- 3 hours ago
Remastered from 2012!
Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain, reviews Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, using audience participation at the Capitalism and Morality seminar in Vancouver, summer 2012.
0:00:00 Ethics and Philosophy Overview
0:08:02 The Nature of Scientific Method
0:11:08 Tests for Truth
0:13:12 Contradictions in Ethics
0:15:00 Simplifying Ethics
0:19:53 Audience Participation in Ethics
0:25:37 Universally Preferable Behavior
0:35:00 The Danger of Ethical Theories
0:39:24 Flipping Morality
0:44:59 History of Philosophy and Ethics
0:51:45 Conclusion and Call to Action
1:04:09 Final Thoughts on Charity and Health Care
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain, reviews Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, using audience participation at the Capitalism and Morality seminar in Vancouver, summer 2012.
0:00:00 Ethics and Philosophy Overview
0:08:02 The Nature of Scientific Method
0:11:08 Tests for Truth
0:13:12 Contradictions in Ethics
0:15:00 Simplifying Ethics
0:19:53 Audience Participation in Ethics
0:25:37 Universally Preferable Behavior
0:35:00 The Danger of Ethical Theories
0:39:24 Flipping Morality
0:44:59 History of Philosophy and Ethics
0:51:45 Conclusion and Call to Action
1:04:09 Final Thoughts on Charity and Health Care
GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/
SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux
Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00:00Well, thanks of course. I just wanted to mention it's really been great to meet all the listeners to Freedom
00:00:04Aid Radio who say it's kind of weird to see you in the flesh. So just for them, I'm offering
00:00:12for you just so it feels like a true LinkedIn experience.
00:00:19Now Pixel 8. Oh, you know what? They're going to be such a migraine. I get all Picasso and then,
00:00:25no, that's not good.
00:00:28So, if you remember from this morning, ethics sucketh. I think that's where we left off this morning. Ethics suck,
00:00:36but they don't have to. So that's what we're going to try and work on a little bit this afternoon.
00:00:41So, this is Philosophy 101. Real quick, I'm sure a lot of you are aware of this. This is how
00:00:46philosophy, I think, should be taught. So this is audience participation afternoon, so feel free to jump in.
00:00:53Okay, so, let's say, I say, I do not exist. Still here? Yeah, okay. So, I do not exist. What's
00:01:03wrong with that, Lee?
00:01:04Performative confirmation.
00:01:06Yeah, it's performative confirmation, right? Self-determinating statement. If I say, I do not exist, you're not going to believe
00:01:12me, right?
00:01:12Okay, who here has never donated to Freedom Aid Radio? Janet. Okay, good, because I don't want to smoke any
00:01:18donators. I'm wrong. If I say, you do not exist, does that make any sense?
00:01:25I guess if I have donated, maybe? Yeah, well, you do not exist in my PayPal account, and that's, to
00:01:30me, the same thing.
00:01:31So, if I say, you do not exist, that really makes no sense, right? Because I'm pointing at you and
00:01:37saying, identifying you as a discreet entity, saying, you do not exist.
00:01:41So, I do not exist, you do not exist, makes no sense. How about, language has no meaning?
00:01:54Oh, we're getting a little tricky now. Language has no meaning. Does that make any sense? Why not?
00:02:03I have to pick specific words that have meaning in order to communicate that language has no meaning.
00:02:09Sound does not exist.
00:02:12You can't say that. Yeah, well, you can, but then I'm just contradicting myself, right?
00:02:16I mean, I can make up whatever nonsense I want, and I've been accused of that in the past, but,
00:02:20um, sound does not exist.
00:02:22It's like, it's like mailing someone a letter saying letters never get delivered.
00:02:29Okay, so, this is, to me, the essence of philosophy. Everybody knows this old Hume thing.
00:02:34You can't get an ought from an is. Have you ever had that one thrown at you?
00:02:38It's as boring as when somebody says correlation doesn't equal causation.
00:02:41Anyway, of course, when you say you can't get an ought from an is, you've just got an ought.
00:02:47Which is you want not to say that an ought exists. Anyway, but, what it means is that there's nothing
00:02:53in reality that sets how things should be.
00:02:55Human beings need food to live, but that doesn't mean that human beings have to eat, right?
00:03:03Okay, so, let's move on with some of our self-declinating statements.
00:03:10There's no such thing as truth.
00:03:16There's no such thing as truth was.
00:03:20What if anything is wrong, but that's it?
00:03:25The statement is an assertion of truth.
00:03:27The statement is an assertion of truth.
00:03:29You get a free podcast.
00:03:33Um, yeah, if I say there's no such thing as truth, I have just asserted the truth.
00:03:38And that's our statements.
00:03:40Sorry for those who are filming me here.
00:03:42I'll be random.
00:03:43Random emotional.
00:03:44Like my thinking.
00:03:46Anyway.
00:03:47So, from these basics, I would argue you can get philosophy and you can even get that juicy little tidbit
00:03:55of future salvation we call rational ethics.
00:03:59Rational ethics.
00:04:01Rational ethics.
00:04:02So, if I say to you there's no such thing as truth, then I am making a claim of universality
00:04:10that there's no such thing as universality.
00:04:12So, what is truth?
00:04:14Ah, the old question.
00:04:15What is truth?
00:04:16Life and time are easy because they're magazines, but truth is tough.
00:04:20Morse for laughter.
00:04:20Morse for laughter.
00:04:20Anyway.
00:04:22So, if I say what is truth, well, truth is the correlation between my internal state of mind, my propositions,
00:04:30my thoughts, my theories, this is nice, and what's going on out in the real world.
00:04:35Right?
00:04:35If I say this is a screen, you know, it's not a seagull, it's not an anvil, it's a screen,
00:04:40so what I'm saying has some validity to what is going on in the world.
00:04:45So, truth is relative to what is going on in the world.
00:04:49It has to be verifiable.
00:04:50If I say I had a dream about an elephant last night, I can't verify that.
00:04:54But you can verify stuff that I'm saying about the external world.
00:04:58Now, the external world is objective, it's rational, it's sensible, and, you know, let's just cast aside quantum physics for
00:05:05the moment.
00:05:06Just cast it right aside.
00:05:07No, because the reason is that philosophy has nothing to do with quantum physics.
00:05:10It's quantum physics, the quantum flux and all that, they all resolve itself before you get to sense data, before
00:05:15you get to, you know, this kind of stuff.
00:05:17So, you know, subatomic stuff is weird and unstable, but this, if not me, are not.
00:05:24So, reality is objective and empirical, and to all that's kind of good Randian objective and stuff, yeah, I'm down
00:05:30to that.
00:05:30I think that seems perfect to down.
00:05:31We are, of course, always capable of making mistakes.
00:05:35There's no mistakes in reality, modern art, non-withstanding.
00:05:39But there are mistakes in our heads, right?
00:05:41We can make mistakes.
00:05:43We can make mistakes in reasoning.
00:05:45We can make mistakes in counting.
00:05:46We can make tons of mistakes.
00:05:47And so we need a discipline called philosophy to, you know, validate the mistakes.
00:05:54So, when you engage in conversation, when you engage in argument, when you engage in a debate, there are a
00:06:02huge number of bundled and implicit assumptions, universals, that are included in what you're doing.
00:06:13The idea, when you debate with someone, you don't debate, usually, whether pistachios are better than peanuts.
00:06:19I mean, you can have a sort of joke debate, I guess, but it's not really a cornerstone of a
00:06:24moral dilemma, right?
00:06:25I mean, is ice cream better than ferrovia?
00:06:27Who knows, right?
00:06:28But, you don't, so you don't have to debate about stuff that's subject.
00:06:31You have to debate about stuff that is object, that is in the real world, that is tangible, that is
00:06:35material, that is provable.
00:06:39And what happens is, people get confused.
00:06:43Because there's lots of things that are in our heads that don't exist in the real world, right?
00:06:48So, think of a forest.
00:06:51What is it?
00:06:51A bunch of trees, some undergrowth, a couple of hunters diving away from each other.
00:06:56You've got a forest that is all just a bunch of trees and stuff.
00:07:00There's no such thing as the forest, the concept, that's out there in the real world.
00:07:05Does that make sense?
00:07:10I mean, it's a weird thing to think about, but it's important.
00:07:15So, when I count four coconuts, there are four coconuts.
00:07:18There's not the number four in there sprayed on or hanging off or the shadow of the number
00:07:23four or anything like that.
00:07:24So, there are all these concepts in our head that don't exist in reality.
00:07:31And because they don't exist in reality, people think that they're subjective, but they're
00:07:36not.
00:07:37Or whether there are four coconuts or five coconuts, it's not subjective.
00:07:42The fact that the number four is in my head and not out there in the real world doesn't
00:07:45mean that it's subjective.
00:07:48So, matter and energy exist in the world.
00:07:53Does the scientific method exist in the world?
00:08:03No.
00:08:04The scientific method doesn't exist in the world.
00:08:06No.
00:08:07I mean, you can write it down and add it into the words, but the scientific method doesn't
00:08:11exist in the world.
00:08:13What it describes exists in the world, but the scientific method itself does not exist
00:08:17in the world.
00:08:18Is the scientific method subjective?
00:08:23No.
00:08:24The whole point is it's reproducible, it's intestable, it's, you know, according to measurements
00:08:29that aren't, it feels true to me.
00:08:32You know, it has to be, right?
00:08:34Like, people get confused in philosophy, you know, I've had this conversation.
00:08:38You know, man, I don't know what sounds like a hippie you can say.
00:08:41You know, man, just because it looks brown to you doesn't mean it looks totally brown
00:08:45to me.
00:08:46You know, it could be kind of rust-colored, man, it could be whatever.
00:08:50And, I mean, the technical term for color is not color, it's wavelength.
00:08:55If you bounce a wavelength off, you get the same number no matter what.
00:08:59The fact that we see different colors, our eyes are slightly colorblind, doesn't matter.
00:09:03Color is a subjective term, wavelength is an objective term.
00:09:12So, concepts, we derive from reality.
00:09:16I see four coconuts, the number four is in my head because there are, in fact, four coconuts.
00:09:21The fact that the concepts exist in our head, but not in the real world, does not make them subjective.
00:09:29If you want to know something about the physical world that is true, you've got to use the scientific method.
00:09:37If you don't care whether it's true or not, you can use a Ouija board, you can ask a bureaucrat,
00:09:45you can rip out chicken entrails, you can read tea leads, you can use any sorts of nonsensical things that
00:09:52you want.
00:09:52But if you want to know something about the material world that is true, you have to use the scientific
00:09:56method.
00:09:57If you want to know what the true price of something is, what do you do?
00:10:01Stop people pointing guns at each other when they trade.
00:10:03Then you will find the true price.
00:10:07So, this is all very deeply related to Athens.
00:10:13So, the way that I approach it, I think it's a good way, we'll find out.
00:10:17Smart audience, let me know where I go straight.
00:10:20Universally preferable behavior is the term that I use.
00:10:23Now, universally preferable behavior is an umbrella term for me, philosophy.
00:10:30Because philosophy is the art, the science, the discipline of comparing what is in our heads that makes claims about
00:10:39the real world to the real world.
00:10:41You know, if I like unicorns, and I do, my daughter is free, I see a lot of them.
00:10:46So, if I like unicorns, that's fine, I'm not making an objective statement that unicorns exist.
00:10:52But if I make an objective statement about reality, well, reality, if I make an objective statement about reality, then
00:11:01it has to be objective.
00:11:08So, there are two tests for truth.
00:11:11The first is internal consistency.
00:11:14Put a mathematical theorem out there, put a scientific hypothesis out there, whatever you want to call it.
00:11:19The first test has to be, is it internally consistent?
00:11:23Right, so if I hand you a 200-page mathematical thesis, and on the first page it says, for this
00:11:29thesis to be true, two and two have to make five, four, a pie, and a unicorn at the same
00:11:34time.
00:11:35How many pages in it are you going to get?
00:11:38Well, one, I guess, just to read that.
00:11:40You're not going to go any further, because I've set up a contradiction at the basis of my thesis.
00:11:44It doesn't matter what happens on page 200 if page one is a contradiction.
00:11:48So, the first thing we look for is internal consistency.
00:11:50And the second thing we look for, if internal consistency is proven, is empirical validation.
00:12:02So, what if I say to you, there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior?
00:12:12There is no such thing as universally preferable behavior.
00:12:18Does that make sense?
00:12:20Why not?
00:12:22Because that statement is an assertion of universally preferable behavior.
00:12:28Right.
00:12:28Yeah, if I'm saying there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior, I'm saying that you should not say that
00:12:33there is,
00:12:33because it is universally preferable for us to say true statements rather than false statements,
00:12:37and your statement is false and does not conform to reality, and it is universally preferable for our stated thoughts
00:12:44to accord with reality.
00:12:47I cannot say there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior.
00:12:53It's similar to saying, I do not own the effects of my actions.
00:13:00What's wrong with that?
00:13:01It is tricky stuff.
00:13:03So, you know, if it's foggy, tell me, I do not own the effects of my actions.
00:13:11What's wrong with that?
00:13:13Well, you don't, see, the best arguments are the ones where you don't have to bring anything from the outside
00:13:17in.
00:13:18How am I contradicting myself when I say, I do not own the effects of my actions?
00:13:23What is the effect of your actions?
00:13:25My argument is an effect of my actions.
00:13:28My argument is that I do not own the effects of my actions.
00:13:32But my argument is an effect of my actions, which is talking and holding a microphone, right?
00:13:37Do you understand?
00:13:38This is the foundation of property rights to me.
00:13:41I've got people that literally argue themselves blue in the face with me, saying,
00:13:46Steph, you don't own the, your argument that you own the effects of your actions is incorrect.
00:13:55That doesn't make any sense, because they're identifying it as my argument.
00:14:01Did you see?
00:14:02It's not that, it's not that hard to make sense of philosophy.
00:14:05And the reason I started off with philosophy sucks, sorry, ethics suck, or philosophy is all that.
00:14:10Ethics suck is because I don't think that ethics are that complicated.
00:14:16Because if they're that complicated, we can't be bound by them.
00:14:20How many people feel morally bound by, what is it, 200 books of tax law?
00:14:25Anyone?
00:14:27Right, I mean, because if we can't understand the law, we can't be bound by them.
00:14:31This is the problem with ethics, is that if ethics is so complicated that 3,000 years of brain bending,
00:14:37forehead melting, hair eating human thought has not produced a system of ethics that we can understand,
00:14:44how could we be bound by ethics?
00:14:46If it's so complicated that we can't get an answer that makes sense, we can't be bound by it.
00:14:54It's asking the impossible.
00:14:57Yeah, yeah, okay.
00:15:00So ethics can't be that complicated, but it's really hard.
00:15:04And we all get into ethical discussions, I'm sure, all the time.
00:15:06Doesn't it feel like you're rolling down a barrel with rabbit LSD monkeys biting your eyes out sometimes?
00:15:13You know, it just feels really crazy and complicated.
00:15:15I don't think it's because ethics is that complicated.
00:15:17I think it's because of what we talked about this morning, that ethics was invented so evil,
00:15:22and we're not allowed to actually universalize that which we're told is universal.
00:15:26So it's like trying to do a math problem with two people yelling numbers in your ears.
00:15:32Right?
00:15:32It's hard to do because we've got so much propaganda.
00:15:34But what if ethics is actually really, really simple?
00:15:38So, I'm not going to go through the whole proofs for this, that, and the other in the book,
00:15:42but I wanted to point out that the first thing that we do when we start a debate,
00:15:47if we want to really be intelligent, would I believe that?
00:15:49If we think about what does it mean to actually have a debate?
00:15:54Well, it means that there's an external standard of truth.
00:15:57There has to be, otherwise you can't have a debate.
00:16:00There has to be an external standard of truth, otherwise it's not me because I say it.
00:16:07So there has to be an external standard of the truth.
00:16:10It has to be objective, it has to be rational.
00:16:14And truth is infinitely preferable to falsehood.
00:16:16I mean, all these things are implicit in the very act of having a conversation with them.
00:16:21You don't have to believe any of these things.
00:16:22You can be, you know, some type of existing character living in the woods your whole life and so on,
00:16:26but who cares, because you're not part of the social discourse, you haven't debated with anyone,
00:16:29so you don't show up and it's not on the radar.
00:16:32But when you debate, you're accepting all of these implicit things.
00:16:39So, ethics.
00:16:43This morning we talked about the four major double plus ungood human activities that ethical systems need to work with.
00:16:53Aristotle made an argument, a really good argument I think, which is to say,
00:16:59if you come up with an ethical system that can prove that rape is virtuous,
00:17:04I don't care what you've done, you've done something wrong.
00:17:06You know, like that is not right.
00:17:08Now, I mean, I know we come up with ethical arguments that says that taxation is theft,
00:17:12and for a lot of people that seems quite as bizarre, but I do sort of agree with that.
00:17:16You can't come up with an ethical system that says, yay murder, yay theft, yay rape.
00:17:22Because we all have these ethical instincts, right?
00:17:24It doesn't mean that you have to be a philosopher.
00:17:26I mean, a dog can catch a ball.
00:17:27He doesn't have to know physics.
00:17:33So, here's where we get to the audience participation part.
00:17:35This kind couple of, not an actual couple, these nice two people have agreed if you can come up.
00:17:41I'm going to take you through a couple of the proofs of what I would consider being a good approach
00:17:47and then you'll see if it makes sense.
00:17:50Yeah, come on.
00:17:51Now, this is, you may end up on YouTube, but it's okay.
00:17:54It's tough to get on YouTube, so they really are.
00:17:57They're really passing over a high burden here.
00:18:00Okay, so, before having them act out various ethical scenarios,
00:18:04I have actually checked that they're not married.
00:18:07Because sometimes that can go awry.
00:18:09Okay, so, universally preferable behavior.
00:18:14Well, first thing is it has to be universal.
00:18:16And what that means is that it has to be achievable by everyone all the time.
00:18:23It has to be achievable by everyone all the time.
00:18:27It has to be a behavior, not a thought, because thoughts are not empirical.
00:18:30Thoughts are not scientific.
00:18:31They can't be tracked.
00:18:32They can't be traced.
00:18:33You can trace behavior.
00:18:34You can't trace thoughts.
00:18:36So, universally preferable behavior.
00:18:40So, let's look at, let's start with murder.
00:18:45Alright.
00:18:46I couldn't get my props, I'm afraid, through customs.
00:18:48Anyway.
00:18:50So, if you could just translate something young lady here.
00:18:53And just, if you could put your hands on her neck.
00:18:58Gently.
00:18:58Maybe.
00:18:59But pretend.
00:19:00But gently.
00:19:01Okay.
00:19:02So, here we have, uh, not good.
00:19:06Right?
00:19:07Here's hoping there are security threats in the hallway.
00:19:09We've got to call someone.
00:19:10Alright.
00:19:10So, here we have, so let's put this, thou shalt murder through universally preferable behavior.
00:19:17Thou shalt murder.
00:19:18Let's see if that can work.
00:19:22Don't try.
00:19:22Don't try.
00:19:23Okay.
00:19:24Okay.
00:19:24So, this guy is his token, the fine young lady here.
00:19:28So, he's able to achieve, thou shalt murder.
00:19:31Right?
00:19:32He's, he's in the universally preferable.
00:19:34He can do it.
00:19:35He can achieve universally preferable behavior called thou shalt murder.
00:19:39Now, if you could take your hands and put them on his stubble.
00:19:44Excellent.
00:19:45Look at that.
00:19:45It's a status hug.
00:19:46Okay.
00:19:54So, now, they're both achieving, thou shalt murder.
00:19:59What's wrong with this?
00:20:01Fail?
00:20:02Yeah.
00:20:03Well, yeah, okay.
00:20:04They might, okay, it's unlikely that they'll both kill each other at the same time.
00:20:09They could, theoretically, I guess, pass out at the same time.
00:20:17They're actually not killing each other yet.
00:20:18They're just trying to.
00:20:19So, right now, they have, because murder is the death thing.
00:20:22Right?
00:20:22Otherwise, it's assault or whatever.
00:20:23Right?
00:20:23But murder is when the person dies.
00:20:25So, right now, this guy is not able to achieve thou shalt murder because he hasn't killed her yet.
00:20:31She hasn't been able to achieve thou shalt murder because she hasn't killed him yet.
00:20:37So, they can achieve universally preferable behavior called thou shalt murder.
00:20:42But there's more.
00:20:44Sorry, there's a guy.
00:20:45All right.
00:20:46So, it is impossible empirically to really achieve thou shalt murder.
00:20:51Does that make sense?
00:20:52Yes.
00:20:53But it's impossible logically to achieve thou shalt murder.
00:20:58Oh, this one's tricky.
00:20:59You'll see it and be like, of course.
00:21:01But, anyone want to take a guess as to why, even if they kill each other at exactly the
00:21:05same time, why can they not logically achieve thou shalt murder?
00:21:09The definition of murder is the same as killing someone.
00:21:15You can kill someone if they're trying to kill you and not be considered murder.
00:21:21Tell me a little more.
00:21:22I just want to make sure to say that.
00:21:23If you were trying to kill me right now.
00:21:27Do you want to come up here?
00:21:28No.
00:21:29I have no ill feelings towards you.
00:21:33This man is trying to kill this lady.
00:21:37If she kills him, to prevent him from killing her, it's not considered murder.
00:21:43Yeah, that's self-defense, right?
00:21:44Okay, but we're talking about can they both achieve, forget self-defense, if murder is
00:21:48the good, right, then self-defense won't be the nail.
00:21:51But the reasons, anyone else wondering, that's a good point.
00:21:54It's not quite the true rational reason, because again, that's bringing in an outside
00:21:57argument called self-defense.
00:21:58You don't even need that.
00:22:00Why can they not, if you want to have a, if you can speak.
00:22:04She would have to resist me.
00:22:06Oh, yeah.
00:22:07This is a man who knows a little bit of something.
00:22:10So I'm going to stay over here, while he...
00:22:14Okay, well listen, tell me more.
00:22:17Well, for it to be murder, she would have to resist, otherwise it's something else.
00:22:22Right, so if it's not murder, if she wants to be killed, it's suvenation, right?
00:22:27Like, if you steal something from me, I don't want you to steal it, it's theft, if I don't
00:22:32mind you borrowing it, right?
00:22:34So, the reason, not only can they not physically kill each other at the same time, but it's
00:22:41only murder if the lady doesn't want to be killed, and he does.
00:22:46So, murder cannot be universally preferable behavior, because it's only murder if the
00:22:52victim doesn't want it.
00:22:55They can't both want murder at the same time, because then it's not murder.
00:23:00Does that make sense?
00:23:01I know this is tricky.
00:23:03Can you make sure you try it with another example?
00:23:07The next one is for a Greco-Roman restaurant.
00:23:12Okay, sorry, just one more event.
00:23:19I might want this.
00:23:20Okay, that's right.
00:23:21Alright, so, you have a lovely cupcake.
00:23:25What about theft is universally preferable behavior?
00:23:30Oh, that's YouTube cupcakes.
00:23:32I knew I kept you for a reason.
00:23:33There we go.
00:23:34Alright, so, theft is universally preferable behavior.
00:23:37So, you both desperately want each other's cupcakes.
00:23:42What about this thing?
00:23:43Drool a little if you eat it on TV.
00:23:45So, you both want each other's cupcakes.
00:23:48You can achieve it, physically, right?
00:23:51I mean, you can both steal from each other at the same time.
00:23:54I think it's not universal, because theft is an act of time.
00:23:57Once you've got it, you're not stealing it anymore, right?
00:24:00But why can't it be achieved that they can take each other's cupcakes and have theft the universally preferable behavior?
00:24:10So, that will be free unless you were part of it?
00:24:13It's right.
00:24:14Exactly.
00:24:14It's only theft if you don't want it to happen.
00:24:17So, you can have theft as UPB only if she doesn't have theft as UPB.
00:24:24Because if she doesn't want you to steal it, that's what makes it theft.
00:24:28But if she does want you to steal it, it's not theft.
00:24:32So, if you both have theft as UPB, theft cannot occur.
00:24:36Does this make sense?
00:24:40Okay, we're not going to do the right one.
00:24:43I won't even tell you the throbs I have for that, but the batteries are too expensive.
00:24:50But, assault is the same thing.
00:24:52It's only assault if the other person doesn't want it.
00:24:55Right?
00:24:55Then it's some S&M dungeon thing, whatever.
00:24:59But, thanks, I think that's great.
00:25:01Thanks for that, I appreciate that.
00:25:03So, these are just some examples of how you can come up with a system of ethics that says, yeah,
00:25:12you can achieve don't steal consistently.
00:25:17Two people in a room with one iPad, or two iPads, a matter of fact, can both achieve universally preferable
00:25:24behavior called don't steal.
00:25:26And they can do that just fine.
00:25:28You can have don't murder, don't assault, don't rape.
00:25:33These things can all be achieved by everyone all the time.
00:25:36No problems.
00:25:37But neither empirically nor conceptually can the opposites be achieved consistently.
00:25:44So, in the book, which again is free on the website, I propose something which is a good rule of
00:25:50thumb, it's not perfect, but it's a good rule of thumb called the coma test.
00:25:53Can a guy in a coma be doing evil?
00:26:00No, I don't think so.
00:26:02I mean, I can't imagine how he could be doing evil.
00:26:10And I think that's an important thing, right?
00:26:13So, if a guy in a coma can't be doing evil, then actions which are defined as good that are
00:26:21positive actions are kind of problematic.
00:26:24Because it means that he's doing the opposite of a positive action.
00:26:27So, if you have, thou shalt murder is the good, then the guy in the coma is doing the opposite
00:26:33of that, because he's not murdering.
00:26:36But he can't be doing evil, because he's in a coma.
00:26:40So, I think that's a reasonable test.
00:26:42It's just sort of a first-class test of an ethical theory.
00:26:46Now, I said that ethical theories need to be internally consistent, but they also need to accord with empirical reality.
00:26:54That's the test.
00:26:55That's a good test.
00:26:56So, if somebody comes up and says, thou shalt steal, well, that is not even remotely internally consistent.
00:27:04Now, what happens to an engineer who tries to build a bridge based on inconsistent calculations, or contradictory calculations, or
00:27:14incorrect calculations?
00:27:18Well, that doesn't always fall down.
00:27:20Sometimes you build it way too much, right?
00:27:22But it's not going to be optimum, for sure.
00:27:24And most likely, it's going to fall down.
00:27:26Right?
00:27:27So, we would expect that societies which don't follow the four basics, right?
00:27:34Theft, bans on theft, rape, murder, and assault, to not do very well.
00:27:39Right?
00:27:40So, communism is pretty much, thou shalt steal from the state, right?
00:27:46I mean, according to the state, right?
00:27:47And so, it is a bridge built on a contradiction.
00:27:53Because only some people are allowed to steal those in the Politburo, and then everybody else is not, and all
00:27:58this kind of stuff.
00:27:58So, we would expect that society to not do very well.
00:28:02Because it is a bridge built on incorrect, inconsistent, contradictory principles.
00:28:11As we, as a society, lose track of the basic moral principles that, in many ways, are sort of the
00:28:16common law foundation of Western civilization,
00:28:19how well are we doing?
00:28:20As we continue to have, thou shalt steal, through debts, through counterfeiting, through all of this sort of nonsense.
00:28:27We are doing progressively less well, as a society.
00:28:29I mean, it's all masked over by massive amounts of debt, and, you know, being forced to use this monopoly
00:28:34money that they pass off as real money.
00:28:37But we would expect that societies that propose behavior that is more contradictory, that have universal standards that are more
00:28:45contradictory, that are more problematic, for that society to get worse and worse.
00:28:49And quite the contrary would be true, as well.
00:28:51So, you know, that when societies put in these basic ethical rules, no stealing, no killing, no raping, no murder,
00:28:57that those societies would generally tend to do better.
00:29:02I think that, you know, the big view of history, as you probably know, and all the veterans here are
00:29:08most of them.
00:29:09So, you've got this subsistence, subsistence, oh, I don't know why, oh, like the starvation by death.
00:29:14And then, you know, starting in the, it depends on when you mention the agricultural revolution.
00:29:20Sort of 13th century, industrial revolution, 17th, 18th, 18th, 18th centuries.
00:29:25Massive, massive increases in wealth, to the point where we can't have these kinds of conversations and not, you know,
00:29:32be hunting for the last starving rabbit in the forest.
00:29:35And it's because we have, to a large degree, begun to more so than in the past respect things like
00:29:44property and things like events in the salt and so on, right?
00:29:48Now, I mean, a lot of it has been displaced to a lot of statist mumbo-jumbo-muckery in the
00:29:52financial world and in fiat currency and so on.
00:29:54But we have done a lot to bring about these basic moral rules in society, which is why we've had
00:30:02this massive increase in wealth.
00:30:03I mean, if you look at the basic rights of property available to the average citizen in modern Canada versus
00:30:12ancient Rome, I mean, it's night and day.
00:30:16I mean, ancient Rome, I don't remember the percentages.
00:30:19It was, I think, 60%, 70%, or 80% slaves.
00:30:24So, massive violations of the downshout lot of steel.
00:30:29Stole the whole person's life and it turned into property.
00:30:32You know, there's that old...
00:30:34Okay, one tangent.
00:30:37There is an old saying, or an aphorism, that they were concerned that the slaves were passing themselves off as
00:30:46citizens.
00:30:47And so, one of the Roman senators proposed that all the slaves be made to wear yellow armpits,
00:30:53so that nobody could get into any place where slaves wanted to laugh.
00:30:56The other Roman senators said, are you crazy?
00:30:59They don't know how many there are.
00:31:03We're just trying to put those yellow armpits.
00:31:08So, a mistake that people make when talking about ethics is to focus on specific actions.
00:31:14I don't make the case that that's not a good idea.
00:31:16And then you can tell me where I've gone completely in Australia if I hadn't.
00:31:21How many people have been directly robbed by a mugger?
00:31:28Okay, not too many. Not too many. Okay, good one.
00:31:31How many people have found themselves paying taxes?
00:31:37Alright, those who didn't put their hands up, talk to me after.
00:31:43Are you in more danger from an evil actor or an evil theory?
00:31:52An evil theory.
00:31:54Are you afraid of the mugger who can take your property?
00:31:58Or are you afraid of Revenue Canada who can take your property?
00:32:03What if you say, well, no, this is the problem for us?
00:32:07Yes, but not for the majority of people.
00:32:11Right?
00:32:12Because if you say, I got mugged,
00:32:15people are like, oh man, that's terrible.
00:32:17Are you okay? You must be so traumatized.
00:32:19Is there anything I can do to help?
00:32:20What happened?
00:32:23April 16th runs along.
00:32:26Oh, I just paid my tax for them.
00:32:28Oh, you okay? That must be terrible.
00:32:31Do you need to talk to someone in trauma cancer?
00:32:35Yes, I do.
00:32:39It is the ethical theories that are the big problem in this world.
00:32:44Not the ethical actors.
00:32:46The unethical actors, sorry.
00:32:48It's not people doing evil that we have to worry about.
00:32:52It's the people who are doing evil by believing in a theory they think is virtuous.
00:32:57That it's not virtuous.
00:32:59So that's a long sentence.
00:33:00But that's, does that sort of make sense?
00:33:02So, you know, people, if I say to you, man stabs woman, good or evil?
00:33:08Don't know.
00:33:09Don't know.
00:33:12Maybe he's a surgeon.
00:33:18Well, no, but this is what I mean.
00:33:19Or maybe, maybe I was joking on something that he got to cut me open, emergency tracheotomy,
00:33:25whatever, right?
00:33:26Man stabs without anesthetic.
00:33:27You know, you can create these scenarios, right?
00:33:29Man takes bike without permission.
00:33:31Is he a thief?
00:33:34No.
00:33:35Maybe he's taken back his bike from someone who stole it.
00:33:40Well, we all get drawn into conversations about immediate, tangible, ethical actions.
00:33:48But I don't think that's where the power of ethics is.
00:33:51I think it's a huge waste of time.
00:33:52And this is where we get confused in terrible ways.
00:33:56What else?
00:33:59Rock falls down.
00:34:01Is that a scientific theory?
00:34:06No.
00:34:08I mean, a dog can catch a frisbee.
00:34:11They know where it's going to go.
00:34:12They know where it's going to land.
00:34:13That doesn't make them a scientist.
00:34:15As scientists, a scientific theory is something that claims universality.
00:34:18All objects fall to Earth at 9.8 meters per second per second or whatever.
00:34:22That's a scientific theory.
00:34:23Gas in his hand went heated.
00:34:25That's scientific theory.
00:34:27Mass has gravity proportional to its size.
00:34:30Whatever.
00:34:31Universals.
00:34:33Science doesn't bother with individual tests.
00:34:37Except in so far as they reflect on the truth or falsehood of a general theory.
00:34:42And so you can test the theory of gravity by dropping a rock.
00:34:45But dropping the rock is not the theory of gravity.
00:34:47It's just a simple, individual test for it.
00:34:50And so when you're talking about ethics, my argument, my focus is to focus on the theories that are presented.
00:35:01And look for the logical consistency in those theories or logical inconsistencies in those theories.
00:35:06Don't think about the individual actions.
00:35:08I think that's a red herring.
00:35:09That's a huge distraction.
00:35:12And what you really want to look for based upon what we've been talking about this morning is that mean
00:35:17little flip.
00:35:18You ever see those guys?
00:35:20I always find magicians annoying.
00:35:22I don't know.
00:35:22It's to make it just mean.
00:35:23It's like, stop messing with my head.
00:35:25Tell me how it's done.
00:35:26But they're really good at this.
00:35:28This direction, right?
00:35:29They've got the balls.
00:35:30They've got the things of women in tights.
00:35:32And they've got confetti cannons and doves and all this sort of stuff and lighting and music.
00:35:37Just so you can't see when they switch the car from one hand to another or something comes out to
00:35:41the sleeve or something like that.
00:35:44It's the same thing in ethical arguments with someone.
00:35:47It's that there's this flip that we talked about that you're never allowed to discuss.
00:35:52Universally preferable behavior is universal for human beings.
00:35:57We're in a special moral category.
00:35:58We have reason.
00:36:00We have choice.
00:36:01I argue for free will.
00:36:03We have all of these kinds of juicy tidbits that, you know, cat holes and bald eagles and so on
00:36:08don't have.
00:36:11But you will find that people will set up these arbitrary distinctions that we talked about this morning.
00:36:17Well, theft is bad for you.
00:36:19Taxation is good for society.
00:36:21You cannot go to your neighbor's house with a gun and get $4,000 from them to send your kid
00:36:26to school.
00:36:27But when the government does it, it's modern.
00:36:28It's good because we care about our children.
00:36:31There are these flips.
00:36:34And it's so absurd when you think about it.
00:36:38It's so absurd that we think that a costume changes the moral essence of a human being.
00:36:45This would be as absurd as me going to a biology conference with a whole bunch of frogs saying,
00:36:55these are all amphibians.
00:36:57Except that blue frog.
00:36:58He's a mammal.
00:37:00People say, what?
00:37:02What on earth does the color of his skin have to do with his frogness?
00:37:06Right?
00:37:07And there's no answer to that.
00:37:09But we somehow think we put a guy in a blue costume or a green costume that we have changed
00:37:14their moral nature.
00:37:15We have no more changed their moral nature than we have granted them the ability to fly or to stand
00:37:21on the surface of the sun unharmed.
00:37:25Universality means universal to all human beings, irrespective of costume.
00:37:33You and I cannot enrich yourselves by placing the unborn in debt.
00:37:41Ah, but if you're the government, the central bank.
00:37:43But this is the ethical theories that we need to attack.
00:37:48Everybody recognizes theft.
00:37:50It's wrong with being personal.
00:37:52But it's up to the status to justify, which they cannot do, how that which is immoral to the individual
00:37:58is moral to another individual.
00:38:01How do you get to flip that morality and not even openly say, that's the sneaky part.
00:38:08That's the subterfuge.
00:38:09That's the slate of hand that sells off our freedoms and our future.
00:38:17Theft cannot be morally justified.
00:38:21Rape, murder, assault cannot be morally justified.
00:38:23Because they cannot be achieved by everyone all the time.
00:38:26Either physically or conceptually.
00:38:29It is a moral theory that is entirely self-contradictory.
00:38:31That creates entirely arbitrary distinctions between different human beings.
00:38:37And then they say, oh no, but you see it's a social contract.
00:38:40Right.
00:38:41It's voluntary.
00:38:42It's a social contract.
00:38:43Social contract theory is equally easy to have to deal with UPP.
00:38:48Anyone want to try this lady?
00:38:51You guys still know?
00:38:52Are you with me brothers and sisters?
00:38:54Alright.
00:38:54So, social contract theory says that, you know, if you choose to live in this society, then you choose to
00:39:00participate in the tax structure and you choose to participate in the social programs and you choose to, you know,
00:39:06you can get involved politically and if you don't like it you can go to some other place.
00:39:10Well, you could be would say, okay, if that is a moral proposition for human beings, that is a moral
00:39:15proposition for everyone.
00:39:17In other words, everyone can impose a social contract on everyone else.
00:39:27Nothing.
00:39:34It's like giving everyone the right of taxation.
00:39:36I tax you $10,000.
00:39:38What are you going to do?
00:39:40Tax me $10,000 on the back and I can't get anywhere with it.
00:39:44You all have to pay me money or leave.
00:39:46Why don't you just sit around and say to me, Steph, you have to pay me money or leave.
00:39:50And, you know, we can't possibly achieve it.
00:39:53Not to mention the fact that it's a complete violation of property rights to say a small group of people
00:39:56who've homesteaded nothing on the whole planet and the whole country and can haunt you off at will.
00:40:07So, that's, again, there's six million holes in what it is I said today.
00:40:12I mean, it's a whole book, you know, please download it, it's free, review it, critique it, tell me where
00:40:18it can be approved.
00:40:19But this is a very brief example of how we can build a system of ethics that doesn't require a
00:40:27deity, it doesn't require you have to obey it or you go to jail.
00:40:31It simply requires logical consistency in proposals for universally preferable human behavior.
00:40:39It solves the problem that ethics has always had, which is ethics has always seemed to be like a diet
00:40:43book for thin people.
00:40:46I mean, how many evil people are really interested in ethical theories?
00:40:52I've never met, I mean, I don't really know any evil people, but I don't imagine a lot of them
00:40:57are reading through a lot of Aquinas.
00:41:00Right, so people who are interested in ethical theories, they kind of tend to be good to begin with.
00:41:05And people who want to really do harm only study ethics to use it to manipulate, bewilder, control and subjugate
00:41:11everyone else.
00:41:13So, this solves that problem.
00:41:17Because you have an ironclad argument.
00:41:21Ethics can only be binding if it's universal.
00:41:23If ethics is universal, then it's binding on everyone.
00:41:26If it's binding on everyone, then everyone has to follow the same rules.
00:41:33And you can't have rules that promote theft, rape, murder and assault.
00:41:39And you can probably write, it's very much related, you own yourself and therefore that's the violation.
00:41:44You own the effects of your actions and so on.
00:41:45We don't have to talk about that necessarily right now.
00:41:48It comes right out of the theory.
00:41:50But what I like about this theory is that it goes straight for moral theories.
00:41:54It goes straight for moral theories.
00:41:55Those are the great dangers of mankind.
00:41:57What kills people?
00:41:57You know, the lady up here was earlier, what is the most destructive thing that human beings have ever invented?
00:42:02It's not bombs, it's not germs, it's theories.
00:42:04It's moral theories.
00:42:05Because it's the moral theories that get people killed.
00:42:09It's the moral theories that get people killed.
00:42:11It's the patriotism that drives volunteering for war that gets people killed.
00:42:20It's believing that there's this brain bending set of geniuses at the top who can wave all the guns in
00:42:27the world, never get corrupted and produce nothing but good.
00:42:30It's the idea that theft is wrong for most and right for some.
00:42:35That murder is wrong for most and right for some.
00:42:38That counterfeiting is wrong for most and right for some.
00:42:42We are building the bridges to the future on contradictory falsehoods.
00:42:48Of course they're going to keep falling down.
00:42:49Of course society is going to keep going through the same damn cycle over and over again.
00:42:53Where we achieve some bits of liberty.
00:42:55Some bits of freedom.
00:42:56Some bits of free track.
00:42:58And generate some wealth from there.
00:43:00And what happens then?
00:43:02What happens when we poor serfs manage to scrape a few shackles together?
00:43:07Government says, hey, collateral.
00:43:10I can use that as leverage to mark and bribe.
00:43:14This is why freedom, I mean this is why one of the reasons for a practical consequence why I'm an
00:43:19out and out anarchist.
00:43:21Because if you crush the state back down to something tiny, you get a huge amount of economic freedom.
00:43:25Huge amount of economic productivity.
00:43:27Growth.
00:43:28Wealth.
00:43:29Prosperity.
00:43:30Yay.
00:43:31And then the government uses it to raise taxes.
00:43:33And the government uses that as collateral to grow bigger and bigger.
00:43:36It's no accident that the very smallest government in history that was ever designed, the American government, has now grown
00:43:40into the largest, most powerful, most destructive government in terms of its capacity that has ever existed.
00:43:48Freedom.
00:43:49Freedom.
00:43:50While you have a state.
00:43:51Freedom is food for the country's sake.
00:43:57This is why we keep having the same cycle.
00:43:59We get some freedom.
00:44:01Who was one of the first countries in the modern world to have free track?
00:44:04England.
00:44:0617th, 18th centuries.
00:44:09What did England become?
00:44:11An empire.
00:44:13America.
00:44:1419th century.
00:44:16Price went down.
00:44:17Wealth went up.
00:44:18What did America become?
00:44:20Anyone know why they first built the roads in Rome?
00:44:26Free trade.
00:44:27Free trade first.
00:44:29And because of that free trade, the government gathered enough wealth from the citizens, to
00:44:34have an empire, which then can just grow until they overgrown the body politic and kill it.
00:44:42And then we go into these dark ages and then we scrape a little bit of freedom together and then
00:44:46we get more wealth and the governments take it over.
00:44:48And it all just happens again and again.
00:44:50Can't reduce this thing.
00:44:52It has to go.
00:45:02So, when you look back at the history of philosophy, we just talked about this a little bit at lunchtime.
00:45:06Look back at the history of philosophy.
00:45:09There's no history of anything that's stepped out.
00:45:12Obviously, right?
00:45:12I mean, the story of history goes to the windows, right?
00:45:17I mean, you may have heard this myth that the great stock market crash was brought about by free trade.
00:45:26And then the government stepped in to try and rescue capitalism.
00:45:29And then it was only rescued when the war came.
00:45:33You know, this is what people...
00:45:35Or, if you heard this one, the recent financial crash was a result of too much freedom.
00:45:40Deregulation.
00:45:42Right?
00:45:42So, history is the future.
00:45:44Whatever you believe about history as a culture is what the future is going to do.
00:45:47If you believe that the financial crash is caused by deregulation, the only solution is going to be regulation.
00:45:55The philosophers that we know of in history are not a random selection of thinkers.
00:46:01They are all approved of by the rulers.
00:46:05For the most part.
00:46:06It's different degrees and so on.
00:46:08How many people have never heard of Lisandra Schooner before they got into libertarians?
00:46:14I hadn't.
00:46:15I mean, guys, brilliant.
00:46:17Stone genius.
00:46:18You don't get him.
00:46:20You get John Locke who says, obey the laws.
00:46:23I mean, he's got civil disobedience in there, but...
00:46:25You get Thomas Hobbes who says, obey the laws.
00:46:29You get Hegel who says, oh yeah, right, obey the laws.
00:46:34Todd who says, obey the laws.
00:46:35Socrates who says, obey the laws.
00:46:37Aristotle who says, obey the laws.
00:46:38Plato says, there's nothing but laws.
00:46:41And live the law.
00:46:43The original matrix.
00:46:47I mean, even around Rams.
00:46:48Love her to death.
00:46:49That smoky Russian vixen.
00:46:54She said, obey the laws.
00:46:56What's the end about the shrug?
00:46:57Oh, spoiler.
00:46:58Do that.
00:47:00Let's go back and rewrite the constitution.
00:47:02This time we're going to get it right.
00:47:04Was there a government in Galt Scalch?
00:47:07No.
00:47:09Read your own book, woman.
00:47:13You had 13 years.
00:47:15You might have noticed there was no government in Galt Scalch.
00:47:20But the philosophers that we hear of, you know, why do we hear of Keynes and not Mises?
00:47:28Because Keynes was incredibly useful to the people in Galt.
00:47:31Oh, we get to borrow in your theory and spend in the here and now and buy votes?
00:47:35You're a genius.
00:47:37Oh, under your system, we're evil and we can't do a thing to bribe anyone to give us power?
00:47:42Oh, well, we're not going to talk about you.
00:47:47So, that's why, you know, when I'm reading philosophy, I'm looking with the skeptic a lot.
00:47:50How did this serve the interests of those in power?
00:47:53Because there was not a lot of philosophers out there in the past who were able to write and speak
00:47:57who didn't help those in power.
00:47:59We either banned or put to death or now there's this soft censorship of funding and tenure and publications and
00:48:07junkets and sabbaticals and all this kind of stuff.
00:48:11But I think that's an important thing to recognize.
00:48:13If you're skeptical about the history of philosophy, always look for where the philosopher says you must obey the law.
00:48:19Right?
00:48:20Render under season.
00:48:22You must pay your taxes.
00:48:25Taxes are the price we pay to live in the civilization.
00:48:27You must say, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
00:48:29Same usual trash.
00:48:31All the superstructure, I think, is all just about the blame and taxes.
00:48:33And nobody will ever talk, very few people will ever talk about the violence that is required of the users,
00:48:41sorry, required of the rulers and forbidden for you.
00:48:44Because that can't be talked about.
00:48:47The moment that's talked about, it's very simple.
00:48:49So these little ethical demonstrations that we had up here, that's why I'm saying I don't think ethics is really
00:48:52that complicated.
00:48:53You can't have a downshot steelbook.
00:48:55It doesn't work.
00:48:55It doesn't work conceptually.
00:48:56It doesn't work physically.
00:48:57It doesn't work in terms of economic consequences.
00:49:00You can't have a downshot mode.
00:49:01It doesn't work.
00:49:02It fails the test of logical consistency.
00:49:04It fails the test of empirical verification.
00:49:08And it didn't take that long.
00:49:10And there were relatively few casualties.
00:49:11Few cells up in there.
00:49:13But it doesn't really take that much time to go through it.
00:49:18And that's why I think we can be binding to people as a whole.
00:49:21If it's not that hard to understand, then we can be bound by it.
00:49:24I mean, one of the fascinating things about being a stay-at-home dad is teaching ethics to my daughter.
00:49:29Daddy's always hunting.
00:49:32No, you're not.
00:49:34She's got it.
00:49:35But maybe she's really great.
00:49:36I mean, I could just give you one example.
00:49:38And to me, if a two-and-a-half-year-old can get it, it's not that hard.
00:49:44So, you know, like all parents or anything, most parents, I try to keep my wood up to my door,
00:49:48you know.
00:49:49I'll take you swimming in the morning, and then the morning comes and it's like hail.
00:49:52It's like, okay.
00:49:54But, you know, I try not to lie to her or forget things, whatever, right?
00:49:57So, anyway, she was going through the space around two-and-a-half.
00:50:00She's experimenting with lying.
00:50:02Which I think is great.
00:50:03I want her to have the ability to lie.
00:50:06You know, she may need that at some point.
00:50:08I think we all do at some point.
00:50:09How many people came through customs?
00:50:10No, no, people.
00:50:12But it's a useful skill to have.
00:50:14It's not like I want to know.
00:50:15I don't want her to know how to murder someone.
00:50:17I do want her to know.
00:50:18Anyway, so, you know, trying to explain why lying is bad to a kid is challenged
00:50:22because I don't want to just say, well, it puts down his feelings.
00:50:24That's not going to be very objective and so on.
00:50:27But I did say, do I lie to you?
00:50:30When she was about two-and-a-half.
00:50:33And she did think about it.
00:50:35She thought about it because I knew she wanted to lie.
00:50:37I knew she was enjoying lying.
00:50:41And she just, it's a long pause.
00:50:43She said, okay, daddy, you can lie to me.
00:50:49She could universalize at two-and-a-half that she could not claim the right to lie
00:50:54if she did not give me that same right.
00:50:59She universalized lying at two-and-a-half.
00:51:03Ethics is not that hard.
00:51:04If someone who's two-and-a-half can do it, it's not that hard.
00:51:08It's just hard because we've got so much propaganda to the contrary.
00:51:20So, thanks everyone.
00:51:22I will be around this afternoon and for dinner.
00:51:24Please pepper me with objections.
00:51:26And this is a huge, important, essential project.
00:51:28I don't think we can ask people to give up theological ethics if we can't give them something new.
00:51:33We can't ask them to give up the state if they can't give them some new way of processing ethics
00:51:38that don't require, you know, necessarily prison cells and hell and so on.
00:51:41So, ethics has sucked.
00:51:43I think that there's ways to make it not suck.
00:51:46Let's have it not suck together.
00:51:47Thank you everybody.
00:51:58We have about ten minutes if we don't have any questions.
00:52:03Yes.
00:52:05You know what, I'll stay here.
00:52:06You take the mic.
00:52:13I think it's a straightforward question.
00:52:15But I just wanted you to take on Bastiat and Malad.
00:52:19There you go.
00:52:20Because we were bringing up the philosophers from the past.
00:52:22The family sees all a bit different.
00:52:25Well, remind me of what his, it's been a long time since I've read him.
00:52:28So, what was his central argument?
00:52:29Well, it was kind of like the central argument that brought about libertarianism from what I can tell.
00:52:35I only listened out of what made it three times and I have to cross a copy to read.
00:52:39But the premise is a lot of the whole monogression principle in action.
00:52:46Fundamentals human rights as well.
00:52:48Yeah.
00:52:49I think that's, I mean, there's very few people who say my theory of ethics violates some people's rights.
00:52:54I mean, there's not many people who say that.
00:52:55Even though, obviously, in the UN they say, you have a right to education which turns educators into slaves.
00:53:01Right?
00:53:01I mean, obviously, if you have a right to somebody else's labor, they're your effective server.
00:53:05So, you know, the people, if they talk about equality, I think that's great.
00:53:09Keep your eyes peeled.
00:53:09And I actually just picked up a copy of the laws when I, from, from Laissez-Faire books,
00:53:13when I was down there talking in, at Freedom Fest in Vegas.
00:53:16I can read through it again.
00:53:17Look for that flip where suddenly he says, we, we need this equality and we need the government to, to,
00:53:24to maintain this equality.
00:53:26Because then you've just broken universality and you've got theft and you've got rights.
00:53:29So, again, I mean, I don't want to just, I don't want to dis-fast yet because maybe he doesn't
00:53:33do that switch.
00:53:33But almost everyone else at right does do that switch.
00:53:36Rough part, not excluded.
00:53:38Sir, it's not one thing you've analyzed yet.
00:53:40It's not one thing you've analyzed yet.
00:53:42No.
00:53:42No, it's not.
00:53:43Okay.
00:53:43No.
00:53:45No, but it's a good one because I know he's very important to the libertarian community.
00:53:50Yes, sir.
00:53:51Hey.
00:53:51I'd just like to say that, um, you're responding to this question.
00:53:54Oh, thanks.
00:53:55I'm sweating.
00:53:56I've got philosophy sweats on.
00:53:57I need to be toweled down afterwards.
00:53:59I have three questions.
00:54:01Um, your, um, discussion at the beginning on the ownership of effects caught my attention.
00:54:08And I saw a few questions surrounding that, so.
00:54:11Just give me one at a time because I'm over 40.
00:54:14Okay.
00:54:14So the first question is, does that put in, like, is that significant to your UPB argument?
00:54:19I didn't, I didn't see the connection.
00:54:21Is there one or, or would that look?
00:54:22Well, you can't have morality if people don't own the effects of their actions.
00:54:26Because if I go strangle some guy, I own his death.
00:54:29I have created, I have produced, I have homesteaded his force, so to speak, right?
00:54:33If we don't own the effects of our actions, you can't charge anyone with morality.
00:54:37Right?
00:54:37So the difference, like, this, this crazy shooter in, in Colorado, let's say they found out he's
00:54:41got some giant brain tumor, you know, that, that has completely fried his brain.
00:54:46Well, that, that's a different moral situation than elsewise.
00:54:50So if we do, if we can't have any ethical system or any responsibility, and you also
00:54:54can't debate if somebody doesn't own the effects of your argument.
00:54:57So if I responded to Dr. Block, like, if I said, hey, Walter, that was a great point
00:55:01you just made about blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
00:55:02He'd be like, hey, that was my point.
00:55:04Like, you can't respond to Walter, so you can't even debate unless you're responding
00:55:07to the points that the person is making by recognizing that they own the effects of their
00:55:11actions.
00:55:11So, you know, and this is the true, you know, if you create, you know, you go harvest some
00:55:16cherries or whatever, you've kind of created them as a usable good.
00:55:18We own the effects of our actions morally in terms of property and so on.
00:55:21So it is pretty important to the theory, yeah.
00:55:24Okay.
00:55:26And the reason why I'm curious is I'm, I don't know, I think you've explained it now,
00:55:30something about meaning.
00:55:31And when I think of ownership myself, I typically think of property, physical goods, and we have
00:55:38ownership in the property because we are trying to avoid conflict.
00:55:43And so, I was thinking, well, how exactly does that translate into ownership of something
00:55:49that is not physical, that you cannot grab and say, hey, don't take that, that's mine.
00:55:54And what you, I think, mean is you have a sort of semi-categorically different idea of ownership
00:56:00in terms of the results of your actions in the sense that, no, it's not like we're potentially
00:56:06of a conflict here, you're just saying taking responsibility, that there is assignable
00:56:11responsibility for an action as opposed to an ownership that we think of in terms of property.
00:56:16Yeah, I'm very much against consequentialism.
00:56:18You cannot judge the value of the theory by its effects.
00:56:21Right?
00:56:22You don't say, is the theory of relativity true or false because it produces atomic weapons.
00:56:26And that's no meaning.
00:56:28You can't judge the theory by its consequences.
00:56:31You can judge it by its internal consistency and the empirical evidence.
00:56:34But you can't say it's good or bad.
00:56:35So, to me, you say, okay, well, property reduces conflict.
00:56:38Well, so does a dominant state that forces everyone to pay to the point where everyone
00:56:42just hands over their money.
00:56:43That reduces conflict, too.
00:56:44So, I'm not a big one for property as a reduction of conflict.
00:56:48I think it does reduce conflicts, but it's not just or fair because it reduces conflicts.
00:56:53I think it's a happy byproduct of a rational system of property rights.
00:56:56But, no, I don't think it's good because it reduces conflicts.
00:57:02Well, that's interesting.
00:57:03Right.
00:57:04And then the final question was, if we can see that there is ownership in the effects of our actions,
00:57:12and one action might be, hey, discussing a new idea that I've got that you didn't have yet,
00:57:16but now you've got it.
00:57:17It's like me.
00:57:18That's a result of my action, my appreciation.
00:57:22Do I also have the ability from this?
00:57:24Does it follow?
00:57:25Or is it not that I can claim ownership in my ideas and that IP is there or valid?
00:57:32Well, you can claim ownership of anything that you want.
00:57:35Is it valid or not?
00:57:37You know, IP is a big topic and you probably want to talk to somebody much better at this.
00:57:41There's another staff out there called Excel that you probably want to have more.
00:57:45I've done some shows on IP.
00:57:48To me, if I write a book and sell a book, I could include in that, don't resell it.
00:57:53That could be a condition of sale.
00:57:55And then if you resell it, you've broken a contract.
00:57:58So, to me, IP is not something that should be centrally enforced, obviously, by a state.
00:58:03But it should be a continuously evolving system of contract law.
00:58:07And, of course, it's optional.
00:58:08I choose not to copyright my stuff.
00:58:10It's all available for free and everything I do is a donation-based model.
00:58:15But if people, you know, they're free to put a contract in and say,
00:58:17if you buy the CD, you don't copy it.
00:58:19And then if you copy it...
00:58:20But, of course, nobody can ever find these people.
00:58:21It's all unenforceable.
00:58:23So, I would be very fascinated to see what would happen.
00:58:25I'm very taken by some of Jeffrey Tucker's arguments, which you can read about in Interjection's World,
00:58:31about the degree to which, say, classical music had incredible leaks for them,
00:58:35where there was no IP and no copyright.
00:58:36And in the countries where there was IP and copyright, that's an argument from effect,
00:58:39but I think it's still an interesting one to go.
00:58:41So, I do definitely think that taking somebody's music obviously doesn't diminish their original thing.
00:58:48It's different from taking somebody's kidney.
00:58:52No, I mean, there's a very...
00:58:53I mean, property is my body too, right?
00:58:55I mean, I have grown my property in the same way that I write a book,
00:58:58but it's still not quite the same thing if somebody, you know,
00:59:00lends my book to someone to read it versus somebody takes a spoon and carves out my kidney.
00:59:05So, I would be fascinated to see what IP would look like in a free society.
00:59:08It wouldn't look anything like it is right now.
00:59:10And I think that the creativity of the planet would be much benefited there, right?
00:59:16Anybody else?
00:59:18Last question?
00:59:24Stephanie, the way I got interrupted with you is I heard you ripping up Ron Paul on one of your
00:59:30speeches.
00:59:31And I only listened to the first ten minutes, and I wrote this blistering attack on you,
00:59:36which is in my book, Chapter 12.
00:59:41I will sign that in my own tears.
00:59:44I've been trying in a little jar.
00:59:45And then what happened is we communicated with each other,
00:59:49and we agreed to debate formally these issues,
00:59:52giving me a law review or a legitimate journal or something.
00:59:55And then I kept saying, well, when are you going to send me your reply?
01:00:00And finally, you never sent me a reply, but what you did is you pretty much caved in
01:00:04and supported Ron Paul, so then you said there's no need for a debate.
01:00:07Is my recollection direct on this?
01:00:11Let me know if this is off-topic to anybody else.
01:00:16I believe, look, there's no one alone, I think, has any clue how we can prove how we're going to
01:00:23achieve freedom.
01:00:23I mean, I have my arguments, people have political arguments and so on.
01:00:27But I do believe in commitment.
01:00:28And so I believe, I wanted to give as much ammunition to the Ron Paul supporters as I conceivably could,
01:00:33putting myself in their shoes to make the case as strongly as possible for supporting Ron Paul.
01:00:38That way, if they do all of that and it doesn't work, I think they may be free of an
01:00:42illusion that it can work.
01:00:44So I really wanted to get behind and help people because, look, I could be wrong.
01:00:47Maybe Ron Paul will, his favorite political action is the way to go,
01:00:51and my sort of peaceful parenting thing is not going to work.
01:00:55But, so, you know, I'm fully committed to what I'm doing.
01:00:57I really wanted to make sure that the people who were supporting Ron Paul had as many quivers in their
01:01:03intellectual,
01:01:03as many arrows in their intellectual quiver as I could think of.
01:01:07I didn't change my stance on political action, but I definitely wanted to encourage people to really go full tilt
01:01:13boogie towards that,
01:01:14because I think there's no freedom from illusion like commitment.
01:01:16So, said, can that help?
01:01:20I just wanted to thank you once again for coming to Vancouver and to the other speakers.
01:01:26My quick question is, and it might be kind of silly, but let's go back to the Galt's Gulch scenario,
01:01:33this sort of microcosm of a libertarian society.
01:01:36Let's pretend that one of our protagonists gets a debilitating disease,
01:01:43and let's just say that he doesn't have any savings, but, you know, he worked hard his whole life.
01:01:49You know, what is to happen to him in that, you know, microcosm of that libertarian society?
01:01:54Would it be like that movie The Beach with being out on the taboo where they just stuffed the guy
01:01:58in the tent, let him die, ignored him?
01:02:00What do you think it would be in that microcosm environment? What is the philosophical?
01:02:05Well, there's two ways to help people in a free society. I mean, there's insurance and there's charity.
01:02:12And both of these have been proving incredibly effective in the past, right?
01:02:16So, insurance, there are these things called friendly societies which occurred before the welfare state
01:02:22where poor people would get together, and they'd all pool their resources and requirements,
01:02:25and they'd come up with a big collective bargaining agreement, so to speak, with an insurance company.
01:02:29And it's incredibly cheap. I saw this at Libertopia two years ago, and don't quote me on it.
01:02:33Some crazy son, like $100 a year in current dollars got you really decent healthcare.
01:02:39So, of course, you want healthcare to be as cheap as possible, which means a free market.
01:02:43You want friendly societies to emerge to fill the vacuum. Life is risk.
01:02:46We never know when we're going to get sick or what's going to happen.
01:02:48So, people band together to deal with those risks.
01:02:50And for people who have never had a community and never paid into insurance and have no money,
01:02:54doctors used to give, I think it was a day a week sometimes they used to give for free,
01:02:58or they'd be paid in chickens, or they'd be paid in kind, and there were charitable organizations and so on.
01:03:02And yes, it certainly is conceivable that some people will fall through the cracks.
01:03:06But as we all know here, what is it?
01:03:07The third Canadians can't find a primary care physician.
01:03:10They can't get a family doctor.
01:03:11People are waiting up to two years to cataract surgeries.
01:03:14It can't be worse in a free society than the way it's going right now.
01:03:17And this is even if we don't count the fact that the healthcare system is ridiculously underfunded,
01:03:21incredibly indebted.
01:03:21What's going to happen when they can't pay the bills at all anymore?
01:03:24So, you know, again, it's not a perfect society in a free society, but it's a, you know, it's a
01:03:29lot better.
01:03:29You know, maybe you'll be unemployed for a week or two after you stop being a slave,
01:03:32but it's better than being a slave.
01:03:34So, yeah, I think the charity prevention, all these kinds of things are the way that it goes.
01:03:39And, you know, if the Canadian healthcare system or socialized medicine reflects the true bill of the people,
01:03:45then people care about sick people.
01:03:47I believe, I mean, who wouldn't care?
01:03:48Some guy's sick and he needs some help.
01:03:50I mean, oh, chip it, right?
01:03:51I mean, that's what people do.
01:03:51If people don't do that, then democracy needs nothing because we have all these systems that nobody wants.
01:03:57But if democracy does represent what people want, then people do want to help the poor,
01:04:01and they do want to help the sick, they do want to help the old.
01:04:03So we don't need the ridiculous overhead in the state where 80% of the money goes to bureaucracy and
01:04:08crap,
01:04:09and only 20% of it ends up with the poor.
01:04:12It's much more efficient to give your money to a private charity, and that's how people can really be helped.
01:04:25We're going to do a duet, aren't they?
01:04:26I'm looking at that suit.
01:04:27Feeling.
01:04:28It's all about that.
01:04:34I would ask you to elaborate a little bit.
01:04:37Sorry, just repeat that first bit again because I never get that.
01:04:40Just one more time, but slowly.
01:04:41You want me to elaborate?
01:04:43Oh my goodness.
01:04:43Dude, 2,500 podcasts are being asked to elaborate.
01:04:46Beautiful.
01:04:49All right, let's start again.
01:04:51Yeah.
01:04:52I would like to ask you to elaborate on.
01:04:55You, as far as I'm a student, you meant to say that you disagreed with the idea that laws,
01:05:04to some laws, should be observed.
01:05:07And I happen to be a lawyer at copyright lawyer at that.
01:05:11So I'm sure there's only one of you.
01:05:13I'm just trying to understand, I think, with laws, it's the opposite of a diable for addicted people.
01:05:23It's diable for people who are not, or who try to get that.
01:05:29So if I misunderstood you, I'd like to clarify that, and if I understood you correctly, but didn't get you
01:05:37on the basis of that.
01:05:41Do you mean sort of modern status law?
01:05:44Modern state law, is that what you mean?
01:05:46Like it's only applied against those who are doing wrong, is that?
01:05:49Yeah.
01:05:49But it's not.
01:05:50I mean, the vast majority of people in non-violent crimes.
01:05:53I'd say we don't have any permanent laws.
01:05:54What's the laws we have?
01:05:55No, but even the whole process.
01:05:57Does anybody know what percentage of American cases actually ever get to trial?
01:06:02Three to five?
01:06:03Yeah, three to five percent.
01:06:04Everything else is plea bargain down because they pile these ridiculous threats on you and people just came.
01:06:09And I can understand why.
01:06:11I mean, so we have no legal system at all.
01:06:13I mean, we have a legal system that just threats and coercion and semi-fascism.
01:06:17I mean, in my opinion, you don't know the guilt or innocence of anybody in that system.
01:06:21Once you get caught up in that machinery, you're just going to get, you know, you can't bribe a judge,
01:06:25but you can threaten someone with 20 years and then get them to confess because that's not bribe you with
01:06:30your freedom versus $10,000.
01:06:31I mean, it's crazy.
01:06:32Sorry, that's not, but that would be good.
01:06:34Isn't that the result of the government's failure to actually fulfill one of its primary roles,
01:06:38which is to have a system of courts that works?
01:06:42Well, I would not argue that the purpose of the state is to fulfill any good obligations.
01:06:46The purpose of the state is to provide free evil to those who want it and to have a system
01:06:55where you can avoid the consequences for the wrongs that you did.
01:06:59You can do unbelievable evils in government and retire with a gold plate of pension and health care.
01:07:03So, you know, there is this idea that the government has its noble purpose and has deviated from it.
01:07:08I don't share that particular opinion because the government is founded on the initiation of force, which is an immoral
01:07:13concept to begin with.
01:07:14And I don't think you can, you know, you can get roses out of fertilizer, but you can't get virtue
01:07:19out of the shit of the state.
01:07:26Then two questions.
01:07:28Should there be any enforcement?
01:07:29And if yes, what would be the basis of that enforcement?
01:07:32You mean for like contract law or violent crimes and so on?
01:07:35Yeah.
01:07:36Yeah, sure.
01:07:37Yeah, of course.
01:07:38I mean, we all want protection, all these kinds of things.
01:07:39And of course, the majority of protection in the world is provided by private companies, security guards, all this kind
01:07:44of stuff.
01:07:45So that can all continue.
01:07:48You know, not to go too much off topic, but the roots of human violence are pretty well understood now.
01:07:54I mean, it's abused childhoods, produced criminals.
01:07:56Not all abused victims become criminals, but almost all criminals were abused.
01:07:59So if we can apply the non-aggression principle to children, what a shot.
01:08:04You know, where we can actually do good, right?
01:08:05Spanking is violation, I argue, of the initiation of force.
01:08:08So is global bullying, global abuse and so on, neglect and so on.
01:08:11If we have children raised peacefully, you know, the estimates are 80 to 90 percent of crime will vanish.
01:08:17And the only people who will remain are the people who want to start up the government again.
01:08:21And I think you will not pay much attention to those.
01:08:24So we're only going to have a free society and our children are raised peacefully, in my argument.
01:08:28And once we have that, the problems of random crime will be, it would be like taking out insurance for
01:08:34an asteroid strike on your car.
01:08:35I mean, you could if you want, but it's going to be so rare, we won't really need to worry
01:08:38about it.
01:08:39Isn't that about just reducing the number of laws to just one?
01:08:42Reducing the number of laws to one, to non-aggression, but it's still a law.
01:08:47No, that's a principle.
01:08:48A law is something that is enforced by a monopoly.
01:08:52And, no, you would have, I mean, you would buy protection for your contracts.
01:08:56And, yeah, well, if you welched on my contract, some insurance company will pay me.
01:08:59And those principles, the costs of that will go down the more honorable we are for the longer we are.
01:09:05And so there's lots of ways to protect yourself against their pollution.
01:09:07And there's, you know, Walter Block's done some great work on this, as Murray Rothbard and all these other people
01:09:12have as well.
01:09:12So you can look into all of these free market solutions to all of these kinds of problems.
01:09:17There is a great temptation.
01:09:18You know, we have this big stick called the state, which we think can wave away problems.
01:09:23I don't think it can.
01:09:24I think it causes many more problems than it solves.
01:09:26And I'll take my risks with volunteerism over the certain growth and eventual collapse of civilization that status and agendas.
01:09:35Last question.
01:09:37Sorry, I'm going to start with the information, Stephan.
01:09:41We keep talking about how a private healthcare system would work, but we forget that in Canada we actually had
01:09:47one.
01:09:47And it was nationalized.
01:09:49Yeah.
01:09:50I had my first child before the government nationalized healthcare.
01:09:53And we had insurance.
01:09:56We paid a portion of all of our fees.
01:09:58But I grew up in Kitchener.
01:10:00There were free clinics every week.
01:10:02Doctors did provoval work.
01:10:03There were free, you know, not fertility, but the opposite.
01:10:09Personal control plan too, so I lost that.
01:10:12Clinics.
01:10:14Doctors had a variable billing system.
01:10:16If they knew or thought that your family was a little bit less able to pay, they charged you less.
01:10:23Sometimes they even forgot to invoice you.
01:10:26And those who had more money came up at their price.
01:10:29They didn't necessarily get ahead of the line, but they might have.
01:10:33And in Ontario, and I don't know what the stats are for the rest of Canada, only 10% of
01:10:39the population was uninsured at the time they nationalized the system.
01:10:43Yeah.
01:10:43So they started by making it a welfare thing, set up a whole healthcare system to handle the 10%.
01:10:50Somebody in the back room said, all the money is coming in.
01:10:54What should we do about that?
01:10:55So they nationalized the insurance companies.
01:10:58You know, there's a terrible thing that happens when you nationalize something.
01:11:02Like, so, the doctors who, in your day, not that this is from my day, but the doctors in your
01:11:08day, you know, they made house calls.
01:11:10You know, they were working 78 hours a week.
01:11:12They were incredibly attuned to their, you know, they stayed to the same patient.
01:11:15They had that detailed knowledge.
01:11:16They really worked to prevent.
01:11:17And when you nationalize, you still get all those doctors with that work ethic that they developed in the free
01:11:23market.
01:11:24You know, it's like NASA.
01:11:25They hired all these private engineers.
01:11:26They put a man on the moon in a couple of years.
01:11:28And then for the next 40 years, you've got, like, two big ships.
01:11:30Right?
01:11:31So when you nationalize something, you get all the free market work ethics and you get the free market structure
01:11:37that's really closely tied in terms of price and responsiveness and even the distribution of doctors.
01:11:42All tied to the free market.
01:11:43And then slowly, like, you know, you get those binoculars, you can turn them out of focus slowly.
01:11:47Slowly what happens is it drifts.
01:11:49And then you get a new generation of doctors who never made a house call in their life.
01:11:52And they start to replace the original doctors.
01:11:55So the first people, you get the government paying for everything usually through debt and not even through raising your
01:12:00taxes.
01:12:00And you get all of these great doctors with a great work ethic that's closely tied in.
01:12:04And then for them, it's a complete non-answer for, like, a generation.
01:12:07And then the sucking comes in really slowly.
01:12:09But it seems almost irreversibly.
01:12:11And then you end up with a system that's unrecognizable to people who didn't move on before.
01:12:14Exactly.
01:12:16Yeah.
01:12:16And actually, the other point when we were talking about charity, government's saying that they literally take over charities that
01:12:22are successful, try to universalize such a deep concept.
01:12:25And in so doing, they literally destroy the blue chair, literally tear down the system, literally as this.
01:12:32Five years later, going from the budget court, it disappears from the community.
01:12:37So it isn't just that charities are turned away to government, government destroys charity because it's constitutional.
01:12:43Yeah.
01:12:43The last thing I'll say is libertarians are often accused of not caring about the poor.
01:12:48But putting the poor and trapping them in this underworld of unsustainable poverty, reducing the quality of their education, reducing
01:12:54their opportunities through things like the minimum wage.
01:12:57And creating a system where inflation robs those hardest who have the least money and those on a fixed income.
01:13:03And creating all of this in a system which can't possibly sustain itself.
01:13:06What is going to happen to the poor when they can't fund the healthcare system?
01:13:10What is going to happen to the poor when they can't fund the welfare system?
01:13:12That is where the benevolence of libertarians will be truly revealed.
01:13:16And I would say the inhumanity of the status will be revealed.
01:13:20But I'm sure it will be painted quite the other way.
01:13:23That really sucks.
Comments