storey to discuss whether sin exists. One of the more common maneuvers is to state that sin exists because free will exists, thus, in order to explain sin one must explain free will. Our guest Rik Storey defends free will as being integral to his understanding of Catholic Christianity. What are the limitations of free will and who are some Christian theists who are opposed to this view? Do the so-called extremes of modern theology represented by the American Calvinists RC Sproul and universalists David Bentley Hart agree that free will doesn’t exist? Why would any free healthy creature choose anything but God? Why does anyone purposely and freely choose evil or destructive actions? Ignorance and love of evil? Why would God allow this? Is God an open theist? Does god construct a world of character building theodicies which he is uncertain of the outcome? Is God's sovereignty as defined by Aquinas and others incompatible with creaturely free will?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Keith Preston to discuss the long term status of Israel by using East Prussia as an analogy. East Prussia used to exist as a major port and was one of the causes of the German invasion of Poland but now is Polish/Russian Federation territory with hardly any German inhabitants. Will Israel cease to exist in this fashion? Is Israel dependent on the US for its military position and what is the long term trajectory of that support considering that the US is taking a moderate isolationist turn as Zeihan describes? Despite that support, does the US paradoxically “restrain” Israel? Is the Samson nuclear option a genuine threat? Can Israel maintain internal cohesion considering Netanyahu’s unpopularity as well as the fact that significant numbers of Orthodox practitioners view the state as incompatible with scripture and refuse to serve in the military?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why no thinking person of the Right should care about transmen competing in women's sports leagues. Sports themselves, and its rise, are quite important for males of all ages in developed industrialized societies as both an outlet and a venue for athletic excellence. Elite sporting leagues are a necessary Platonic ideal embodying that excellence and shouldn’t have a protected category for anyone especially woman considering that mainstream culture wants to hold them as equals. If feminists want no male spaces then women shouldn’t get any protected female spaces either. In almost no sporting league with an open draft would any team (American style football, baseball, soccer/European football, running or swimming) would the top team be made up of women. Ronda Rousy has refused to fight any top end male and within the UFC “transmen” have dominated biological females. One can criticize the existence of mass sports themselves, although that criticism we further debate, but no thinking person on the right should care about this issue.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses surveillance. If one isn’t doing anything wrong should one care about surveillance and spying? Can one have privacy in the modern world if one chooses to participate in its various technologies? How private was the past? Should one expect privacy and is it a genuine right?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses with Keith Preston whether organized crime and street gangs are like states/megacorps. What is the relationship between street gangs, organized crime and the formal state? Is Thaddeus Russell right in that crime gangs have provided America (and elsewhere) a steady stream of goods/services that the formal society outlaws and thereby a kind of material freedom? In the US, gangs provided alcohol during prohibition and in certain state socialist countries there was a trade in iconography/religious artifacts. Do certain gangs and organized crime syndicates resemble the state itself? Do they rival the state in certain areas or are they even the de facto “State” such as in parts of Somalia, Russia, Mexico and Lebanon?. In certain areas the police/state might not be the most powerful monopolist in power even in so-called first world countries. What should libertarians and anarchists think about these organizations?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses Carl Schmitt with Lukas Eidolon of Metanaissance. What can one, in particular libertarians and anarchists, learn from Schmitt’s concept of the political? Why has the friend/enemy distinction been such a relevant concept? What would Schmitt think of Thomas Hobbes and vice versa? Is trying to abolish the state unrealistic? Does the sovereign actually have truly independent power? https://metanaissance.com/
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether environmentalists would prefer a world with fewer people. Environmentalists of the Left as well as the Right have pursued a variety of policies in particular forms of birth control as well as higher education for girls which has lowered the birthrate in most, if not all, industrialized developed countries. Intellectuals like JS Mill spent a night in prison for the crime of distributing materials related to birth control and abortion. Many traditional people of the Right have complained about the effects of industrialization and urbanization on the family as well as its secularization tendency. Aristotle seems to suggest that a polis over a 100,000 persons is simply too big to govern with his ideal form of government. Would plenty of intellectuals prefer a smaller population? If people are a good thing isn’t it great that industrial modernity has more of them? What would be the ideal population?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, are school teachers AND college professors merely prison guards? Is this rhetorical extremism? Are state schools merely about warehousing and disciplining children in order to create obedient soldiers and corporate employees? Why is there so much sympathy toward school teachers as well as college professors from the general public? Is there really any difference between “lower” and “higher” education? How much of a free choice is university/college education considering the need for credentials in order to get a decent job? Why is the Left, including so called left-libertarians, fairly uncritical of most college professors as well as school teachers given the authoritarian boss-like power they are granted with? Does anyone learn anything useful from college or public schools other than the hidden curriculum of obeying orders as well as the sheepskins/credentials? Why is it, from a 30,000 foot view, so many public schools and certain universities look so similar to minimum security prisons? Do they have the same purpose? Could society exist without them and what would education look like in a free society?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether mass immigration is compatible with the idea of a volunteer militia. The defence of a stateless society is a common point of criticism made against libertarians and anarchists. One of the solutions, other than rights protection agencies, proposed by theorists like Roderick T. Long and David Friedman is the adaptation of a much older form of organization: a voluntary militia. Can voluntary militias be compatible with mass immigration which many left libertarians such as Roderick T. Long support? Will the stateless society which is mass immigration friendly fight as a unified cohesive whole or will there be too many divisions, free riders and even fifth columnists?
Who won the Nassim Taleb and Gary North “debate"? There was no actual debate that happened; rather, the Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses an early essay written by the legendary Mises institute speaker and author Gary North, which critiqued Nassim Taleb’s very first and arguably best book, Fooled by Randomness. In that essay North perceptively picks up that Taleb is a Hayekian by adapting the evolutionary defense of the market and for that matter society. North, a Misean and Creationist, is of course opposed to this randomized view of society which is further strengthened by the fact that a robust account of evolution isn’t exactly random either. What does Taleb get right and what does Gary North get right? Is Taleb (as well as Hayek) really an intellectual suicide bomber as North argues? North does praise Taleb at times but even that praise is somewhat backhanded. How predictable is the world and what kind of mathematical models can be used to understand social and physical reality? Does not Taleb and the Miseans, like North, agree that most mathematical models used in social sciences are quite useless, if not harmful? The only difference is that Taleb thinks his mathematical empiricism is better because it takes into account rare events and extreme risks where current models don’t. Would a Taleb informed mathematical economics (as well as social sciences) be an improved enemy for the a prior praxeological based Miseans to deal with?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses the Euthyphro dilemma of art, music and films. To paraphrase the Euthyphro dilemma of theology, is good art merely good because powerful people and institutions say it's good, or are there some timeless propaganda-free and power-free ways to judge art? If the New York Times or Guardian reviews a film highly but more independent critics and the audience “pan” it, can they make a bad film (or other forms of art) “good.”? Can powerful persons and institutions deem “bad” art “good” merely by using their clout to create tastes? More practically how should lay persons treat professional critics and reviewers?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether contraception, including natural family planning, is murder, if indeed abortion is murder? If humans, in particular couples who view abortion as murder, engage in sex while knowingly frustrating the natural consequences of the act, what is the difference between that and many abortions (in particular those that occur early on which are the majority)? The humans doing this intercourse are not ignorant of the mechanics of the act, unlike certain supposed isolated tribes or animals, thus ignorance is not a defence. Even if this process isn’t murder, what is the ethics of “family planning?” If one "steelmans" the pro-choice argument, as well as looking at the empirical data, abortion is a kind of ersatz family planning which is used by people of low impulse control which was infamously pointed out by Richard Spencer. Even if contraception isn’t murder and abortion is, what are the ethics of using contraception especially if one thinks abortion is murder? Will the pro-life movement go after contraception? Should they? How many children ought a couple, or a society, have? If sex is merely about peer bonding and not procreation what exactly do so many paleo-conservatives have to complain about with respect to other sexual acts?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether marriage is a form of slavery. Feminists, as well as other radical thinkers, view marriage as a form of slavery from which the individual needs to be liberated. Currently many men's rights advocates would posit that men of all classes can and do get exploited by marriage laws. It seems that both sides have a low view of marriage, yet unlike chattel slavery, marriage is a social institution which continues on. Marriage rates may not be as high as in the past but why do both men and woman (as well as same sex couples) choose to become part of this seemingly reactionary institution? Free love seems to be the revolutionary position as opposed to monogamy, and if one asks Plato/Socrates the ideal system is a kind of common ownership of children. Why don’t other forms of human relationships get tried and what explains the persistence of this seemingly reactionary institution? Is it a killer app and the only reasonable way to raise children? Is marriage really a form slavery? Are people choosing to “sign” themselves up for slavery?
The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses veganism. Why don’t vegans care about plants? Can the vegans (hopefully) be stopped? Are frugivores the most consistent? Is being a vegetarian, let alone a frugivore, healthy? Are vegans anti-human? Are environmentalism or animal rights the primary pro-vegan argument? What is the best way to refute the growing vegan movement? Is veganism a form of post-Christian secular religion?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses who exploits whom? Is modern society merely exploitative a la Ted Kaczynski? Is the modern state exploitative? Do the unemployed exploit the employed? Is capitalism as defined by Marx exploitative? Is everyone in the periphery exploited by the first world? Are absentee landlords exploitative? Are central banks defined by Mises exploitative? If exploitation does indeed exist, who exploits whom?
Rik Storey joins The Mindcrime Liberty show to discuss, did Christianity create feminism? The idea that Christianity raised the status of woman in the 1st century is fairly undisputed; however, are the forms of feminism practiced today still Christian? The right to vote both in the US and UK was largely pushed through at the behest of Christian organizations. The suffrage movement was very Christian in its aims, and as historian Thaddeus Russell would joke, the first thing they did is ban alcohol in the US. Is the growth of Islam in the West, Paganism and Men's rights movement a reaction to this? Are the modern Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, increasingly full of and run by women? Is the feminist interpretation of Christianity correct or merely a heresy? When did this heresy begin and how could it be corrected?
The Mindcrime LIberty Show discusses why do seeming diametrically opposed intellectuals agree on so much? For instance, Sean Gabb, whom we interviewed twice, has given talks at forums ranging from the Libertarian Alliance to the Property and Freedom Society, and Chris Cutrone, a Marxists-Leninist who is a key member of the Platypus affiliated society? Is this agreement only surface level? They both agree that the War in Ukraine is a pointless proxy war, both have similar views of the current existing political and economic ruling class of the West, both view that their side's strategy has failed and both are rather pessimistic about any radical change in the near to medium future. Both Gabb and Cutrone think that art in the broad sense will play a central role, if ever changes do occur. The fact that Sean Gabb and Chris Cutrone agree seemingly on so much isn’t merely rooted to them. If you go down the list of radical libertarians and radical Marxists there is seemingly much common ground on the fringes. Cutrone himself gets accused of being “right-wing” by students, faculty, as well as other left wingers. Marx himself at times gets viewed as “right-wing” by the current day left. Is this common ground only apparent common ground? Why is this the case? Does this have to do with a seemingly shared lineage of Adam Smith?
The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses whether Jeffrey Tucker, as well as Ron Paul, was right about Trump and the broader issues of the national security state with respect to immigration, as compared to Hans Hoppe. In his lecture/essay on realistic libertarianism Hans Hoppe goes after Jeffrey Tucker by name and argues for what is pejoratively called by left libertarians the “bordertarian” position. Regardless of whether this position is desirable, what ought libertarians do if the state is hostile to their tribe? Ron Paul in his failed presidential campaign made the deeply pessimistic point that the “walls,” broadly considered, would be used against the existing majority populations which advocated them. With the rise of the war on covid the West was subjected to varying forms of border control. Jeffrey Tucker very publicly opposed this security state whilst Trump bragged about operation warp speed and being boosted! This conversation predates this question and dates at least as far back as the War on Terror where normie conservatives inaugurated a huge amount of intrusive measures and programs which now have been used against the domestic population including lockdown skeptics, traditional catholics, dissident bloggers and gun owners. Would a tough on crime and immigration security apparatus be used against many of the people who advocate it? Is the cost worth the benefit? Was Ron Paul and Jeffrey Tucker right?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why Hans Hoppe and St. Paul provide a better answer to the origins of laws, as well as why the state is an outlaw to them, than compared to Mises and Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin). Mises and Moldbug are both classical liberals who support a minimum state monopolist of law and order. As Hans Hoppe argues in the Democracy the G** that Failed, the classical liberals criticized monarchical states as being “above” the law; however, this problem is also true of so-called democratic states and their officials/politicians. Hoppe goes after classical liberal democratic states as being probably worse on praxeological grounds than monarchical ones because of time preference. These classical liberal small states where everyone is ostensibly equal to the law and has in theory equal access to becoming a politician over time become large bloated managerial, and at times totalitarian states, which either fail or become anarcho-tyrannical. Far from supporting order, these states are promoting disorder. A clear case of this is somebody who is defending his home from a violent intruder and shoots them. In Canada and the UK the state will go after you for murdering the intruder. Mises and Moldbug have no clear way of preventing this state action. The virus of the state on an intellectual level must be stopped at the root, not merely kept in check.
If one is going to have a private law society or “anarchy”, what kinds of laws without a state will be enforced? How will they be enforced and why will people obey? To answer that question one must ask where do laws come from and why do people obey them in the current existing society. To answer this question, one must either turn to the apostle Paul who represents a kind of transcendental answer as to what laws should exist and why people obey them, or turn to Hayek who is a more thorough going naturalist. If there is one error of Hoppe, it is the origin story of Mises is incomplete unless some kind of theism is true. If naturalism is true, then laws emerge via evolution. Reasonable laws could be enforced without a state if one takes austro-libertarian class analysis seriously. Those laws will be obeyed if people are good natured enough and mostly act out of self-interest. If people aren’t good natured then why would giving some men a monopoly and allowing them to operate in practice above the law be a solution anyways? This solution is the solution which Moldbug and Mises in practice advocate.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, what is the nature of the good or ideal life? Are Amish farmers, McDonald's workers or the homeless living a better life than billionaires, trust fund babies and the power elite? Does work or some form of productive activity a component of a good life and make one "happier"? Is having friends and family a part of a good life or is being a reclusive hermit preferable? Is the Nozick experience machine or Zizek's joke about lemonade and pornography really a good life? Is merely consuming for base pleasures that pleasurable?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses with Rik Storey, whether seflishness is a virtue? Is Ayn Rand right? Or are the Christian and some communist critics of her right? Does not one need to care for oneself in order to care for others? Is selfishness merely the excess of necessary love to oneself? Aren't most uses of be less selfish by the state and society merely tools of more exploitation? For example, take this Big Pharma unproven j@b, or pay higher gas prices to help the environment and the Ukraine. Was Christ himself purely selfless?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses who is the freest man: the slave, employee, boss or owner? Is Thaddeus Russell's Renegade History of the United States correct in arguing that many abolitionists thought that slaves were too free? Is Aristotle's theory of slavery right? Does this analysis extend into other forms of so called modern "slavery" such as so called wage slavery? Do Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates "work" longer hours than there minimum wage employees? Was Thaddeus Russell right when he debated with Michael Brooks, in that workers managing the means of production would require lots of meetings which not everyone wants to do? Do all people desire or have the capability to be a "boss"? Is there a slavery of being an owner in either the modern form or the historical forms? Are "leaders" held to higher standards or lower standards than their subordinates?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether anyone believes in free speech without limitations? Free speech is commonly cited as a value of certain groups; however, does any society live up to that standard at any time? Can free speech exist in a fashion which meets the SlateStarCodex/GK Chesterton standard, whereby the genuine outgroup gets to say whatever it wants without consequences, formal or informal? What level of punishment or consequences given to verboten ideas means free speech no longer exists? Did free speech exist for Communists in America in the 1950s? Did free speech exist for Christians in the USSR? Did free speech exist for atheists in Zwingli’s Geneva? Did free speech exist during the world wars in any society? Did free speech exist during the “War on Covid”? It is quite clear in all these cases that the outgroup faced consequences or merely the inability to spread the message they wanted to a large audience. Does harassment and doxxing count as free speech? Should right-libertarians support free speech? Does free speech in areas which are genuinely relevant even exist? If an issue is important enough, wouldn’t the cost of being right/wrong or politically correct/incorrect be high? Is free speech a unicorn?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether those who collect rents from properties are criminals? If this is the case, wouldn’t the state also be a landlord par excellence considering that it collects property taxes and tells the occupants what it can and can’t do? Why do so many progressives, social democrats and others hate landlords but seemingly love the property tax collecting and the money printing managerial state? Are land, housing and rent more expensive because of central banks giving out easy money? Do environmental regulations, which so many people on the Left love, and licensing requirements also make housing more expensive as well?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether the state is really too incompetent to pull off a “conspiracy.” Libertarians routinely accuse the government of being too incompetent but this argument is incorrect. The problem with the State is that it isn’t incentivized to provide said services for the common good. On the contrary the so-called open and closed conspiracies, which it is accused of, ARE in the interest of certain sectors of the State. Since most sophisticated political theorists including Hoppe, Chomsky, Burnham, Rothbard, Preston and Carson, understand that the State isn’t some grassroots democracy, the question of conspiracies becomes a question of when, not if. The mainstream of course accuses other governments such as Putin, Xi or Saddam (as well as historically the moustache man in the Reichstag) but wouldn’t accuse their own government of it. What makes the American or British state different? The “they” could be relatively innocuous persons merely acting in their own class or career interest. Many of the “they,” just as Socrates thought in the Meno dialogue, could think it's for the good of all or their tribe. There needs to be war in Indochina or the Middle East, so one stages a false flag in order to drum up support. Satanists need not apply (although who knows). Why couldn’t “they” assassinate JFK, stage a false flag, fake a moon landing for PR or hide trafficking? The anti-conspiracy line seems to suggest that no organization can make a plan and keep it secret - Volkswagen did! The Manhattan project was a secret from Truman. This way of understanding human behavior is much more in line with Mises Human action. Humans, acting within organizations, can and do make plans, and can and do act. Some plans are of course a priori impossible but false flags and assassinations are far from impossible.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Rik Storey to discuss, does mental illness exists? Is it merely a tool which ruling powers use to isolate and medicate those who don’t fit in? Is PTSD a rational response to witnessing horrors? What exactly is “normal” or “healthy” behavior especially in the current age? Are the formal institutions of society in any position to say that? Is mental illness merely a way to get around moral culpability by labelling any unwanted action as something akin to diarrhea or a toothache? What causes mental illness if it does indeed exist? Is mental illness incompatible with a robust understanding of Christianity? If Christianity is indeed true, then would such a society have the category of mental illness?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, why don’t government central banks print more money? Printing money is extremely useful for the state because it is seemingly “unseen” tax. This “tax”, paid for by inflation and Cantillon effects, also has the effect of weakening those who don’t get the money as quickly and those who are on fixed incomes. What is the limit of state banks from going hyper MMT considering how it allows them to live effectively "rent free"? Does the fear of a radical alteration in your exchange rate between other central banks keep them honest? How much coordination between central banks is there? Does the fear of upsetting the golden goose regulate the state? How real is this fear and what would be its limits?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses the British Royal Family by asking, are they any different than the Kardashians? Are the royals merely attention seeking celebrities with a brand that sells branded merch to adoring fans? Did Queen Elizabeth become a kind of “girl boss” celebrity or is she the last standing member of the ancien regime? Are parliamentary politicians merely celebrities too? If this “celebrityfication” did happen, when did it happen and is this a good development? Does the monarchy still have virtues? What is the role of the royal family in Britain and the wider English world going forward?
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses, what is the purpose of fathers? Are fathers merely sperm donors? Are fathers merely breadwinning money cows to be milked by children and wives? Are fathers a cultural killer app, to use the Niall Ferguson term? Do societies with involved fathers do better than those which don’t? Is there a tension between the idea of an involved father and a successful one? Being successful at anything seems to require a significant number of hours. As Musk jokes, nothing worthwhile was ever accomplished on 40 hours a week, let alone “part-time.” Most fathers in the nuclear family model in the industrial world work outside the home and so are functionally away from their families for much of the time. In the past the number of hours worked was even higher. Even though in death bed confessions people say they want to work less, their revealed preference and necessity seem to dictate otherwise. Why is that and can this tension be resolved? Finally, should the clergy or priestly class be single without any entangling ties of the family?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, what causes the decline of the civilisations? Does improved material standard of living lead to selfishness? Do late stage civilisations value artistic endeavours above ancient military heroes? Do the populations then neglect public institutions which are needed to maintain social order? Does the increased political participation of women, historically and presently, aid the decline? Does specialisation lead to the feminisation of men? How can we arrest the decline?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether nuclear weapons are a win for liberty and decentralization. Since nuclear weapons exist and one can’t put the genie back in the bottle, what should libertarians, anarchists and the Right think about them? Are they an a priori offensive weapon? Are nuclear weapons a way for small states (or a hypothetical libertarian society) to project force against large states to prevent aggression? Should Libya, and for that matter Ukraine, kept its nuclear weapons? Are North Korea and Israel pursuing a rational strategy? Do Nukes protect Russia from regime change? Do nukes put skin in the game for elites of a given society to seek diplomacy instead of escalation? Is mutually assured nuclear annihilation an improvement over the previous eras’ weapons systems? Do nuclear weapons explain the so-called long peace, if indeed there is a long peace, better than other theories such as the monstrosity known as the Kantian democratic peace theory?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether voting is a waste of one’s scarce time? Is voting cooperating with evil? Is voting for the lesser of two evils or a third party a useful strategy? Is Walter Block right? What are the dangers of third parties? Aren’t things like the “socialist” or “libertarian” party merely a theoretical contradiction? If they do win, what will the existing bureaucracy, military industrial complex and deep state “allow” them to do? If John F. Kennedy allegedly told De Gaul that he didn’t know who was in charge of this government back then, what would a Jill Stein, Ron Paul or Jo Jorgensen be “allowed” to do? Are “outsider” or “disrupter” politicians, both left and right, useful? Is voting for Thomas Massie or Ron Paul a good thing to do? If the deep state and bureaucracy is really in charge the accusation of formally cooperating with evil becomes less salient considering that no elected official actually decides anything so voting for the official is no cooperation at all. Are the formal voting mechanisms of the so-called liberal democracies like the US, Canada, France and UK much different than say Chinese, Russian or North Korean elections which the former like to accuse the latter of being compromised? Can a case still be made to head out to the polls especially if the opportunity cost is quite low? What are the benefits and costs of dropping out? Is the discrediting by low turnout a useful strategy? Are there dangers in identifying with politicians and political parties?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss belief formation. Why and how do people come to believe what they believe? Is it reason, genetics, social environment or simply opportunistic pragmatism? Or more malevolently is it propaganda and indoctrination combined with cowardice and weakness of will that are the real causes of beliefs in most people? Does ignorance, living in a bubble and lack of self reflection play a role? Is there any difference between so called elites and everyday people? Who has a more robust usage of reason and a greater degree of self-reflection? Are many of today's western media and political elites mostly blind ignoramuses? Do most people generally only reflect on means, rather than ends?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses decline and collapse. Why are so many dissident and fringe thinkers, as well as many mainstream ones, often believers in some form of coming collapse? For both the Left and Right this could be economic, cultural and/or an environmental collapse. Do the thinkers really believe in the decline (i.e. performative contradiction) and is it happening? What does it mean for a civilization to be in decline for 100s of years or in some cases thousands of years? Is this just a form of crying wolf (or rather collapse)? What institutions or metrics are weaker now than they were years ago?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses humility and whether it exists. Bishop Barron as well as many other Christians and ethicists praise humility. If it does exist what is it and is it a virtue? Can someone actually be humble in a non-contradictory manner without it becoming humble bragging? What is humility in the context of knowledge? Is extreme skepticism the most or least “humble” position? Are state appointed experts acting with “humility” when they prescribe certain policies or actions to be done? Are the people who question them more humble?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Keith Preston to discuss whether war is popular. War seems to be popular amongst a variety of classes, sectors and worldviews throughout time and places, especially in modernity or bourgeois society. Whether war was more or less common before the 1800s is a good question but seemingly most of the populace, including the soldiers themselves, go along with most wars.
The armies of modernity especially in the major conflicts are quite large and are equipped at great expense. There are structural ways one could argue oneself out of this seeming popularity but most wars are supported for a time. Although there are drafts and propaganda many soldiers willingly sign up and public support generally remains. Furthermore, plenty of frontline soldiers enjoy the fighting, the danger and camaraderie. Of course there is the PTSD story which needn’t be forgotten but this is arguably not the main takeaway. It couldn’t be considering the size of the armies in conflicts such as the Napoleonic Wars, WWI and 2.
Is modern bourgeois society too peaceful and boring? One could of course try to say it isn't that peaceful but the critique of alienation or boredom is a common criticism of modernity. Do people have a psychological need for conflict against an enemy? Is the media to blame? Why does the “mainstream” media seem to support many wars? Why is there so much popular demand for stories about wars both fictional and real? Is perpetual peace possible or even desirable? What would make wars, in particular state wars, less popular?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses who owns the land by using three figures to represent differing positions: Karl Marx, Hans Hoppe and Crazy Horse. We argue that there is much overlap between the Marxists and Hoppean position as opposed to the Crazy Horse position. If in order to own land one must mix one's labor with it, then there is no way that Crazy Horse, or any nomadic group, could own all the land. Marxists themselves, as much as they ridicule libertarian property theory, have a kind of ownership theory themselves which has more affinities than commonly thought as Hans Hoppe demonstrates in his lecture what Marx gets right. If laborers are entitled to the full value of their labor, as well as the means of production which in this case includes the land, then there is no room for absentee landlords. The Marxists analysis arguably leads to the politically incorrect conclusion that the hunter gatherer natives are absentee landlords engaged in hoarding and monopolizing large swaths of valuable land which isn’t theirs. This is especially true if Left Libertarians want to advocate open borders in the current existing society on the grounds that there is open land considering that in the past more “open” land was available. Even if the natives could demonstrate they own the land, which for much of it would be rather difficult, the current existing landowners tend to be the best land users. The conflict between a more technologically advanced society and a nomadic one is a conflict which arguably the Marxists are on the side of Columbus, Custer and numerous others. Karl Marx praises the breakdown of rural idiocy which in this case could well include the natives. University of Washington Professor Stuart Reges was arguably channelling Marx when he said “[the] Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington”.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses consent especially with respect to children and minors. When ought an ideal society start treating children as adults? Is consent itself a sound doctrine? Even though some anti-liberals and natural law advocates criticize the doctrine of consent, could a society function without it? It seems as if even in tyrannical societies or older ones, certain aspects of consent exist. Children and minors don’t have as many rights and are under the aegis of their parents or the state. Are children a kind of slave? Should children be granted more rights at a younger age? Why has modern society continuously raised the seeming age in which children are “full adult humans” and not merely dependents of a kind? Is this “slavery” by their parents/state/teachers a kind of “benevolent” slavery which is necessary?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses health, or more precisely the incoherent and tyrannical concept known as “public” health. If by public one means the state, the current state has no interest in health and flourishing outside of some narrow do gooder definition. One needn’t go full conspiracy to recognize this fact, rather, the state doesn’t have the right incentives to care for individuals, let alone the general public. De facto state subsidized and regulated monopoly megacorporations aren’t worthy of trust either.
Health itself is a disputed term, and the tradeoffs which go into what is and isn’t healthy have changed over time. What defines a healthy individual let alone a healthy public isn’t entirely clear and the bureaucratic state has no right in answering that question. The health industry, centered in the modern hospital, has a mediocre track record to put it generously since the start of the industrial revolution.
There are certain areas which have had breakthrough treatments but the phenomena of iatrogenics (harm done by the healer) cannot be understated. State run or regulated hospitals themselves, much like public schools or prison, are a dreary prison-like building which can cost the individual or society a fortune while only adding a few years at high “human” quality of life cost. Many treatments administered by the healthcare industry may ultimately be not worth the added misery which ignores the financial/opportunity cost to a given procedure.
Furthermore, the public health industry ends up treating all patients as being homogenous forgetting how much heterogeneity exists within humans. Whether the American “model” or single payer is “better” is a good question; however, neither seems particularly desirable overall. Both models are highly state centered. The state itself and the highly regulated “market” have in the narrow and wide sense promoted and implemented policies which are contra health. Numerous examples exist and one of the best is the FDA pyramid guidelines which are now recognized as promoting obesity and diabetes. Requiring young children to sit all day and even medicating boys is surely not healthy. Promoting two working parents as an ideal clearly means the quality of food eaten is less than ideal.
The very fact that many societies are aging, or even in decline, one has to ask…is this a healthy population? To paraphrase Murray Rothbard, anytime someone mentions public health one should keep a keen eye on your wallet and your own health, because it's about to be wrecked.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether “following” politics, and more broadly culture, then podcasting about it is a waste of time? Why bother doing it all? Are “apolitical” “unaware” people happier? Can these classes of persons really exist? Are we doomed to be interested in these subjects? Are most political and social commentators who are sufficiently “radicalized” largely a pessimistic, dreary lot? Why not get another hobby which makes one "happier" or work more? Is influence even desirable? Aren’t most successful political podcasters and commentators merely government/megacorp backed narrative builders, or petit bourgeois grifters after money? Can one actually “unplug?” What are the costs and benefits of being somewhat aware of the nature of the world and discussing it somewhat publicly via a podcast? Is the online world now more important than the offline world? Is podcasting and blogging an improvement over historical means of communication and information dissemination?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses the death penalty by inverting the usual way it is discussed: is it more humane then life in prison? If punishment in itself is just and an institution or individual desires to carry it out, which is the best form? Generally punishment is done for reasons of justice, isolation or deterrence. Maybe punishment in itself is unjust but if a heinous act occurs (someone murders an innocent person’s entire family) are most people or societies going to go full Anabaptist and forgive them? Thus, for most societies and individuals some form of punishment is required.
Lifetime incarceration, especially if it’s done humanely, is expensive (which requires taxing the innocent or using charity) and doesn’t really function as a punishment. It only meets the isolation criterium. Oftentimes actual existing lifetime incarceration isn’t that humane. For one thing the conditions of many prison’s aren’t particularly humane either (hence it’s inhumane to keep someone locked up for ones whole life): take a look at some second or third world prisoners, or for that matter American prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or where Julian Assange is being kept. Some prisoners are locked in solitary confinement without human interaction, sunlight or for that matter any stimulus. Other prisons are inhumane precisely because the other prisoners create a very toxic culture. One solution to resolve the cost problem is to make prisoners labour. This is not a new phenomenon and as Jimmy Dore points out California has used prison labour to fight forest fires while paying them next to nothing. Making prisoners work resolves the cost problem; however, creates an incentive problem that could promote entrapment of some kind. It also furthers the prison industrial complex as well which gives the prison ward a kind of free revenue. The dilemma seems to be that lifetime incarceration if done “humanely” is expensive for the broader society and doesn’t really function as a punishment if a particular heinous act is done. If prison labour is used to fund it this creates inhumane conditions which create incentives problems and undermines the usual way society operates. Would the death penalty be more humane then the actual existing alternatives while not undermining the broader labour market? The death penalty can be quite cheap and quick. Finally, what is the death penalty’s relationship to Christianity? Is punishment “Christian”? Wouldn’t most criticisms of the death penalty also apply to the brutal forms of lifetime incarceration? If the prison isn’t “brutal” then why bother with punishment at all? Would the death penalty resolve many of these issues?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss whether ad hominem arguments are useful. The ad hominem fallacy as well as the closely related whataboutism point is routinely viewed as an invalid form of argumentation. It is not a logical inconsistency rather a pragmatic inconsistency. In best practice, it is pointing out that the person does the very thing that they are against in their formal argumentation. A common example is the smoker who tells their child not to smoke. The child asks, “If smoking is so bad, why are you doing it? What about your own smoking habit?” Another example is, someone complaining about the Ukraine being invaded by Russia and you point out “what about the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq”? A third example of this is in the case of climate change. If climate change is so bad why are you living by the sea and flying around in private jets? A fourth example is with respect to lockdowns: if lockdowns do really save lives, why are the elites themselves not following the rules they advocate? In all these circumstances the whataboutism point seems to be not only relevant but more relevant then the abstract logical point. In all these circumstances it seems that the arguer doesn’t take the argument they are making seriously in their own case. Why is that not relevant and salient information?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Keith Preston to discuss whether a society without elites or a ruling class could exist? What exactly are elites and do they occur in most societies? Is there such a thing as a non-exploitative “elite”? Is Hayek right in why the worst get on top? If having power over others is the defining feature of elites what exactly is the power that they have? Where does that power come from? Do democracies create worse elites than autocracies or monarchies? Are elites a kind of category of people or are they merely the result of the system? Are first generation elites more innovative and dynamic then later iterations of elites?
Link to 3 part essay mentioned by Keith Preston entitled Sheep, Wolves, and Owls
https://attackthesystem.com/2011/07/03/a-reply-to-matthew-lyons-part-three-sheep-wolves-and-owls/
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, what is the purpose of drug use? By drugs we mean so-called recreational drugs and alcohol. Debates on what drugs are medicinal and what are recreational are quite fraught, but regardless, why do people use them? Do people use them to escape a bad reality? Do they use them for fun? Are the drug and alcohol prohibitionists right in that it ruins lives? Is Brave New World right about the usage of drugs as a way to maintain control over a population? What are the Marxists views on drugs? Why do some communist regimes like North Korea and Cuba have relatively strict drug laws? Did the Deep State create the drug culture in the west? What is Christianity's relationship to drug use? What in principle is the difference between riding a roller coaster and taking drugs? Why are certain drugs illegal while other drugs legal?
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses whether “liberalism” is escapable? There are many similar words to describe the current ruling order and they can include what we used in our title, liberalism, as well as crony capitalism, late capitalism, liberal democracy or neoliberalism. It is true that Murray Rothbard wouldn’t call our current society pure capitalistic; however, the anti capitalists would call it capitalists. It is also true that Mark Fischer and David Graeber wouldn’t of course call this existing order socialists or democratic; however, many of its right wing critics would. Neoliberalism may be the most technical but very few people identify as such. Naming and categorization problems aside, whatever one wants to call this “ancien regime” is it escapable? We answer this question in the negative by using the work of three acclaimed thinkers of different backgrounds: Mark Fischer, Nick Land and Alasdair Macintyre. For all their seeming disagreements they all agree that no tolerable or likely socio political order is going to emerge to this current order unless a breakthrough form of technology emerges. Even if that emerges, that is likely to emerge within the existing liberal capitalistic democracies themselves and be somewhat under the current regime anyways.
Mark Fisher in his book Capitalist Realism makes the argument that a lot of what conservatives consider to be woke cultural victories isn’t a win for the “true” left. The universities are commonly criticized by the right as being left wing but as Fisher argues they are the ground floor of sorting and reproduction of the existing corporate capitalists' society at all levels. To him they and their students/employers aren’t a bastion of revolution and if anything a kind of woke styled regime conservatism. Selling anti capitalist movies such as Wall-e or Black Panther, in the capitalist mode by mega corporations like Disney or Netflix to Fischer/Zizek is arguably a draw. Fischer and Zizek think a lot of the LGBT issues if anything strengthen the appeal of the current order. Disney of course isn’t a pure capitalists' corporation on Rothbardian terms but is technically competent compared to most of its competitors. So called socialists like a Bernie Sanders can’t even beat a Hillary Clinton let alone be in the position to seize the means of production. Maybe reactionaries should be happier considering the grim condition that self described lefties view themselves?
Speaking of reactionaries Macintyre in After Virtue attacks the spectre of pessimistic Marxists arguing that in some sense they cease to be Marxists by losing their optimism in human society. Once they become pessimists they in a way become reactionaries of some variety in practice which leads to the odd categorization problem of actual existing socialist revolutions being functionally “right wing.” Stalin has show trials and gulags which make the historical ancien regime look like humanistic lightweights. By Rawlsian terms arguably a lot of so called western capitalist societies are more "humanist" than any actual existing socialist society. In North Korea today a kind of horrific parody of socialism exists. Paradoxically some paleo conservatives today look with some amount of affinity at the historical USSR as being moderately cultural conservative which kept a lid on social lifestyle issues as well keeping out the megacorps like Disney and McDonalds.
Our third thinker we included is Nick land who has direct ties to our first thinker in Mark Fischer. Nick Land is a kind of hyper capitalists who views China as the future but China seems to be looking more backward by the day even before the shutdown. If China is the society of the future it seems that it may not exist demographically or politically if you take the work of Peter Zeihan seriously. Its entire economic rise is based on cheap manufacturing exports to the so called enemy liberal democracies themselves all backed up by the US Navy (a service which it can’t provide currently). It seems that the liberal capitalist democracies have a lot of punch left in them compared to their likely competitors. For all the collapse narratives is this ruling order of the US and its allies/vassals along with the megacorp culture escapable internally or externally? Is “neoliberalism” more secure than ever?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Natty to discuss, what is a woman? What is the biological basis of male and female? Is there a third sex? Some in the Dissident Right have argued that women are childlike. Is this true? Either way, what are the general psychological differences between men and women? Given typical female psychology, are the Pick-up Artists right or are they only correct about more K strategist women? What kind of relationship do women want with their husband? Do they want the dominant Alpha Chad telling them what to do all the time or do they want their own space and agency? Given how many tasks have been outsourced from the home, do traditionally minded wives need to home educate to bring the sense of female agency back within the home? Would arranged marriages for daughters on average improve the quality of their husbands? Are arranged marriages even possible in the modern West with the level of geographical mobility?
The Mindcrime liberty show is joined by Todd Lewis to discuss whether wealth inequality is a problem and why? What are the causes of wealth inequality? Is wealth inequality just an extension of talent inequality? Who or what ideology is to blame? What can be done? Would wealth inequality be a problem for Ancapistan? Are interest and absentee landlordism always going to cause excessive wealth inequality?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what is the purpose of sex, especially in developed societies with effective birth control? The “natural” answer, whether one is dealing with animals or humans, is to create offspring which is no longer the answer since the invention of birth control. With its rise, things have changed significantly, with pleasure and peer bonding added into the mix of reasons to do it; they have arguably become the central reason. For much of human history there wasn’t really any cheap, reliable, available and effective birth control. If healthy fertile people did the act then children would result. As Walter Block’s opponent argued, this is what is “supposed” to happen if everything is working. The invention of effective inhibiting measures has arguably changed society even more than steam engines. Everyone in a sense family plans, which has led to the drop of birth rates almost everywhere. The post-Soviet states and East Asia are in demographic collapse. Even Iran has declined and arguably the Third World will follow. Abortion and the rise of people having no children are commonly brought up but what tends to be forgotten is the pro-natal people are having fewer children. If one goes back three generations, most westerners can find people with ten plus children. In the past high birth rates did coincide with high infant mortality rates but the number of live children is quite historically low all things considered. Is this entirely due to family planning? What are the other reasons if any? If sex isn’t mainly for child production then what are the consequences for the family and society? Is the left-wing Anglican Giles Fraser right to support same-sex marriage for the purposes of peer bonding? Is the infamous Mr Spencer right that abortion is mainly birth control for certain classes of people? Is the campus “rape culture” and “date rape” an extension of the divorcing of sex from reproduction?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether arranged marriage is defensible. The divorce rate in the UK is 33% and 50% in the USA so alternative marriage arrangements need to be considered. Is an approved list of marriage candidates preferable to parental veto or typical American dating? Are the lower divorce rates with arranged marriage good evidence for its desirability? Is arranged marriage possibly in modern western with high levels of geographical mobility? In that case, what is the best way to encourage good spousal choice? Would treating marriage more like a standard financial investment help?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Todd Lewis of the Praise of Folly podcast to discuss, why aren’t there more women in prison? If opening up male dominated spaces and closing the gender gap is so important for politicians, government bureaucracies, megacorporations, universities, many churches and activists, then why do they not try to go after the disparity in this male dominated institution: prisons. In England and Wales 95% of the prison population is male. In the US Federal prison system 93% of the population is male as well. A large gender gap also exists in school detentions and punishments as well. Why is this so high? Why do all the egalitarians and male dominated space critics not care? Is society much harsher on men and boys? Do men commit more crime? Do men get longer sentences? Will this disparity continue to get worse? Is this disparity all "capitalism's" (not Murray Rothbard's definition) or better known as neoliberalism/crony capitalism fault? Should the Marxist Left take seriously the claims of Men's rights activists? At their height, were historical Marxism and the historic labor movement at their height mainly a male thing? What could change this disparity?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what is the marginal value of healthcare compared to other goods (say a nice dinner or a house)? If an ideal society existed where there was no IP, parasitic middleman, regulations and etc what would people spend on healthcare? How much is a life worth and how much is life extension worth given that scarcity exists? How much is perfect safety worth? Is Hans Hoppe right about the absurdity of modern “insurance”? Can healthcare be provided by the free market? What is to be made of alternative, or off label use of medicine? Why do progressives and at times so called classical liberals/conservatives think that medicine only consists of what state licensed doctors do?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses GDP and the problems surrounding its calculations and use. Is GDP useful? Is much of GDP growth illusory especially that which is created by finance and central banks? Is the wealth of nations impossible to calculate and compare? Is calculating the wealth of nations harmful and only done for malevolent reasons? Would private product remaining be a more useful statistic to calculate? What are the problems associated with this? What would be a better way to calculate the "wealth of nations"?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether Vladimir Putin is right? Is this a legitimate case of re-acquiring land as a kind of military invasion version of reparations? Is this a just war? What exactly is a modern “just” war and does anyone care to apply the standards consistently? Who exactly owns a piece of land and how do individuals, groups and/or state acquire it “justly”? What exactly is the process of just land acquisition other than naked state military force and has it ever occurred justly? Does anyone or any state have a pure clean title to land, especially the land within Ukraine? What are some similar versions of disputed lands throughout the world both currently and historically?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss whether Public intellectuals should be more like Ric Flair. Flair in a way invented professional wrestling, in particular the part that makes it fun: the flamboyant gregarious trash talking promos. Should public intellectuals adopt this posture at times especially when they are right or think they will be right? Would this make learning and politics more “ fun” and make it easier to pay attention? In our previous discussion with Terminal Philosophy we discussed how both Alex Jones and Graham Hancock are public figures who are extremely entertaining compared to the aging dinosaur establishments they are up against. The big danger is that sophists will of course use this tactic to their full advantage but it is not clear that established institutions can be capable of engaging in this behavior over the long term with any authenticity. Are intellectuals headed this way anyway? Ought intellectuals act this way?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether grammar exists with Rik Storey. What are the rules of grammar and where do they come from? Is grammar merely a useful social construction? Is there such a thing as universal grammar and is Chomksy right? Does grammar’s existence imply a kind of divine order? Is there such thing as “correct” grammar or does it evolve over time and in different places? How does one improve on grammar if it is indeed so subjective? Is grammar authoritarian or libertarian?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Right Ruminations to discuss what a community devoted to free speech would look like. Is free speech in decline and if so when did it reach its zenith? Why is free speech valuable? What is the relationship between free speech and excellence? How would a free speech society deal with heretics? What place would the university have in a free society? Would they encourage public debates with the heretical views? How should employers view speech of employees outside of work? Does freedom of speech conflict with freedom of association?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether interest and rent are a form of soft slavery? Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia assumes no one defends slavery and the Marxists view capitalism as just an updated form of serfdom defined by exploitation. Two of the key aspects of capitalism are interest on capital and rents collected on property. Are landlords and rent collectors the beneficiaries of a form of exploitative soft slavery? Are those persons who collect gains on capital indirectly benefiting from a form of exploitative toil? For the economic left, what would be the attributes of a system which isn’t defined by exploitation? Is this the contents of an empty box? What are the benefits of interest and rent? Why would anyone save and grow the amount of capital goods in a society if there wasn’t a benefit to deferred gratification?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why Feminist woman want to work for or become capitalists themselves if Marxism is true? The classical Marxist doctrine is roughly that working for capitalists is a form of exploitative slavery and enriches the owner. Feminism for the most part comes out of, or has serious overlaps, with the Marxist left viewing the patriarchy as a form of slavery. Most self-described Marxists today are feminist or at least not against it and vice versa. Exceptions of course exist but the affinity and overlap remains. If all the above is the case, then why is career woman feminism so rampant? Why is much of mainstream modern western culture all about woman empowering themselves in the workplace as leaders, owners and of course employees (i.e. wage slaves under the Marxists left’s own description)? Now it could be that Marxism is false and no exploitation exists. It also could be the case that feminism is false and the sexual division of labor is either natural or voluntarily desired by most people including by woman themselves. The right-wing traditionalist anti-capitalist position makes sense if a form of progressive Marxism is true (i.e. capitalism is exploitative, greedy and too individualistic) but right-wing traditionalists by in large don’t advocate careerist girl power feminism. The right wing anti-capitalists say woman should be at home raising children or doing charity. This is of course anathema to the left position. The left-wing position seemingly makes no sense. Being an employee is merely a form of slavery so all one is doing is trading one pair of chains (the patriarchy at home) for another (the boss) based on their own analysis. As far as the issue of leadership is concerned the absurdity gets even worse. CEOs, heads of state, soldiers seeking glory and so on are forms of “toxic masculinity,” “bossism” and “male chauvinism” so woman should go ahead and become bosses, state leaders and generals. The left's bizarre relationship with Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher bear this absurdity out. Apparently toxic masculinity isn’t toxic if woman do it (or is it)? One could argue that current existing non-pure corporate “capitalism,” ironically or un-ironically, is the driver of women's empowerment. Is Deidre McCloskey right to argue that it is the driver in her Oxford debate? If left wing anarchists such as David Graeber want to abolish currency and transition to a gift economy, then why are they so averse to the family which is a kind of an actually functioning gift economy?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether politicians are stupid, mistaken or evil? Are politicians good intentioned at heart and merely making honest mistakes? Are they evil and purposely pursuing bad policy and engaging in malice? Is the situation a bit of both? This issue is an issue which divides the anti-conspiracy theory minded beltway libertarians with the more radical ones who suggest the politicians are evil criminals. This issue also divides minarchists (and almost everyone else) and anarchist libertarians. What exactly is a criminal other than what the state says so? If the state has legal privilege and immunity, then can politicians ever be considered guilty under the minarchists’ standards?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy for the third time to discuss two popular figures who dispense taboo ideas to the public and offer an alternative view. What is the role of persons like Graham Hancock and Alex Jones? Are they merely lying grifters, trying to sell content to gullible "idiots" as their mainstream critiques argue? Are they more right about the past than the mainstream itself even though they don't have the prestige and institutional resources that the mainstream has? Are they at minimum a necessary corrective or counterbalance which asks questions which one isn't allowed to ask? For Hancock two question he asks are how can these large stone buildings be built considering that it would be difficult to do so today and why does Plato seem to think advanced civilization existed before a huge flood? For Jones it is why are politicians going to private meetings where an owl god is worshiped and why is there this guy with a private island who has lots of money who mysteriously died? Do Jones and Hancock have a better theory of the past than the mainstream? What is the future of them and figures like them?
Ayn Rand, who is secular, and Oliver Cromwell, who isn't, have interestingly the opposite view of Christmas. Rand loved Christmas because she thought it was a celebration of greed, consumerism and capitalism. On the contrary Cromwell who represents the Calvinists, puritans and some other protestants has a quite negative view of Christmas and possibly even tried to ban the celebration of it. Cromwell among others view it as a holiday inherited from the Romans and an excuse to get drunk and engage in biblical mischief. Is Christmas "biblical" or "christian"? Where did Christmas and some of the traditions such as Santa Claus (or Father Christmas) come from? Should they continue? Will certain aspects of Christmas be eventually banned by the politically correct crowd? Is Santa Claus an alien? Should kids believe in Santa Claus? Who has more of the correct view of Christmas? Oliver Cromwell or Ayn Rand?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses the old gem of a conversation which appeared on Julian Assange's show for Russia Today when he was in asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy. What unfolds in this conversation is quite memorable not only considering the high profile names but the interesting insights provided. Assange has the show and the two guests are Slavoj Zizek and David Horowitz. Topics discussed include the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, is Obama a secret Marxist or not, Hobbesianism, whether liberalism is Utopian and the absurdity of using the word freedom by the military industrial complex. We show selected clips from the interview and why we think its still relevant and interesting after 10 years.
The youtube link for the longer conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM0I5k50XsY
The mindcrime liberty show discusses whether a household or hotel become a "micro" state when it enforces certain rules, or any rules, within its boundaries? If the hotel owners and management say no smoking in rooms and will evict/fine you the cleaning cost if you engage in said behavior a kind of authoritarianism? What if the father or mother in a family have a similar kind of rule within their own household which the children and those who visit must follow? In both instances are these organizations becoming a microcosm of the state? In the case of no alcohol or no weed it might be the case that the hotel/household is either voluntarily or involuntarily enforcing the states rules considering the state has a war on drugs of some kind but there is clearly a market for different tastes, lifestyles and preferences so some places might have different rules. What are the aspects of the state which are different then the household or the hotel?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses two words/concepts which conservatives, paleo-cons, paleo-libertarians, reactionaries and others accuse modernity of being: decadent and degenerate. What do those concepts/words mean? Is modern day western civilization, including the US and UK, a decadent and degenerate society? Is this preventable? Do good times create weak men? Was this inevitable? Is this cyclical? What can be done and will anything be done?
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses one of the primary affinities or darkside of the moon agreements that the Austrian school of economics has with certain aspects of Marxism. If one takes the Austrian business cycle theory/central banking critique as well as theory of state and combine them one can find an area where technically the Austrians agree with the Marxists in a way although the solutions are much different and it ironically depends on ones class (hint Bernie Sanders supporters would not have as many victim points). The Austrians consider much of inflation, economic crisis's and for that matter some of inequality to be the result of state banks policy which wouldn't exist if the market was free or "more free." The state is also not merely a benevolent organization which makes mistakes or a "normal firm" as many of the classical liberals/Chicago type economists say it is rather the Marxists are correct in that it represents the ruling class. The Austrians understand what power the central bank has in under-girding the states number one formal "soft" power weapon...ie its central bank. Since in a scarce world there is no such thing as a free lunch the primary way one can make "printing money" "work" is through fraud/slavery/theft. One can get irritated at that accusation as did the MMTer who debated Bob Murphy did; however, as the the Cantillon Effect explains this only works for the people who get the new printed money first combined with the state monopoly police force to enforce no counterfeiting laws This is except of course its own treasuries when they say so, thus, George Floyd at Cup's convenience store can't take a freshly printed note off his printer to buy scarce goods which is exactly what he did but the state can do it all the time. Money works because its an exchange good which preserves value and solves the double coincidence of wants problem. The state hijacks money as a means to pay for its expensive projects, maintain its power and give privileges out to its friends. The way the state gets its monopoly on the production of money by most moral/philosophical/legal/religious analysis's is also illegitimate. As the new "counterfeit" money goes out further into the economy the purchasing benefits get less and less. The further away one is the greater the effect. What is interesting about the dissident Marxist doctrine of third worldism is that this is an area of total agreement yet both sides arguably are unaware of the technical arguments beneath it for various reasons. One of the primary reasons we argue is that developed countries Marxists would be considered lower in the food chain in the cherished victim hierarchy. There are of course numerous other factors which explains the "Wealth of nations" such as competence, ingenuity, geography, luck and hard work but international Cantillon effects is one factor .
The mindcrime liberty show discusses why people continue having more people? Since the invention and proliferation of effective birth control the production of children can be divorced from the act to create them. Before then if people had sex children would most likely result "naturally" in the same way breathing happens. Of course one could abstain but that requires an act of will and self control which for the most part is uncommon. Since child production in many places is now under the aegis of human action and not merely natural instinct why then do people choose to do so? Is it out of tradition? Is it a kind of hedonistic consumerism as Bryan Caplan describes? Is it for religious reasons (ie fill the earth or have a quiver full of arrows). Is it for political reasons in order to continue oneself or ones groups legacy? What explains the reasons people choose not to do so? Why is this a taboo topic still? Why is it for the most part so low since the invention of effective birth control?
The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses whether the various crypto currencies such as Bitcoin, Doge and Ethereum has already saved the world. Forget the does it "work" question, (it clearly works as in it exists and people use it no different than stamp collections) rather has, it prevented a crisis? In the past 2 years governments around the world have printed incredible amounts of money. This is on top of the pre 2020 existing situation. The wider world has also witnessed considerable inflation in the past 2 years and governments have been paying people not to work largely by printing money out of thin air or allegedly through debt spending. Why do people continue to work and save in these financial environments if of course the value of the fiat money will be stolen by the state through inflation? Has crypto saved the world by providing a financial lifeboat to many productive working people to place there value who lost faith in the state currencies or is it still merely a get rich quick ponzi scheme which is destined to collapse? Where else ought productive workers put there value paid in state fiat currencies that is not used for immediate consumption? How does it compare against gold? Is Michael Saylor right or is he just a conman? Why can't the bitcoin and gold people just get along?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses what would a human centered environment look like. What wouldn't it look like? Would higher or lower temperatures be preferable? What kind of topography would most humans care to be near? Would this change if humans only had pre industrial technology? Were historical societies really that "nice" to the environment? What areas are the best for growing certain foods?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses freeriding, pacifism and defense. Recently popular youtuber Peter Santenello interviewed a beachy Amish family and they stated that during times of war they were viewed as freeriders or scabs who didn't do their fair share but enjoyed the freedoms and luxuries provided by the broader society including the security state. Is this criticism true? Also recently Bill Kristol and Scott Horton debated the topic of regime change wars and whether they benefit the US. The primary benefit for certain groups including libertarians and the Amish is a foreign power isn't destroying their property or lives. Is this criticism true? Would the Amish and a hypothetical Ancapistan be overrun by commies and nazis (or others) if it wasn't for the "security" provided by the state led and created by acolytates of Bill Kristol and Woodrow Wilson? Is Libertarian foreign policy a naïve fairy tale compared to the realist position? Are the Amish free-riders off the state? Would the Amish and many other western groups be as wealthy if it wasn't for the US navy and formerly the British navy opening up markets and protecting shipping lanes? How would industrialization look and would it happen at all if it wasn't for the state? Would more groups go the Amish way and choose to forgo certain consumer goods and industrial products if the state didn't subsidize their creation? What industrial products would be produced and not produced? Would there be more river and air travel with shorter supply chains? Is Wilson and Kristol a bigger threat to the Amish and a hypothetical ancapistan society?
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses grifting. What is it, is there an alternative and what are the implications if it exists? Grifting is an accusation which one will encounter if one spends enough time online or oneself is online. It is not only "unrespectable proles" but even Glen Greenwald (although he may be an unrespectable prole anyways) gets this accusation thrown at him from time to time. Dave Rubin and many people further to the right of him get this accusation thrown at them. What are the incentive structures of producing content? Why isn't this accusation thrown at more established corporate and mainstream media organizations such as CNN or NBC? Rachel Maddow reportedly gets 30 million per year for her show on MSNBC, Wolf Blitzer at 5 million, Shephard Smith at 15 million and Megyn Kelly gets reportedly 23 million. Aren't they much more profitable then Glen Greenwald, Alex Berenson, Thaddeus Russel, Ron Paul or Jordan Peterson's substack column and youtube channel let alone Alex Jones who has been banished from almost the entire mainstream internet? If grifting is a problem a critique ought to acknowledge the difference between big money grifters and the small money grifters. Glen Greenwald and Thaddeus Russel for all their intelligence and capability seem to be in the wrong business if grifting is the goal compared to Megyn Kelly and Rachel Maddow.
If the problem does exist what ought to replace it? Public funding of media seems to produce content which is not only of an agenda it is increasingly considered bad by large segments of the population according to survey data. NPR in the US is almost entirely watched by voters of the democratic party and to many is insufferable to listen to or watch. Organizations like the BBC are in a parallel situation increasingly and as Peter Hitchens describes with its recent shows twist history and smear Brits. The problem with a good portion of publicly funded content, especially on controversial subjects, is easily recognized in other societies and is what Anglo-Americans would call propaganda if it wasn't their own government doing it. The managerial elite and their supporters clearly dominate and watch organizations such as the BBC and NPR and if they alienate them too much would clearly lose the support of its backers leaving them in a position which might be worse then Glen Greenwald or Michael Tracey's substack column. The primary benefit of the mass patron model is decentralized support as long as one doesn't ban people from using the means of exchange and banning "unregulated" means of exchange like crypto. It seems like everyone is in a way beholden to some sort of patron but one has to examine who exactly makes bank and who exactly gets by comfortably. What is to be made of those who produce content for no money? Are they just "attention seekers" who like to here themselves talk? Is it not the case that the Marxist dream is a kind of profit free production of content? Aren't we all grifters by some definition and is there any significance to that accusation as its usually applied?
in part 2 the mindcrime liberty show lays out what an ideal system of borders, conflict and relations would look like. We continue to defend Hans Hoppe's view of realistic libertarianism from characterological and emotive attacks and try to sketch out a possible future or ideal system. The outline would consist of thousands of Lichtenstein's of various internal rules and mores all respecting each others property. A world of a thousand Lichtenstein's all respecting one another's properties may be considered utopian but a one world state seems utopian at best and dystopian in practice. Property doesn't require something like universal love to implement and is a rather realistic and constrained starting point. Interestingly, if one de-bundles the state as it would be done in certain societies some unlikely defenders of borders may arise including notably trade unions. In certain other societies a self defense culture may arise as well.
We stress, like Hoppe, the primacy of borders as an extension of property and without the existence of it no theft can occur. Without property there is no theft. Without borders and property there is no foreign aggression to speak of because there is no such thing as a foreign land. Without borders there is no localism and instead its centralized monocultural universalism. Borders and property's role in a free peaceful productive cooperative society ought not to be discounted even if some of the existing borders may be considered illegitimate.
The mindcrime liberty show discusses why most modern political theorists have an emotive incoherence and hypocrisy towards borders. With the rise of Donald Trump the libertarian movement split over the issue which ironically blew up in reverse with the shutdown. Many, but not all, "open border" therapeutic liberals (sadly some "libertarians" included) suddenly got rather friendly towards borders or at least less outraged at them for this rather politically correct usage of them. Internal borders in the EU and the US were actually erected! This recent issue notwithstanding we discuss why borders of some kind are necessary for all sorts of issues including something interesting which Glen Greenwald stated after the fall of Kabul: Leave Afghanistan for the Afghans. This has a very different vibe towards the politically correct crowd if someone said leave Sweden to the Swedes or leave Florida to the current Floridians. Why would Glen Greenwald state that statement even for the Afghanistan issue? When it comes to war without borders there is no such thing as territorial aggression or invasion. In the leadup to WWII both Stalin and Hitler operated "without borders" to their respective neighbors including Poland and the Baltic states. Most historical colonialist and empire builders, which the left hates, operated "without borders." The US government and its forces have operated without borders. Julian Assange for many years used the Ecuadorian border inside of the embassy to protect himself from Anglo-American prosecution. Hence its quite clear that without some admission of borders many of these socio political positions held by liberals, progressives, liberal libertarians and leftists make no sense. Libertarians like Hoppe can philosophically defend them merely as an extension of property rights to some degree but if one denies the existence of property/border then what does "foreign" aggression or "theft" or "invasions" actually mean? If no borders exist there is no such thing as as "foreign" aggression or invasion. There is no such thing as different clouds rather its one giant cloud. Are certain socio-ethnic groups (say smaller clouds) entitled to stay on their land? What happens when they can't defend it from a superior power? It could be power explains the what, when and why of when borders gets defended but most political theorists have a rather emotive incoherence when it comes to borders.
War and immigration are clearly linked and many mass movements of persons/groups occur after, during and before wars. As David Friedman argues if one lives in a good society one experiences immigration toward it and if one lives in a bad society one experiences emigration. This was obviously the case in West Berlin. This is also the case with the USA and its southern neighbors. Immigration done in large scale is a form of invasion as Hoppe argues. The left of course views certain immigration movements (say the settlement of North America by Europeans) as a kind of invasion. The story itself in that case is not as straightforward as they make it seem and the imperial Aztecs or Incas didn't care too much for their neighbors either! The left acted very much like and if not worse then Andrew Jackson and Marx held a rather low view or certain groups too! Mao didn't care that much for the borders of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea which was carved out by US/UN/ROC troops and still defended to this day and as mentioned above Stalin physically removed and concentrated all sorts of ethnic groups around.
We also discuss the strange relationship that many liberals and leftist have with the philosophy they usually hold which is something like internationalism and universalism. Both seem to imply that their ideas (be they feminism, liberalism, 15 percent tax rate or democracy) must be in charge throughout the world. If one set of ideas is in charge everywhere there can be no competition or regional diversity in any significant area. It seems that what they (say John Dewey, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, the Neocons, Marx and John S Mill) really want is a one world democratic state of some kind. In that society there can be no exile or "better" place to move if its been entirely homogenized.
We discuss these issues and many more in this episode. Part 2 coming next week.
Article we reference on the left case against open borders. American Affairs not current affairs as we incorrectly said. https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/11/the-left-case-against-open-borders/
Marxism is as alien as Capitalisms article. Marx actually referred to indigenous peoples like the Native Americans, Scottish highlanders, and Basques, along with hunter-gather societies and native tribes in the colonial era generally, as “non-historical peoples.”
https://attackthesystem.com/2020/08/17/revolution-and-american-indians-marxism-is-as-alien-to-my-culture-as-capitalism-2/
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what is an expert, do they exist and whether we should trust them if they do? Are experts merely an extension of a ruling class/ruling mantra in order to keep them in power? Are Michel Foucault and Thomas Kuhn right about science? On some areas they might be.
We at the Mindcrime Liberty Show hold that you can best demonstrate expertise in fields/activities which have a physical good and some amount of skin in the game. For example carpenters have to build structures that work. One could philosophically quibble with what "work" means but in a way one knows what works and doesn't. Chefs and bakers make food which tastes good and doesn't make one sick. Again, one could quibble with taste and to some extent sickness but there is some standard that can be demonstrated. Helicopter mechanics and manufacturers have to build relatively safe and reliable helicopters. As Nassim Taleb points out, there is a statistical relationship between helicopter mechanics who must fly on the helicopter at random and the helicopters safety record. So if one combines a testable product with skin in the game its quite clear that there are experts. There also probably can be experts in fields like literature, history or film. One is merely knowledgeable about known knowledge about a given topic and subfield using relatively known standards.
The problem occurs in areas outside of these narrow yet important areas, and of course in the gray zone middle. For one thing, social science prediction and computer modelling has no real testable proposition per se other than the future lived reality against their respective model and past data. Even if the past data is correct, if the future doesn't meet the modelers predicted outcome (lets say an election forecast or death forecast if no one is wearing a mask) then is the data/modeler wrong or was there some additional missed variable? Or are certain phenomena just unknowable or un-understandable? There obviously isn't any skin in the game or testable product outside of what the future is when it comes to most social science. The limitations in many social sciences are quite clear. Some of the more hard sciences it’s also unclear as well. What exactly counts as evidence and what isn't evidence. Can layman or renegades interpret the texts or only certain accredited institutions? In that past year and counting one particular hard science has taken over.
As far as doctors and various other medical professionals themselves are concerned, are they experts? It is quite clear that in the past doctors and various other medical "experts" have behaved badly on behalf of their patients. The patients at times have gotten sicker while in hospitals than outside of hospitals - everybody should read up on the phenomena of iatrogenics or harm done by the healer. Furthermore, clinics and hospitals themselves have a political ideology behind them which is quite clear to many of the founders of these organizations. The rise of mass hospitals occurred at the same time as the rise of mass schooling, mass prisons and mass armies. Mass hospitals are a very modern institution for better or worse. Hospitals themselves are drab prison like buildings with mostly hideous utilitarian architecture. Doctors (like educators) are some of the least criticized authorities and are generally viewed by most "normies" as being trustworthy and only operating on behalf of the greater good which is clearly demonstrably false.
We at the Mindcrime Liberty Show hold that doctors probably can cure broken legs and bones but then again there is more or less a physical product to show the results. When it comes to other procedures such as preventing a contagious disease which was probably created by them in a lab (but for political and career reasons won't say anything...i.e. they are not merely operating out of pure good) what would "success" look like? Its relatively easy to spot a working helicopter or a good cook but what exactly is a good empirical epidemiologists?
It seems as if to the mainstream if the cases or deaths go up the vaccines, masks and mandates all work! If these numbers go down they work too! One can see this quite well with Tom Woods (https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/) which may explain the opposite phenomona but then again where is the testable product and might there be a missing variable (let’s say natural immunity)? Or maybe Alex Berenson is right and virus gonna virus? Its not entirely clear what the answer is but the American Medical establishment has stated that if one spreads misinformation based on the acceptable narrative they will lose their license. To quote Upton Sinclair- It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. https://www.fsmb.org/advocacy/news-releases/fsmb-spreading-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-may-put-medical-license-at-risk/
The mindcrime liberty show discusses what is art and why SJW art is bad with Don. What makes good movies, books and art? What is the purpose of art in general? What is the purpose of SJW art? To further the egalitarian agenda? Why is most of the latest Hollywood films and shows quite terrible and full of cheesy and idiotic plots, characters and themes. Was older art better then current art? What are some of the most egregious SJW films and comics?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses the Taliban's victory and most likely the multi nation coalition dominated by the US leaving Afghanistan. We at the Mindcrime liberty show argue it is a victory. It is a victory for Ron Paul, Scott Horton, Glen Greenwald, Julian Assange and Peter Hitchens. It is a huge loss for arms contractors, neocons, hawkish liberals/progressives, imperial feminists and "Wilsonites" who want to export democracy abroad. This war also exposes some pesky problems for anti war culturally left wing people in a way that is much different then the Vietnam war. The Taliban are very much a socially conservative group which brings certain groups to the front of line in advocacy for war at this point. This defeat also exposes a lot of phoney left wing/liberal anti war people like Stephen Colbert as well as the corporate media at large who peddled all the lies and half truths to get the West involved.
The mindcrime liberty show discusses the topic of anarchism and whether its a progressive (ie progress oriented ideology in the Alasdair MacIntyre framework) or is a reactionary, bleak or tragic one? Why have there been so many failures in the grand sense in the past 70 or so years ranging from various wars to create liberal states in eastern Europe and the middle east to the failure of almost all major ideological projects on grand terms? Does anyone actually have a plan on the left or the right which can work or are we all Francis "Fukuyamists" or "Pinkerites" now? Do anarchists of left, right and individualists stripes believe that modernity and industrialization has been worth the cost. Did the state create modernity? Did the enlightenment or modernity grow the state and state power? Were people more free in the past then they are in late "capitalist" industrialized "statist" mass democratic societies? Is Stephen Pinker and Francis Fukuyama right and that liberal democracy has brought about the end of history? If that is the case why is there so much unrest and does the unrest translate into any actual plan other then catharsis? Are anarchists the only ideology left standing and what does that anarchism actually entail? If anarchists goal is to abolish the state why hasn't the state been abolished and what are the chances that it actually gets abolished? Is this a 2000 year plus problem that dates back to Babylon? What would the character of a post state society look like? Progressive or reactionary of some variety?
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses men, woman and society in the 21st century with guest Natty who has been active in various men's rights movements. What are the roles of men and woman? How and when did they change? Why are family courts such kangaroo courts for men? What is the future for men and boys in society? Is there any case for optimism in formal society? What is feminism? Has anything changed at the very top?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses MacIntyre and his book After Virtue. In After Virtue MacIntyre outlines an argument which ends up as one of the best arguments against Marxism and the left generally. If the current society, which most Marxists and leftists reside in ie the "West," is so impoverished, wretched and terrible as so many Marxists and leftists claim it is and full of various "isms" and "problematic" historical persons and institutions how will a better society emerge out of this impoverished mess which they claim the existing west is? One can dispute who is and isn't in the west but some phenomena like that clearly exists. The third wordlist might be able to make an argument or some uncontacted group but those groups are increasingly far between. Certain "western" ideas have went almost everywhere including some form of Marxism which itself a "western" idea. Marx, Hegel, Kant and Engels are all they themselves are part of historical Western civilization for better or worse. Most Marxists interpret these kinds of arguments as "ad hominem" but if most of them are part of the managerial class then why would they be the ones to actually do it? They either can claim that the current society and its past isn't as bad as they claim it is or they become as described by MacIntyre the spectre of "pessimistic Marxists" and in a sense as MacIntyre describes ceases to be a Marxist. "Conservative" socialists are no socialists at all! If one is skeptical of man or the society writ large one in some sense cannot advocate a utopian poltiical program because one doesn't think there is actually a "tolerable" poltiical institution. Anarchism of some variety might exist as a tolerable political institution but the contents of said anarchism will be disputed and to bring in another point which MacIntyre makes there is no way to actually determine which argument is "correct" other than of course naked power (a la Nietzche). Although MacIntyre is no "anarcho capitalist" or right libertarian he does use Robert Nozick as an equal to John Rawls in one of the later chapters of After Virtue. Capitalism, even in its corrupted form which Murray Rothbard wouldn't recognize as being such, does exist in some diluted way or another and of course the enemies of it clearly describe the existing society as such. Capitalism (ie private property, family and competition between firms and the "anarchy" of production) is one of the central elements of the West and fits what Thomas Sowell describes the constrained or tragic view which is very much skeptical of "progress." Finally in a related point MacIntyre makes, which most Marxists interpret as ad hominem, is with respect to virtues themselves and how to be a "better person." If one is going to build a better society one is going to need virtuous and courageous persons and for the most part Marxists undermine the virtues or are outright skeptical of them promising a society free from want and pain.
The Mindcrime liberty show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss what can actually be known about history. How does issues of epistemology, propaganda and interpretation effect history? How much of history, especially which is relevant, is merely lost to history and unknown? What can we know about the ancient Egyptians, Spartans or even say Alexander the Great? How much of written accounts do we actually have? Of the phenomena we do have information and text available what is missing? What perspectives is one getting? Is the student of history only getting the "NY times version" or elite version of history? If one merely relied only official reports and the NY Times' to understand the recent American elections or the war in Iraq one would be getting quite an air brushed and one sided version of history. It isn't hard to expand this analogy to past events and one would be left with doubts about what can known. At least Societies in the "west" for all their censorship have a tradition of "openness" to some degree but on the contrary how does one know about closed societies such as a North Korea or the former Soviet Union? What can actually be known about history and with what confidence? Is philosophy a better guide than history?
The Mindcrime liberty show is joined by Matteo Salonia to discuss medieval Christendom and its various legal, political, social and economic phenomena. The modern period heralds the end of the mediaeval Catholic Christendom and beginning of the modern nation state. What changed to achieve this and how were these ideas transmitted? What was the key ideas and institutions themselves? What changed with the reformation and early modernity?
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses whether children are overrated with respect to different political groups and outlooks. Why do so many political/social movements across the spectrum seem to be about defending or doing things "for the children." Are they really doing it for the children or their own power? What are the downsides of the sentimentalization of children and using them as political props?
Are children closer to animals or are children undeveloped humans. When does a child become an adult and are teenagers a "new" category? Do adults want to become "children." Are children innocent with respect to Christianity? How ought the law treat children?
The Mindcrime libertyshow discusses child labor both historically and in the future. Swithun starts by discussing a mises institute article which chronicles how some of the worst aspects of child labor in England described by Charles Dickens had to do with functionally state mandates not "free market" capitalism.
"Thus, in advocating the regulation of child labor, social reformers asked government to remedy abuses for which it was largely responsible. Once more, government was "a disease masquerading as its own cure." To their credit, some reformers realized that regulations to help the poor did precisely the opposite. "
https://mises.org/library/legal-child-abuse
We continue our discussion with pointing out that scarcity is a historic fact which few people other then right libertarians will acknowledge. Its only recently that society has been rich enough to have significant portion of the population doing "useless" work. That useless work is known as mass schooling which for many people is quite alienating work involving tests and papers which they don't care to take and the teacher doesn't care to administer. Is this any better than many current jobs? At least with a job you get paid and something productive is produced. It is true that if one wants a high paying job and one isn't an innovator the only real way is to get a good education for a skill. Funnily enough mass schooling tends to fail many of the people it claims to help and is a kind of jail anyways for disgruntled non academic persons in particular young men of all races and many backgrounds. Would these people be any better off working? How would that effect the immigration debate if one had an increase in effective working hours?
The Mindcrime liberty show interviews Keith Preston about Israel. We discuss the past and future of Israel and how this conflict emerged and if any "solution" actually exists. We begin the discussion by pointing out why a one state liberal democracy in the western European context, which is the de facto solution many of the western left such as Chomsky, Glen Greenwald and Cornel West give, will probably fail and lead to a civil war almost immediately. We also discuss issues of immigration and homesteading and why the left hates Israeli as well as why the American left has failed to make any impact in favor of the Palestinians. We finally end with a discussion of the future of American-Israeli relations. Has American influence restrained Israel? Would Israel going alone be more aggressive? Who exactly controls whom in this relationship? Does Israel have America wrapped its thumb or is it a more symbiotic relationship.
Keith Preston is the author of many books including Thinkers against Modernity and runs the great website www.attackthesystem.com
The mind crime liberty show discusses the very relevant question of whether murder is wrong and if murder is wrong what makes it wrong. Murders apparent wrongness tends to be more or less assumed and we investigate this assumption. If one digs deeper "murder" is a key concept in almost all areas of philosophy, theology, history, war and ethics which is mostly just assumed as a starting point. If one removes this starting point (ie murder is wrong) what then is the big deal about wars, genocides and abortions? Why is it the case that certain organizations, namely the state, is allowed to "justly" murder someone. What is the difference between murder and justified killing (ie an executioner or say a soldier). Is there actually a distinction?
What are the best and most persuasive arguments in favor of not killing/murdering others. Why is it the case that its so weakly argued considering its alleged importance to all facets of life. What do golden rule or Kantian type arguments miss? How do these ethical theories deal with outliers or exceptions? Is Divine command theory or natural law a more effective and persuasive argument?
The Mindcrime libertyshow discusses whether wage "slavery," such as working for McDonald's, Amazon or Walmart at a low wage, ought to be abolished? Would low wage jobs in large firms exist in a free society? Would anyone choose to work at these kinds of jobs if better options existed and why do these jobs exist? What exactly defines slavery? What is the difference between working for amazon as a picker, serfdom and classic chattel slavery? Does dignity and autonomy matter? What exactly is a dignified job and would paying them more make them less "slave" like. Why aren't interns, adjunct professors and TA's considered wage slaves even though at times they can make as much money if one does a full hourly accounting? What does Marx, Hoppe, Nozick and Walter Block agree on and disagree on when it comes to technical economics related to free labor under capitalism and slavery? Are people as free and creative as many of the left libertarians claim people are? If barriers to entry were removed would there be more small business owners and self employed people?
The Mindcrime libertyshow is joined by Duncan Whitmore of Mises UK who wrote an essay entitled Crypto Skepticism to discuss both his essay and crypto currency in general. Does crypto currency ranging from the very well established Bitcoin and Ethereum to the plethora of startup alt coins and even meme coins like dogecoin have any future? Is crypto currency merely a ponzi scheme for lunatics, a Chinese weapon against the FED as Peter Thiel has described it or is it a fascinating technology which can wrestle away the states control of the money supply? Why is money needed anyways (why not just barter?) and can money exist without the state controlling it? Why not go back to gold and silver? What are the strengths and weakness of crypto currency? We discuss all of this in this episode.
A link to Duncan Whitmore's excellent essay.
https://misesuk.org/2021/03/12/crypto-scepticism/
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses whether Curtis Yarvin (ie Moldbug) is right about banking and finance based on two old posts from his blog Unqualified Reservations entitled The Misean Explanation of the Bank Crisis and Maturity Transformation Considered. Yarvin describes the financial system fairly effectively noting that Maturity transformation which the most common form is known as fractional reserve banking is the dominant feature. Yarvin, like Mises and most Austrian economists, note how unstable this system is and describes why it blows up every so often. To quote yarvin himself this poorly engineered system "coats the entire area with radioactive material" in his excellent analogy. Why is fractional reserve banking so unstable? Could fractional reserve banking work without the state as a lender of last resort. What would banking look like in a stateless society, ancapistan or a freed market? Would there be any fractional reserve banks? Why is the state so interested in controlling the money supply? How did this current system come about? How does Moldbug's solution of nationalizing the banks compares to other solutions in particular various Austrian economists solutions?
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/10/misesian-explanation-of-bank-crisis/
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/09/maturity-transformation-considered/
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses Kant's democratic peace theory with regard to Hans Hoppe private law society theory. Kant and most modern day liberals including Mises thought that the key to perpetual peace was to democratize all societies internally along with mutual trade and a federation of nations. As we see with the general trajectory of many organizations and Hoppe quite clearly elaborates this is that they centralize. This one world federation once it has enough power is functionally a one world government where in the customers have no competition for security/law even disregarding the obvious contradiction of an expropriating property protector (ie taxation is theft and slavery). Hans Hoppe in his chapter called the errors of classical liberalism in the democracy the god that failed attacks his intellectual master Ludwig Von Mises for holding this incorrect view on the nature of monopoly and peace. If monopolies are bad from the point of view of consumers then why in this very important area of production such as protection of property and the production of law and order are monopolies are justified? If milk or car monopolies produce comparatively worse cars then why would a monopoly on "government" be any better? Importantly this monopoly thanks to modern technology in addition to taking the logic of both Kant and MIses theories seriously cannot exist in one regional area and must eventually contain the entire earth into a one world centralized government.
Hoppe writes in Chapter 11:
"Once it is incorrectly accepted that in order to protect and enforce peaceful cooperation between two individuals A and B, it is justified and necessary to have a judicial monopolist X, a twofold conclusion follows. If more than one territorial monopolist exists, X, Y, and Z, then, just as there can presumably be no peace among A and B without X, so can there be no peace between the monopolists X, Y, and Z as long as they remain in a "state of anarchy" with each other. Hence, in order to fulfill the liberal desideratum of universal and eternal peace, all political centralization and unification, and ultimately the establishment of a single world government, is justified and necessary."
All statists, classical liberals, liberals and minarchists (unless for cultural or even other taboo and unspeakable reasons which arguably Kant, Mill and of course Marx held) must eventually advocate a one world state in order to get peace. How does this differ from Hobbes Leviathan and of course how does this come about other then by some single local empire (IE the US) indirectly or directly "conquering" or subduing the world? Is that really a "liberal" peace theory? Hoppe in this regard using private property and self ownership as preceding the creation of the state has a theoretical pathway for perpetual peace and reinstates the Westphalian peace system taking the correct insights of Mises libertarian economics and applying them more thoroughly. Territory X follows these laws and territory Y follows these laws. Both territories will compete for "customers" and must treat there customers well. If the two territories want to trade with each other or individual members within the areas want to trade then they can do so but one doesn't need a labyrinth of "free" trade agreements which are merely a way to increase state power and kickbacks. If there is the danger of piracy or foreign aggression regarding trade the those who want to engage in trade must bear the costs rather then externalize them through taxes. The key to a true liberal peace is not a unilateral worldwide UN or League of nations with strong teeth as even Mises unfortunately advocates rather independent "states" or better yet private law societies. Here competition can occur which will decrease the cost and increase the quality of good just as Mises economic theory predicts which was incorrectly applied to the state which has a monopoly and by logical standards must be expanded to the globe if one wants peace.
To quote Hoppe again:
"Liberalism's erroneous acceptance of the institution of government as consistent with the basic liberal principles of self-ownership, original appropriation, property, and contract, consequently led to its own destruction. "
Hans Hoppe Democracy the god that failed and in it contains his excellent chapter the errors of classical liberalism.
https://portalconservador.com/livros/Hans-Hermann-Hoppe-Democracy-The-God-That-Failed.pdf
The mindcrime liberty show is joined by Keith Preston to discuss whether Thomas Hobbes, the author of the leviathan, is right about the necessity of the state. Is it true that without the state/leviathan humans life would be short, brute and nasty? What would an anarchist criticism of Thomas Hobbes leviathan be? How does Thomas Hobbes differ with his rejection of natural telelogy. What does Thomas Hobbes share and differ with other thinks like Carl Schmitt and Max Stirner both of which Keith Preston has written at length about in his great book Thinkers Against Modernity (and other works). What would Thomas Hobbes think of dictators like Pinochet or Franco. Would Thomas Hobbes be more of an anarchist considering the size and scale of the current national state as well as the increasingly growing international system in the past few decades. Would Hobbes be a "liberal Hobbesian" and advocate an international global government of some kind which so many Hobbesian arguments seem to implicitly or explicitly infer. Keith Preston also explains why nationalists already have one foot in the door towards the anarchist camp considering existing nation states are in a position of international anarchy as described by most political scientists. Finally what exactly is the peace which Hobbes describes considering that many "liberal" societies have large prison populations and of course many illiberal societies have done mass killings which thinkers like Hummel argue have killed at least 270 million people (and arguably more). Keith Preston is the author of many books and can be found at attackthesystem.com.
.
The mind crime liberty show discusses sexual ethics in Christianity as well as what might a post Christian society's sexual ethics look like. Is Christianity pro or anti sex? Is Christianity pro or anti marriage and family? Is it an accommodation and something to be avoided and done as little as possible? What is to be made of Paul's and Christ's singleness and is that to be emulated. Are the monastic orders "biblical" or "Christ like."
If "traditional" Christianity's influence continues to decline what will the sexual ethics look like of that society? For all the criticism levied by feminists at marriage isn't Christianity the thing which raised the status of woman and children especially compared to the Roman system. Will we see a return to a system which rewards high status males at the expense of almost everyone else if monogamy continues to decline. Will feminists become (or for that matter return to arguably considering there suffragette influence) being anti sex. How stable and for that matter fertile will a post Christian society be.
What is to be made of the phenomena of both cuties and Jeffrey Epstein which have dominated headlines in recent times. Are the parents of the child actors engaging in abuse? What explains the outrage (and non outrage) toward Jeffery Epstein. Were the girls innocent victims or were they in it for money and gifts. Will we see more phenomena like this if the influence of Christianity continues to decline. Will prostitution be legalized as it is in much of Europe or will we get affirmative consent laws which at every stage of the act one must ask for permission.
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses conspiracy theories. What conspiracy theories are true? What motivates the “debunkers” or the “Vox explainers” or fact checkers. What motivates the conspiracy theorist themselves? Is it not the case that the conspiracy theory is a kind of telos/purpose or even “human action” driven model of the world which explains that events happen for a particular reason not merely chance, accident, mistake or spontaneous order? People and large organizations leadership is making plans that are somewhat “secretive” and possibly not in everybody’s or particular groups interest? What is so hard to believe about that? Why are the "mainstream" so reluctant to believe in conspiracy theories yet so willing to accept the mainstream account? For all the criticism which gets thrown at the conspiracy theorists motives one could argue that the payoff for the mainstream to not believe or even ponder is much bigger. We at the show argue that both sides are probably compromised and not entirely honest either way.
One key motivating factor is that there is a kind of romanticism behind conspiracy theories in the sense that some organization or group is behind much of the “bad things” that occur. Certain intellectual ideologies are arguably borderline "conspiracy" theories depending on ones definition of a conspiracy theory or hold certain aspects of what Rothbard calls a conspiratorial worldview. Is libertarianism, anarchism or Marxism a kind of macro level conspiracy theory which suggests that certain actors or bad actors using imperfect systems to take advantage of the masses?
Are conspiracy theories due to worldview blind spots such as the case of Bigfoot or various anomalous events or "out of place artifacts." Big foot or Lake monsters could exist in theory in small numbers if the world isn’t millions of years old and rather a few thousand or 100,000 years old. If the world is much younger (as people like David Berlinski and Stephen Meyer have argued) then a few river monsters may still be alive floating around various lakes. In a related topic the age of the earth debate also shows up in historical geology and ancient architecture which gets popularized by the show ancient aliens. Plato does seem to suggest a mega historical city of some kind existed in the past. As Jacques Vallee argues anomalous sightings of "fairies" or "aliens" are common in almost every culture throughout history. These events don't fit the normal worldview framework even though as Jacques Vallee documents "high profile" and respectable people have seen things.
We at the mindcrime liberty show are well aware that many conspiracy theories are untrue (if of course truth exists and isn’t some dialectical or social construct) and that the “mainstream” may be right about many things; however, it is worth pointing out many historical conspiracy theories of high consequence are true or probably closer to the truth if it could be known then what the state was saying (or not saying) at the time. Some examples which people of the left or liberal persuasion might find of interest that are arguably true historical “conspiracy” theories are the gulf of tonkin, spying on cell phone users (Ed Snowden revelations), project MK Ultra as well as the WMDs in iraq. Is Noam Chomsky a conspiracy theorist? By the standards of plenty of current fact checkers and debunkers if applied at the time arguably yes. Many conspiracy theories are untrue but nonetheless plenty of them are worth further investigation and quite fun. The stigma surrounding even discussion should only further the inquiry.
NPR on MK ultra and Timothy Leary https://www.npr.org/transcripts/758989641
Errol Morris Fog of War
Transcript https://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html
Rothbard on conspiracy theories
https://mises.org/library/conspiracy-theory-history-revisited
The mindcrime liberty show discusses what “law enforcement” would look like in a “free” society, ancapistan or what Hans Hoppe would call a private law society. Would there be public law enforcement or police (or whatever parlance one wants to use) at all? What would private security look like? Would it be private corporate tyranny as many critics of ancapistan argue it is? Would the warlords take over as private security companies and enslave/exploit the masses for profit? Isn’t that what many left wing critics argue the already existing police already do/does? We at the mindcrime liberty generally agree with the standard anarchist and for that matter marxist critique of the police where the police exist to defend the property and status of the ruling class. Although it’s worth pointing out for all their signaling that most historical actual existing Marxists societies had massive police states which were arguably even more secretive and exploitative then the “capitalistic” societies while being materially poorer. I’d rather deal with Minneapolis police than the Moscow police of the 30s or 70s (read Peter Hitchens chronicles about his time dealing with the Moscow Soviet police). Furthermore for all the anti police posturing social democrats and progressives throughout the developed world are arguably as big if not on some substantial level bigger defenders of the blue then the center right defenders such as PragerU when the police are going after hate speech, lockdown protests, people carrying weapons in capitol buildings, sexual “assaults” on campuses when most parties are drunk, family law courts and a litany of other offences. You could argue that social democrats and culturally left anarchists in a way might have a much longer list of what is illegal and thereby reasonable for public or private security forces to go after.
We at the mindcrime libertyshow do think what is narrowly defined as property or violent crime will continue to exist even in an ideal society. That may sound like an oxymoron but in this regard we have a more pessimistic or skeptical view of what humans are. Its worth pointing out to those on the left (as well as some liberal libertarians) who think that if poverty goes away theft will go away that people from great family or material circumstances who have everything still commit murder and theft! They may commit them for different reasons such as boredom, thrill seeking or even jealousy but nonetheless we think murder and crime will continue to exist. Outside of certain pacifist groups namely the Amish and Mennonites we do think that some form of legal sanction would be required in order for conflicts to be dissipated.
The mindcrime liberty show doesn’t think crime merely is a social construct or merely something which certain societies only have as “crimes.” For one thing Liberalism of some variety (Marxism and anarchism not merely anarcho capitalism or Christianity) has spread around the world. Anyone who thinks theft doesn’t exist or murder isn’t a crime needs to explain to us right libertarians whatever historical boogieman the left hates did wrong. All the Abrahamic religions have many commonalities when it comes to murder and property and of course are being “liberalized” or westernized. Historical non western societies like the Aztecs or Chinese also viewed attacking the emperor or state property a a crime of some sort and aren't some paradise for any lefty or police critic. So it appears there are very few “advanced” societies (maybe the primitivists are right?) without some form of legal system and to enforce those legal rules and the exceptions you need an organization to do so. In the current existing society it is the tax funded police which increasingly makes no one happy.
We think the best solution is to have a private law society where the legal system is run for profit and is privatized. It isn’t profitable to go on crusades against other groups when there isn’t a legalized privileged monopoly to maintain your revenue source and one has immunity. The state rarely if ever goes after the state itself and the cops are a classic example of this. Maybe it might not work and result in tyranny but again its worth pointing out most people on the left, including left anarchists and Marxist, think the already existing system does that anyways so what is to lose? Henceforth are they closeted conservatives who are defending the current system as being superior to our somewhat proposed hypothetical system which has some partial historical examples as well? If so then they are merely social democrats who as we pointed out back the blue just as much as the center right/neocons yet are much less honest and upfront about the matter. The police are the front lines of the state and we as ancaps want them privatized as well as removing their privileged position and we see no one else having any better alternative other than virtue signaling, more reforms or making a worse system.
The mindcrime liberty show continues its discussion of Nassim Taleb's black swan theory and precautionary principle. This time it focuses on the precautionary principle especially in regard to the lock-down as well as other extreme events. What exactly is Nassim Taleb's position on extreme risks and how does he differ from other analysts/scientists in particular mathematical ones ranging from mainstream climate scientists to Fauci and Ferguson. Taleb, like Mises and Hoppe, is very critical of most mathematical models and statistical methods. This is a key part of his work and for that matter for better or worse his "fame," however, unlike Hoppe Taleb has adapted an alarmist position and maintained it and at times uses mathematical models.
Swithun's critique of Taleb's non naive precautionary principle is on his usage of probability and infinity. If one plays a game which is ruinous infinite numbers of time one will eventually be ruined. Defining ruin is itself a continuum problem but even if one does define systemic ruin one still must play the game an infinite number of times which one can't. Taleb has an arbitrary difference between zero probability and events with functional zero probability. Taleb claims that certain events have been observed to be non ruinous so we can give them a functionally zero probability yet we have never seen a virus cause total global ruin yet we have to assign a non zero probably to it. The planet and mankind itself will eventually die the question is only when. Plenty of extreme events to paraphrase Thomas Sowell have no solutions just trade-offs.
Taleb's precautionary principle is useful but his idea of skin in the game and iatragenics which follows standard libertarian analysts of complexity (including Hayek not just Mises) is more useful and sound. Taleb is only doing cost benefit analysis which he is disguising as the non naive precautionary principle while throwing out all his previous ideas to be what amounts to a big government alarmist. When one interferes with a complex system one should be careful about its unintended consequences. The lock-down, as well as most draconian proposals to fix climate change quickly if it exists and is really dangerous may not work anyways as we can see with the heuristic of Sweden or parts of the US that didn't lock-down as much. Nonetheless, even if draconian actions do "work" do they have other costs and do they outweigh the benefits? Its quite clear that Megacorps like Amazon, healthcare apparatuses and the state have increased there power and thereby benefited enormously but has everyone else? Lets look at the most vulnerable themselves like the elderly. Has the nursing home patients in Cuomo's New York which may have one of the highest death-rates in the world (who could have predicted that other then the mindcrime liberty show). Furthermore to discuss other costs many elderly are isolated and can't see there grandchildren or even there spouses. Most of the "cautious" (or hysterical) actions taken especially after 2 weeks are only brought about by using an aggressive police and managerial state all of whom have benefited! Hence had skin in the game the wrong way! They got richer, more prestigious and more powerful thanks to the event.
Speaking of costs, certainty and aggression Taleb has used aggression from the NAP to claim that libertarians should be extra alarmists and minimize travel and wear masks proudly. Although I didn't here Taleb condemn the littany of fiery and peaceful large public gatherings (nor many others) nonetheless it is unknown if going out is actually a superspreader event or not wearing a mask is an aggressive act. Having a gathering while not wearing mask by common law standards is a very beneficial thing to do (not just fiery yet peaceful protests) and not having them has huge known costs. Here is Murray Rothbard on aggression, complexity and uncertainty (which Taleb should know a thing or too about):
If we are unsure, it is far better to let an aggressive act slip through than to impose coercion and therefore to commit aggression ourselves. A fundamental tenet of the Hippocratic oath, “at least, do not harm,” should apply to legal or judicial agencies as well. -Murray Rothbard.
The mindcrime liberty show discusses the work of Nassim Taleb and his Black Swan book/idea and precautionary principle. Today we will discuss black swan events and are they a rigorous concept. The term black swan comes from the medieval expression that said "you’d sooner see a black swan than some (fill in rare seemingly unpredictable event...say George Bush, Barack Obama and Osama Bin laden share a win in the nobel prize in chemistry)." Unfortunately European explorers found a black swan in Australia! Maybe the chemistry prize might not be so rare and unpredictable. What exactly is and isn’t a predictable event. What exactly is science? Is science merely making correct predictions or is it a prior theorizing? How much data does one need in a sample before the 100 year flood (or financial crash) or thousand year flood shows up in the data sample (clearly more then 50 years of data). If that event doesn’t show up in ones empirical data does it even exist? Is that a blind spot of empiricism and statistics? Furthermore, are some things just in principle unpredictable? Is Nassim Taleb a proto Misean (either richard or ludwig)? Another key concept which Taleb may not have invented but definitely made mainstream is the idea of fat tails or that one event represents 90 percent (or higher) of the total. WWII represents (contra Pinker) more deaths than most other wars. No one cares or should care about the average war or the average height of a river or average height of a flood. Its useless information. The outliers are the events that are significant. WWI and WWII are clearly more significant than a series of small conflicts or small recessions. Katrina is clearly a more significant hurricane than any minor tropical storm. Nassim Taleb has clearly had “influence” for better or worse and arguably up until recent events Tim would argue for better. Next episode we discuss the precautionary principle and whether anything can be done to mitigate or prevent these high consequence events which may or may not be predictable as well as if one actually can do anything and want to do anything.
Nassim Taleb work to critique Pinker and the idea of the long Peace.
https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pinker.pdf
Gary North's great criticism of Taleb
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/gary-north/einstein-and-keynes/
Mises institute on Taleb
https://mises.org/wire/when-nassim-taleb-channels-ludwig-von-mises
Some Fundamental differences between Taleb and Mises.
https://mises.org/wire/some-fundamental-differences-between-ludwig-von-mises-and-nassim-taleb
The mindcrime liberty show discusses 3 taboo topics including scientism, the crusades and the US Israeli relationship with Terminal Philosophy.
Awhile back there was a trailer which included a talk made by ex KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov. He argues that there is a four step process of propaganda including demoralization, destabilization, crisis and finally normalization. Did the USSR's active measures have the ability to actually influence the west from the outside in the way he describes or is it homegrown? Was the USSR as bad as he says it was considering that he thinks demoralization is over-fulfilled in the West? Does Bezmenov have a solution to fix the problem he identified?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses what a hypothetical Noam Chomsky versus Moldbug (aka Curtis Yarvin) debate might look like comparing and contrasting their agreements and disagreements. This conversation is structured in the format done by Alasdair MacIntyre in his book After Virtue, Dallas Willard in Nietzsche versus Christ at the veritas forum or especially the book the Great Debate Burke and Paine (ie it’s not a real live debate if one is thinking that). Both Chomsky and Moldbug somewhat ironically end up with the same view of America and its various Satellites/vassal states around the world: they are undemocratic oligarchies. This is clearly demonstrated in Chomsky's book manufacturing consent which takes aim at the corporate press and if you examine what Moldbug would call the cathedral they both end up with roughly analogous models albeit with quite different visions of what a better society would look like. Moldbug and Chomsky mainly differ on the question of democracy on both its feasibility and desirability. Moldbug of course has a low view of democracy which mirrors David Friedman's competitive dictatorship model as well as Hoppe's monarchy theory while Chomsky is a left anarchist. We also discuss Chomsky’s at times bizarre relationship with both academy and the corporate press considering his stance otherwise.
We selected these two thinkers because both Chomksy and Moldbug have similar class and social backgrounds and are two central figures in modern American/Western discourse for better or worse. Chomsky casts quite the long shadow and is the Bertrand Russel of our time while Moldbug has cast his own influence with a seemingly small platform and for many years operating under his pen name. Certain aspects of the mainstream right and left would regard both of them as dangerous or even quite frankly stupid. That may be the case but their influence cannot be discounted and we both think they are very good representees of a certain intellectual debate existing in the current age over democracy and its feasibility/desirability while at the same time having similar models of the existing society i.e an undemocratic oligarchy managed mainly by the corporate press and to some extent the education system.
The mindcrime liberty show discusses the philosophy of mathematics using a statement made by the "dear leader" of North Korea. In a statement during a school class of whether 1+1=2 the "dear leader" purportedly stated that it doesn't always equal 2 rather that sometimes it can equal 1. If you take one drop of water plus another drop of water do you get 1 big drop? The statement made by the dear leader is obvious alarming propaganda representing an Orwellian nightmarish state, nonetheless, we use this as an inroad to discuss various philosophical issues relating to math.
Do numbers exist? Are numbers merely a useful fiction or do they have some platonic or abstract existence. We discuss the different numbering systems including the roman system which arguably is more intuitive as Herbert Spencer argues. We finally end with a discussion of the dearth of "philosophy of mathematics" training or interest from professional mathematicians who tend to treat math as something that just exists and isn't to be questioned. Why is that the case? Does math need to be knocked off its perch a few levels?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses power, democracy and pessimism or commonly known as the black pill with James Lawrence. What is power and what kinds of power are there? We also discuss what ideology that rules the west namely Progressivism or its various synonyms given by Curtis Yarvin (aka Moldbug). We also discuss the concept of democracy and what exactly is it. We finally end with a discussion of whether one should "give up" or at least give up on voting due to the fact that "non left wing parties" (conservative or republican) have done hardly anything in both the UK and the USA. If electoral politics are out what exactly must be done?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses Ed Feser’s “statism” with regards to the functioning of the Roman Catholic Church as well as war. Do traditional Roman Catholics have the best theory to defend the state in both domestic as well as foreign affairs? Would the traditional historical catholic church even recognize the state which Ed Feser is defending, ie the US state (a protestant founded liberal Lockean republic), not the Holy Roman Empire led by the papacy on the chair of St Peter. Are the Lockean principles which many ground rights or property on in it themselves baseless? What are the strengths and weaknesses of Ed Feser's natural law approach to defending the state as well as private property? Ed Feser in various parts of his writings includes a truck load of provisos to attack property but still admittingly defends private property itself saying its natural if not outright good. Same thing with the state. At what point do the provisos and emergencies make private property functionally “public” property controlled by a state which leads to all the problems identified by anarchists, minarchists and the lockean liberals. Why isn’t Ed Feser a socialist?
When it comes to foreign affairs Ed Feser may do a fairly effective job at saying that Roman Catholic Christianity isn’t compatible with anarchism (or at least Roman Catholics can’t be anarchists …..we will leave the Protestant Christian part out of it for the purposes of this conversation) but nonetheless is Ed Feser crying wolf when it comes to his advocacy of the Iraq War. Why did Ed Feser lend support to such a ruinous and pointless war even if in theory the Catholic just war theory fought by a legitimate actor is justified by Ed Feser’s natural law Catholicism. Didn't in the long run the pacifists and "Rothbardian Catholics" who he says more or less are a contradiction in terms get vindicated by the actual outcome of the war which he defended?
Ed Feser on the Holy Roman Empire.
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/12/what-was-holy-roman-empire.html
The Mindcrime Liberty show interviews a former public school teacher and administrator on what exactly is the state of education in the very large state of California. What changed over the years regarding funding and curriculum? Was there ever a golden age of public schools? What is the politics or viewpoint of the teachers themselves or the curriculum. Who controls the education system? The local parents or the state bureaucracy? What is the future of education in particular public schooling?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses punishment theory. What would punishment look like in an ideal society or a stateless society? What is the purpose of punishment: to repay property damages, deter future crimes, a moral crusade on behalf of god or some secular god/creed or class oppression to protect the ruling class? Is punishment (or “justice”) merely a sociological construction to maintain one groups dominance? That definitely explains why Julian Assange is being “punished” (as well as historically Christ, Paul, and Socrates all of which got punished by the ruling powers). If someone like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden for example was to be freed then the existing ruling powers would be unmasked and there maybe more future leakers or as Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama refers to as "29 year hold hackers" or as Hillary Clinton refers to as "tools of Russian intelligence." We both hold that punishment must in a way exist of some kind (even if it's merely extreme social ostracism) otherwise arguably there would be more murders and thefts even if they are only small time murderers and small time thieves not large states. It's not only right wing libertarians or angry religious theonomists that punish people even in some sort of Chomsky style anarcho syndicalist commune there must be some kind of punishment for those who want to concentrate power or start a state/megacorporation. Actual existing socialists or communists countries clearly punished people quite ruthlessly. The most ruthless prison system today is probably the North Korean prison system and the most ruthless historical system probably was East Germany with its mixture of high functioning society and tyrannical occupier state. So punishment must be meted out to those who violate the creed of a society be whatever creed that is. If the creed is property rights then anyone who violates property rights must be punished. If the creed is anarcho syndicalism then anyone who wants to start a capitalist enterprise must be punished. If the creed is progressive totalitarian humanism then anyone who wants to think otherwise must be punished. After all feminists clearly think rape ought to be punished and most “right thinking persons” think that certain current and historical boogieman ought to be shot or removed even from photos as Stalin did. In all of these possible societies and instances what ought to be done? Is mass incarceration a solution? The trouble with this is it requires a huge amount of societal resources to imprison people long term and is a strictly modern phenomena. Swithun thinks that corporal punishments and the death penalty are an improvement over the current system. Tim largely agrees even citing Michel Foucault pointing out that the modern totalitarian “humanist” therapeutic state has grown significantly on its various moral crusades to unfathomable levels and arguably is the most inhuman system ever built. The welfare state and the public school system system are arguably just an extension of them to warehouse unruly people who don’t fit into the current society which is not that different then historical societies. Maybe public caning or hanging would be an improvement over mass incarceration.
The mindcrime liberty show discusses the work of Curtis Yarvin (also known as Moldbug) and whether his Ultracalvinism/super protestant theory is right. The super protestant or ultracalvinism theory states that a certain form of Christianity which began in the reformation in parts of continental Europe then was transferred to England and then finally to the US is behind much of the social revolutions and change one has seen for better or worse. Did Christianity cause all the social reform movements and revolutions which at times some conservatives and reactionaries dislike? Did a certain form of Christianity cause/create the anti-slavery movement, feminism or even forms of communism/socialism. Its worth pointing out that Engels was raised in a strict Calvinist family and Hegel and Kant had huge Christian influences or are outright Christians. Cornel West (who is probably the English speaking worlds most famous "mainstream" public christian intellectual ) clearly is an example par excellence of what a modern day ultracalvinists looks like. Even Slavoj Zizek considers himself a "Christian atheist." Now West and Zizek of course would reject Moldbug grand theory to explain it because of Moldbug's tone and some other views which won't be mentioned but nonetheless plenty of somewhat normie Christian evanglicals including NT Wright don't really differ that much in terms of social theory then say the then radical George Fox's Quakers when it comes to marriage or the then radical social democrats when it comes to politics or increasingly on theology. Rothbard and Gary North for the most part agree with much of the moldbug framework of the ultracalvinists pipeline in there earlier writings.
Finally are conservatives, from NT Wright to William Buckley, that "conservative." What does NT Wright, William Buckley, and Barack Obama/Dave Cameron actually disagree about? What does a modern evangelical actually disagree about compared to a liberal Christian 30 or 50 years ago. Now it could be that these groups or persons aren't "true" Christians in the same way the Stalinists aren't "true" communists but nonetheless for better or worse certain forms of Protestantism has had a huge influence on topics ranging from democracy to family life. Is Moldbug theory of social change being caused by certain forms of Protestantism which have spread indirectly or directly for better or worse almost everywhere right?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses education and what is it for? Is there a difference between schooling and learning? Is education in the mainstream state schools merely obedience training, signaling and an exercise in taking tests/writing papers to appease ones teachers or professors? What ought an ideal education system's purpose be? Swithun defines this as the cultivation of ones mind and body to do meaningful productive work and be a (good) whatever role one wants or is capable of (bus driver, father, mother, scientist, philosopher or electrician). It is quite clear that the existing education system in the developed world does not provide many or all people with the opportunity described for development and meaningful work and worse still in-debts many persons in the US and wastes there time (opportunity cost) only to work at jobs which don't really need 4 to 8 years of formal education on top of the 13 years in primary/secondary schools. The state schooling system doesn't even provide many people with community either and actually many boys in particular do not like school at all and are drugged in order to stay in school. We then discuss homeschooling, deschooling and private schooling and whether this provides a solution or a "less bad" solution. Tim pushes back reluctantly at certain aspects of the deschooling and homeschooling movement as rather idealistic suggesting that considering how crooked society is at times you must learn to "play the game" (ie cheat, lie and appease a master such as a teacher or professor). It is quite clear that school sucks but is unclear whether it can be replaced.
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses education, schooling, and the classroom. Why is it that the classroom at all levels is the least criticized institution in society? Is it because college professors and teachers have cushy and high status jobs and want to protect their privilege? Are professors and teachers prison guards? What is the purpose or telos of education? To make money? To achieve technical skills? Promote left wing ideas? Many historical universities were set up as “minister training” schools or theological schools of some variety which have changed far from this purpose. Is the purpose of education effectively obedience training to teach children and these new persons known as “adolescents” how to be good corporate slaves and good soldiers to fight in the states armies. Interestingly after their loss in the Franco Prussian war a Frenchman commented that the schoolmaster would win the next war. Furthermore, if you scrape away the idealist rhetoric of the civil rights movement one of the purposes of universal schooling, in particular for blacks, is to “Americanize” them in order to fight uncle Sam’s wars and be good citizens. So its quite clear that schools under traditional Christian or Socratic merits for the most part fallen far from the mark . Is schooling today merely ideological indoctrination and is there such a thing as “neutral” education free from ideology or theology. Is education merely sheepskin signaling as Bryan Caplan argues? What exactly is education’s purpose?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses power. Who has the power and what exactly is it? Does the "patriarchy," "matriarchy," "ruling class," "elites," "the state" "corporations," "white coat priesthood," "the deep state" or anyone have the power? Is wielding power "bad”? Who exactly gets to say what is "bad" and "good", or what is legal and illegal. Are there such things as powerless persons and does power flow both ways as Michel Foucault and Thaddeus Russell argued? Does the slave have more freedom in certain ways then the master as Thaddeus Russell has argued in his book Renegade History of the US and Michel Foucault's concept of the "shade." Even Christ and Paul in a way have a kind of inverted power hierarchy saying that the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Nietzsche of course argues that Christianity is a slave morality for weak people).
Isn't power a great thing? Man has the ability to turn buried fossils, running rivers, and atoms into productive energy. The population of the earth has exploded and if one is an honest humanist isn't more people a good thing? I know John Stuart Mill and Margaret Sanger thought otherwise as well as many climate change fundamentalists. Man also has come to some understanding of the way in which diseases and other ailments work and have reduced the infant mortality rate to the lowest in history and life expectancy still remains fairly high even with a recent slight drop off. After all classical Marxists believe that communism is superior to capitalism in terms of productive capability as a social organization and its not some sort of "anarcho-primitivism." Marx himself praises capitalisms as breaking down the idiocy of ruling life and although complexities and nuances exist rural life tends to be quite "patriarchal" or backward. So its quite clear that liberals, many conservatives, Marxists, and feminists (not merely randian objectivists, misean libertarians or fascists) believe that exercising ones will or power upon nature or fellow man through social or material processes is a useful thing. Without industrialism its unclear that the feminist or Marxists would have anything to complain about. Long live the bourgeoisie!
"“The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life." Karl Marx.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses abortion. We open up by pointing out that one of the world’s biggest boogieman especially according to the Left, as well as normie libertarians and conservatives, Richard Spencer, is pro choice for extremely politically incorrect reasons. It’s worth pointing out according to the CDC that in states that report by race/ethnicity whites and blacks both have roughly equal total numbers of abortions yet blacks only represent about 13 percent of the population. A large portion of this debate hinges on what exactly that thing is or isn’t. If it is merely a toothache or cow (animal rights activists aside) then we should kill it, trade it, experiment with it, sell it, or whatever one wants to do with “it.” If it’s a person then we should treat it as a person. One of the reasons why Tim is skeptical of the pro-life movement is the fact that much of the pro-life movement (including the pro-life woman who debated Walter Block) will disavow the “punish the mothers and doctors” position. Trump had a Freudian slip a while back and of course all the moderate Christians as well as the Left totally disavowed this viewpoint. I know prison abolitionists movement and crime is merely a social construction viewpoints exist but most people, in particular the Left/Left liberals/politically correct libertarian, think that school shooters should be punished. Effectively they are the same actions from an entity viewpoint (killing children). Swithun lays out what he describes as the anti-murder position quite effectively and its implications. We also discuss that pragmatically by allowing more free choices in particular when it comes to healthcare it would eliminate much of the supply. In a possible Ancapistan situation one could imagine that “Gary North Inc” will compete with “Margarat Sanger Inc.” for the right to control that entity. No solutions just tradeoff but its worth pointing out that depending on one's worldview things can be both features and bugs. If your for the right for woman to choose that is a feature (and vice versa). Ancapistan might allow for both in theory for better or worse.
The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses how Socrates/Plato’s concept in the Meno dialogue, as well as book one of The Republic, have wide ranging effects on ethics, theology, and what exactly is the good life. If you take the formalistic approach of ethics adopted by Plato it appears that no one really does evil and we discuss the implications small and large. Isn’t this the view that shows up in Misesian style economics where the choice you act upon by definition is the choice you thought was the best use of one’s time? The actions can vary from small things such as the small time thief to the murderer, or someone who wants to sit in bed all day smoking weed (or homeless on the street) and merely take advantage of charity or welfare from some benefactor. The actions can get comparatively larger such as going on a shooting rampage in a church or school, creating a party to hijack a state to kill certain ethnic groups, bomb Dresden, bomb Pearl Harbor, bomb Hiroshima, bomb the Federal Building or fly planes into the World Trade Center. In any of these cases do the various “theys” do these actions out of benevolence and for good in this formalistic way? Does malice as defined by Thomas Aquinas or evil as its colloquially known exist? Are any of the “bad men” in history truly evil or are they just making mistakes and have differing views about what the good life is and how to achieve it?
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses Hans Hoppe’s criticism of democracy and why no else really believes in Democracy including various groups of the left: Left libertarians, Marxists, left anarchists, social democrats, and other factions who often times hide behind the word democracy when they in fact have other goals than just majority decision making. For all the criticism that Hoppe’s book the Democracy the God the Failed got, we subject that criticism toward the left. For example if a 51 percent group in a given area votes to outlaw homosexuality or no “fill in the blank group” allowed, would Kevin Carson, Richard Wolff, Cornel West, or you average leftists think that is legitimate even if it’s done “democratically”?
What if an elected party or person (and does so while campaigning) intends to abolish democracy and create a personal dictatorship? It is highly unlikely in either case the left or left-liberal groups would support these parties. Another problem about democracy is the existence of power, truth/science, division of labor, and class/gender/ethnic divisions. There is the classic 1984 line about the state saying that 2+2=5 whereas everyone would clearly say the answer is still four even if a democratic state did so. Whatever the actual “truth” of the matter on origins of the species, it is the case that in plenty of areas if the matter was put up for election intelligent design would be taught in school for better or worse.
One could always take the Foucauldian version of truth and say it’s merely power and that truth doesn’t exist which then you wind up with the Foucauldian critique of science as well as scientific imperialism (destroying traditional teachings on the grounds that they aren’t true...although if you read Stephen Meyer or watch him debate I am unsure if that is actually proven). which interestingly even itself ends up falsifying democracy as well.
There is also the classic elitists position as Michael Malice and Moldbug puts it that the “idiots who need leaders don’t have the ability or the right to pick them.” This dovetails with the classic claim that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Finally the hardcore Marxists, just as the hardcore libertarians, think of there are socio economic theories as being true regardless if they are elected and of course actual existing socialism/marxism tends to be quite undemocratic. It’s not like minorities under Fidel Castro or Stalin got treated well (just see the treatment of Afro-Cubans https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/26/1604234/-Fidel-Castro-s-Racist-legacy).
Finally we end with a discussion of why workplace democracy is a flawed idea which if executed needs work. This is what someone like Richard Wolff tends to argue for but as David Friedman points out the small dictatorship model (i.e. a restaurant or business run by a boss) with the right for employees to leave and start their own firm or get a different job is actually more effective, and as pointed out above, actual existing socialism is a dictatorship too where workers do not have very good choices. The advocates of workplace democracy and trade unionism also have to deal with the problems of outsiders and innovation. Do unions represent the interest of the consumers or foreigners or merely the workers? Arguably in the US, cops and teachers are too protected by trade unions. As far as technology is concerned trade unions can also promote backwardness by forcing higher prices and inefficient modes of production merely because workers are protected.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show interviews Sean Gabb on the relationship Britain has had with its former colony from once mighty empire to arguably a lapdog of that colony in the Blair administration. The British Ruling Class has lost the will to power and has failed to assert its interest since Suez crisis to the Americans but arguably earlier. When and why did this happen? Was this decline inevitable or was it avoidable? Was it all due to the First World War or were there other events which were important? Would the British people be better off if it just entered the US as states considering that at times it’s a lapdog for the Americans? Is there any truth to the special relationship? Are the Americans and British people “foreigners” to one another despite them sharing for the most part a common language and similar historical events/movements? Finally would Britain be better off under Biden/Harris since there is no pretense of a special relationship? Sean Gabb himself is the author of over 40 books including the novel the Churchill Memorandum, , a translation of the Aeneid and the piercing political work: Cultural Revolution, Culture War. You can find more of his work here https://www.seangabb.co.uk/
We discuss reparations and why outside of an extremely narrow area of interest they are an absurd idea (in particular state mandated or state funded reparations). We interviewed on one of our earlier shows one of the prominent libertarian intellectuals Walter Block on the topic of reparations who advocates a narrow view of reparations for property which can be clearly demonstrated. Even within this narrow view, as we pointed out previously in our episode with Block, that plenty of typically considered “masters” or “whites” or westerns could in theory be owed wealth/land too. Plenty of land wasn’t stolen or was merely taken by what is basically is hunter gatherers and plenty of the genocide was merely an environmental inevitability which even Jared Diamond would point out in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel (ie germs).
As far as the British Empire is concerned it created plenty of positive externalities which if you take the expansive view of reparations it should be included too. Some examples of this are railroads, the abolishment of the slave trade, spread of literacy and Christianity, and modern institutions such as parliaments (for better or worse) are left behind thanks largely to the British Empire which was funded mainly by home British taxpayers who in some cases were not that much better off then subject peoples (read Road to Wigan pier by Orwell). This is the other absurd half to the reparation absurdity that reparations' will mainly fall upon working class citizens of the developed societies which is THE least libertarian or even left libertarian thing one could think of. It’s also worth pointing out that immigrants to the US didn't exactly come in the nicest of conditions and many came over in what is known as Coffin ships, weren't considered white at the time (almost black by the scientific racists at the time), and were drafted to fight in a war between states. Are these people owed money?
As far as ADOS persons or former subject persons living in Britain are concerned, we point out that functionally many of them not only have integrated they are full members of the dominant society and now in positions of power. The richest black in terms of per capita income (they would either be 44th or 15th richest nations depending on what metric one uses and year) and about ¾ of the black billionaires live in the US. So if you really want to take certain Chomskyite and Carsonite arguments about the West (or for that matter being wealthy while everyone else is much poorer) seriously these persons are functionally just as “Western” (i.e. exploiter class or imperialist using the Third Worldist terms) and owe money or reparations to the developed world supposedly. We don’t of course think the West created its wealth through exploitation which we tried to lay out in last week’s episode but nonetheless why would this group want this money if it’s so tainted according to the left and considering that many of them have integrated ? If ex slaves like descendants like Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King Jr want to integrate into a "common America" they have to in theory own up to America’s “greatness” or “genocide” depending on one's view. The back to Africa program never happened to any large scale for better or worse and the ones that did emigrate there ended up being a minor “colonial” elite themselves in Monrovia Liberia still to this day. Do these colonial elite in Monrovia owe reparations' to Liberians?
Reparations will only occur in developed/wealthy societies (like the UK, Germany, and US) that are even remotely capable and willing to do it. Poor societies will never pay reparations. The Soviet Union (now Russia) is never going to pay Ukraine in any fashion close to what the Ukraine famine cost it. Western intellectuals barely talk about it without couching it within hundreds of qualifiers and the USSR denied it for years. Germany; even after getting its scientists stolen, cities bombed, many of its ex-soldiers used as crop pickers for years by France and Russia, patents looted by the Americans, and half of it turned into a jail by the Soviets. The German taxpayers still pay Israel and the victims of holocaust a payment and arguably German taxpayers themselves should might be owed reparations too! Finally the West to a large extent has withdrawn from Africa but who is moving in and building new bases and buying up ports? China. We highly doubt they will ever pay any reparations or that Noam Chomsky or Carson will critique them as hard as they do the British or the Americans. The Chinese have no trouble treating blacks poorly in China itself or Muslims in certain provinces and most intellectuals and for that matter the NBA don’t seem to care. The UK and the US (as well as much of the other west including Spain and Germany) is the cleanest dirtiest shirt. Reparations are absurd.
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses arguments about the economics in favor and against slavery. If you take the 1619 arguments seriously, as well as some Third Worldist and Chomskyite ones, the “West” is primarily rich thanks to this institution if one really gets to the bottom of their arguments. We think this argument has a ton of holes in it and lots of special pleading definition aside.
We try to at first define slavery noting that the institution is not merely a white on black scenario: Christians were enslaved by the Romans and the Ottomans enslaved Europeans. It’s also worth pointing out that Africans local were a key cog in the slave trade itself and it was the British who ended it. That aside, why is it that even though the Ottomans, the Chinese, the Russian tsar, as well as many Africans and South Americans practiced a form of slavery did not industrialize or are comparatively less rich? Why was the American South less industrialized then the American North? Why was the comparatively freer western Europe ahead of the less free tsarist system of serfdom in Russia? These are the cases that must be answered by the Chomskyites, the third world Carsonites, as well as the 1619 project people.
We at the Mindcrime liberty show do hold there is no universal argument in favor of slavery as profitable. It may be profitable for the slave holder to hold slaves but it’s not profitable for the slaves themselves. The West got rich materially thanks to the Nuclear family, some form of markets or capitalism (depending on ones parlance and in spite of the crony capitalism not because of), IQ, Christianity, and the demystification of the environment. Slavery largely harmed the West on balance (hence its not in the long run economically effective) and its worth pointing out the only two forms of “slavery” today either occur in failed states like post Hillary Clinton and Nobel prize winning Barack Obama intervention Libya or its merely taxation by progressive governments, which as Robert Nozick would point out almost no one thinks the former is legitimate (buying and selling slaves) but still thinks the latter is. We do touch on the idea that taxation might be slavery or that living in East Germany might be a form of slavery but recognize there is a sliding scale.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why the Left will never, in all likelihood, abolish the state. This is a continuation of an earlier episode we did with Keith Preston on “Does the left advocate the police state” but this time we state our own views. The left, compared to the right, has a very unconstrained vision in Thomas Sowell’s term such as: defeating climate change (if it exists) or public health crises, mass education and mass healthcare, or equality which can only really likely be “defeated” with a state.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show outlines three or four different types of the left including the social democrats, the Marxist-Leninist, and the anarcho et al or classical anarchist. One could include primitivists but considering the fact that indigenous societies according to the myth of the ecological Indian weren’t that nice to the environment and according to mainstream natural historians might have hunted large mammals to including the buffalo. Considering that for the most part indigenous societies are rather functionally “traditional” or reactionary (ranging from the Amish/Hutterites to maybe uncontacted isolated groups), most left wing people aren’t going to become primitivists anytime soon.
The social democrats are not that radical as identified by both Jeff Riggenbach as well as Jonah Goldberg (although they place them differently on the political spectrum) and are not that much different then normie conservatives, rather, just want to spend money on healthcare or public works projects instead of the military. Although considering the fact that public works projects tend to be military in intent, we at the Mindcrime Liberty Show tend to think this distinction doesn’t even exist. The Marxist-Leninist are quite obviously “statist.” The Marxist-Leninists have always historically had a state and actually a larger, more deadly police state then either the Romanovs or the Bourbons.
The hardest case for us libertarians at the Mindcrime Liberty Show to diagnose is the anarchical et al groups. We already discussed the primitivists but the more advanced anarchists must first show why they can’t defend themselves from the Marxist-Leninists? Why did the classical anarchists lose to them in both the Russian and Spanish civil war? Right libertarians might have a defense problem but so does left classical anarchists (as well as mutalists and the other et al groups).
Also how does classical anarchists deal with climate change or a major public health crisis if they of course think it’s a problem? We at the Mindcrime liberty show are agnostic or even “deniers” who take a Alex Epstein view or a Knutt Wittkowski view respectively on the issues but if you listen to those “infallible” “most high and mighty” state healthcare “experts” how are they solved under classical anarchism/mutualism considering people like us exist? Bismarkian social democrat might be able to work but as discussed that requires cops, a mass education and propaganda system with authoritarian teachers, and of course a military to defend it from outsiders who would “contaminate” the system. Thus, considering all that we at the Mindcrime Liberty Show thinks the left will never or rather unlikely to abolish the state and all its apparatuses for a variety of theoretical and pragmatic reasons.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Rik Storey to discuss whether Libertarianism is a reactionary/traditional or liberal/libertine system of thinking? Is libertarianism about free love, abortion, and drugs as often times criticized by conservatives? Or is it a form of private landed patriarchal tyranny as believed by average social democrats and Noam Chomsky? We discuss the dispute between Hoppe, Tucker, and Block over what libertarian attitudes ought to be towards culture. Is Hoppe's realistic strategy the correct strategy or is Tucker's more liberal more likely? What is the underpinning culture of libertarianism? Is it traditional Christianity or Liberalism? Is Christianity traditional? What is libertarianism and Christianity's relationship to family and children?
URL Feed.
https://mindcrimelibertyshow.podbean.com
The mindcrime liberty show is joined by a guest to discuss what is progressivism. Is it a meaningful word and who is personified by it.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show discuss the death of RBG and how it relates to sovereignty. Schmitt's definition of who is sovereign, is he who decides the exception. If the US constitution, as opposed to the people, is sovereign who decides when amendments apply and what precisely the words mean. In that case the supreme court is sovereign in theory. Whether the executive, the military, and legislature follows it is of some question and to some extent is the question in itself. Furthermore, does Britain have a comparable institution at this point? In a future, hypothetical libertarian world of competing law generated on the private market would a similar institution exist? How do the intractable decisions get resolved to decide what the law functionally and practically is rather then what some philosopher or theorist thinks it ought to be.
The Mindcrime Libertyshow interviews the somewhat infamous, depending on ones worldview, Jim Bell the creator of AP politics. Now of course the show doesn't endorse or advocating killing anyone but the state itself if you take the emprical work of RJ Hummel seriously has assassinated a huge number of people. Would this system lead lead to the French revolution committee of public safety scenario with the execution of anyone and everyone? We discuss Bob Murphy's objection in his article entitled the politics of destruction. Would it be better or no different then the current system? As intellectuals ranging from Noam Chomsky to Hans Hoppe would say:
"If the Nuremberg Laws were applied, every postwar president would have been hanged" -Noam Chomsky
."If measured by the standards of natural law and justice, all politicians, of all parties and virtually without any exception, are guilty, whether directly or indirectly, of murder, homicide, trespass, invasion, expropriation, theft, fraud, and the fencing of stolen goods on a massive and ongoing scale. And every new generation of politicians and parties appears to be worse, and piles even more atrocities and perversions on top of the already existing mountain, so that one feels almost nostalgic about the past. They all should be hung, or put in jail to rot, or set to making compensation."-Hans Hoppe
Again the Mindcrime libertyshow does not advocate the killing of anyone but currently the state is the number one killer and kidnapper in all likelihood or is it?
Politics of destruction. https://news.bitcoin.com/the-politics-of-destruction/
Bell's work.
https://cryptome.org/ap.htm
Overview of Hummel's empirical work entitled death by government.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
"
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses whether megacorps would dominate the freed market/Rothbardistan/ancapistan/private law society (or whatever parlance one wants to use). Is certain libertarian critiques of the megacorps, in particular Kevin Carson illustrated in his book Organizational Theory, ultimately become the kind of almost third world Maoist style critique of capitalism? Would large corporations be able to form without intellectual property, a large labyrinth of legal regulations, and the backing of a large monopolistic state as both a creditor of last resort and buyer of its products? Aren't progressives, (as well as Kevin Carson), ironically the biggest friend of the megacorps especially when it comes to culture? Would a private law society/ancapistan be more "traditional" socially and family/small business centered?
The mindcrime liberty show is joined with guest Keith Preston to discuss the topic of whether free state healthcare and education increased the cause of freedom. Two of the biggest areas where state power has grown is in the fields of education and healthcare both of which have been center pieces of much of the left's platform throughout the world. Has the Labor/Social democratic program of "free" nationalized healthcare as well as programs like medicare and ACA (different societies have different names but they are fairly comparable) increased human freedom? Has "free" and compulsory government education improved the cause of freedom as well? Isn't expecting the state to educate and take care of you a dangerous and dodgy idea? Was Michel Foucault right, channeling many moderate libertarians like Milton Friedman and Hayek, in that it has created situations of dependency and control? Has the "progressive" state programs crowded out mutual aid societies, private institutions, and the family as well as other possible forms of alternative healthcare and education? Has the progressive state served as a barrier to both better, cheaper, and more humane forms of education? Is state healthcare and education really that enlightened and "progressive" after-all?
The Mindcrime liberty show is joined today with guest Rik Storey on whether the family is getting better or worse? Has modernity destroyed or strengthened the family? What role does the state play in strengthening or harming the family? Was the past as good as many paleocons like a Peter Hitchens or Roger Scruton argue it was? What caused the change in both marriage formation, out of wedlock births, and the rise in cohabitation/singleness? Was it technology, culture, or something else? What will be the effects be on society?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses buzzwords such as the various isms and phobias which routinely get thrown out and whether they actually mean anything. Later we discuss if words such as democracy mean something or is more akin to the other "word salad" words.
The Mindcrimeliberty show revisits the topic of our very first episode: the corona-virus pandemic and the policies various states have enacted. We discuss Nassim Taleb's and others work on the pandemic and update our earlier take on the pandemic. Taleb has consistently held the same alarmist position even when it was unpopular to do so unlike the mainstream. Taleb praised Trump for closing the border of the US with China which the then "anti alarmist" mainstream criticized. The biggest problem we have with corona-virus measures in particular stemming from Taleb's precautionary principle is if true they prove too much. The measures the state is suggesting are merely band aids at best and at worst have no effect. What the state is asking the population to do we think is akin to the duck and cover drills which is more about calming panic which they the state created over a virus which hasn't been as deadly as the various models in particular the imperial model predicted.
The Mindcrime liberty show discusses suicide and its legitimacy. Is suicide a wicked form of self murder or is it something honorable? Should it be legal or illegal? What are Albert Camus, Jesus Christ, or even Socrates (Plato) views on suicide and its legitimacy. What exactly is a suicide attempt? Does dangerous behavior count as a form of self harm. Why should a person continue living especially if life itself in a crass utilitarian way has much misery and no atheist (or for that matter theist) utopia is coming to alleviate the misery? Is Camus right that the only important question is whether life is worth living?
Today the Mindcrime liberty show is joined by guest Right Ruminations, who has composed some music compositions which are linked below, on whether music has declined. We discuss two pieces by Roger Scruton as a quintessential example of what conservatives in general say about the decline of music. Is popular music in particular "pop" or "rock" as bad as conservatives like a Roger Scruton say it is. Is popular or modern music in general tyrannical or polluting. Do we really want that being played in shopping malls or would silence be preferable? Is there any instrumental music today such as movie scores which compares against the past. Did the past that Scruton and many conservatives imagine ever really exist as gloriously as they claim.
Our guest today Right Ruminations has a youtube channel and here is his musical compositions.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7uTbD5YUXfEOEW4shVNsBoXa3SpyXdKD
Two pieces by Scruton
Cultural Significance of Pop.
https://www.roger-scruton.com/about/music/understanding-music/175-the-cultural-significance-of-pop
Tyranny of Pop Music
https://youtu.be/eYua80VEcBk?t=4
With the recent murmurs about cancel Aristotle the mindcrime liberty discusses what this great Greek thinker thought on the topic. Aristotle argues that a natural slave exists and its actually in the slaves interest to be ruled by the master. Is this the case? Do these classes of persons exist or is Aristotle analyzing the contents of an empty box? What would be the historical/universal definition of slavery if one would want to postulate it in general. Would taxation or wage slavery be included as thinkers like a Hans Hoppe or Marx would argue respectively? What about serfdom or even voluntary slavery? Is voluntary slavery an oxymoron? Does slavery of any kind, including the voluntary kind if it does exist, actually benefit either party. Depending on the definition were most humans ever really free from slavery of some kind? If slavery is so bad who today is actually enslaved and why don't we discuss that or all the other historical slave trades? We finally discuss whether paternalistic policies work and whether they are advisable to either parties in the relationship.
The mindcrime libertyshow discusses films and television shows and whether there has been a decline, improvement, or no change in various areas ranging from story telling and effects to the ideas and morals behind the stories. Was there ever a "golden age" in films and TV? Have movies become more crass and violent with bad morals and cursing? Were older movies superior in terms of what is called traditional morality or is this just a rose colored glasses version of the past? Has this change mirrored society and if so does it matter?
The mindcrime liberty show discusses Donald Rumsfeld and one of the official justifications for the Iraq War which is the prevalence of WMDs in Iraq. When Rumsfeld is asked a question about the prevalence of WMDs in Iraq and the link to terrorist organizations he responds with what amounts to a philosophy lecture. Is Rumsfeld's philosophy lecture true or is it just dodge to a simple question. What would be the kind of evidence to make Errol Morris or Slavoj Zizek happy. Do we apply the same stringent demands of evidence to other areas? Finally was Iraq ( and Saddam Hussein) really a threat to the US even if it did have WMDs.
The mindcrime liberty show along with Richard Cheimison discusses what is justice and whether it exists in any meaningful sense. Is justice merely power or is it something else. What is the foundation of justice other than whatever the state and its courts/police say. What does Aristotle or the Thomists say? Does anybody in modernity actually have any foundation for justice or are well all closeted (or not) Foucauldians, Nietcheans, and Stirnerites Finally, we have a discussion on pan anarchism (or general libertarinaism of both left and right) as an approach to solve the problems inherit in the term justice in its current use. Would justice exist in Hoppeville or Chomskyville considering both thinkers think the current state is an unjust criminal organization.
We interview Brian Vickery who runs the libertyforassange.uk website and he lays out what exactly happened to Assange and why he was dragged out by British police from the Ecuadorian embassy and ended up in Belmarsh prison for 50 weeks on a bail violation. Was the Swedish rape allegations a set up or not? Assange currently is facing extradition being indicted with 17 counts of the 1917 American espionage act. Will he be extradited and charged to add to a long list of persons charged with this act? Why is he so hated by so many and why has mainstream journalists been so silent about his predicament? Has Julian Assange annoyed too many powerful people on both the left and the right? Why has the UK looked like American lap dogs in the extradition process? What does this mean for the future of journalism if Julian Assange gets extradited and charged?
The mindcrime liberty discusses the case for black separatism in the US. If Michele Alexander and many progressives want to claim that the US still is structurally racist even after 50 years of the formal culture and state bending over backwards to change that then the only logical case seems to be separatism. Is the US the actual hellhole that people like cornel west and Alexander say it is (probably not) but nonetheless why do mainstream liberals, neocons, and progressives have no interest and ideologically opposed to any form of separatism or even decentralization. Why has Malcolm X been more or less written out of history to the mainstream? Finally was Malcolm X a social conservative? Would Malcolm X be a supporter of the war on drugs and is he pro gun rights and pro traditional family?
We defend the undefendable for many on both the left and the right: consumerism. We discuss why environmental criticisms of consumerism fail, why most most religious criticisms of consumerism are either incomplete or contradictory, why hunter gatherers are no better if not worse, and lastly why consumerism has improved human freedom.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Keith Preston to discuss the details around the George Floyd incident and subsequent protests and riots. What is the cause of this and are there any historical precedents. Did the lockdown have any effect on this? Why do some many on the progressive and liberal left advocate the FBI or Federal government to intervene considering the at best "shaky" relationship the FBI has to police violence itself espeically considering the fact it considered the civil rights movement its enemy. Keith Preston work can be found at www.attackthesystem.com and is the author of books including Thinkers Against Modernity and Attack the System.
The Mindcrime Liberty Show interviews guest Rik Storey on autism. The guest and one of the hosts each have a son diagnosed with autism. Are there benefits to autism considering so many great men in history are autistic purportedly including Tesla, Newton, Jefferson, Mozart, Yeates, and Wittgenstein to name a few. Many of the architects of libertarian-ism get accused of being on the autistic spectrum. What are the downsides to being an autist as well as the downsides to parents and society in general? Do we want to cure autism if a "cure" actually exists. Is autism a real disease and what causes it? The guest is also the author of the book The Uniqueness of Western Law which is available at amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MTQRTK2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
We discuss reparations with longtime libertarian intellectual who is the author of now more then 500 plus papers and books Walter Block.
We interview youtuber Right Ruminations on what libertarians get right, whether its compatible with either Catholicism or Christianity, and does it lead to a flourishing society.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzGXWnIeLIb4Z_aqJpvFOww
The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Swithun Dobson and Tim Patton interviews Keith Preston on the left and there relationship with the Police state. Our guest, Keith Preston, is the author of books such as Thinkers against Modernity as well as Attack the System who can be found at https://attackthesystem.com/. Although most of the left commonly views itself as being in opposition or critical of the police state at times most of the left has not rejected the state itself including the police state. The left has rather changed the role of what the police state has gone after in this new secular age. The authoritarian right might use the police to go after blasphemy or abortion while the left will use the police state to go after those who attack the new sacred values such as environmentalism, racism, "wrong" speech, and even quarantine skeptics.
Mindcrime liberty show interviews a distinguished libertarian intellectual who is the author of more then forty fiction and non fiction books as well as former director of Libertarian alliance. He discusses why libertarians have failed to have an impact, the importance of culture, and what ought to be the strategy going forward.
We update the libertarians for trump as well as discuss the ways in which most nevertrumpers inside and outside the libertarian camp have failed to have a substantial criticism while Block's case has largely been correct in the past 4 years.
Two libertarians discuss the case for skepticism about the states actions, the data, and the massive costs associated with this mild to extreme lockdown. What would a libertarian society do for a pandemic? Is this virus worth worrying about considering all the costs of drastic action especially to quality of life.