The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether, if everyone followed the advice of popular AM radio financial advisor Dave Ramsey, would the fiat economy collapse? Does Dave Ramsey only give good advice for individuals or would society as a whole be better off if everyone followed his advice? Is Ramsey a hypocrite for collecting rents/earning interest off capital while at the same time basically advising his listeners not to be in debt? If people stopped consuming $6 coffees, watching new movies, taking expensive vacations, and buying new cars, would the consumer economy collapse? What exactly would people “work for” to earn a wage if people don’t buy their products that are produced?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether the word democracy is a coherent concept or whether it is merely a meaningless “feel good” word for its advocates and a swear word for its critics? What exactly is a democracy on a definitional/conceptual level? What is a “non-democracy”? How do democracies differ from autocracies or dictatorships especially if seemingly nowhere has truly free speech and free press? Why do the British media elites and mainstream intellectuals like to call Putin a dictator even though Britain has more people in jail for speech violations? Why do American elites like to call its enemies dictatorships even though most presidents since FDR (and before) have arguably had more power than the constitution claims (hence they are dictatorships too)?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether female education was a mistake, virtuous, an inevitability, or malicious? Did female education bring about world peace and the eradication of crime as some thought? Did female education make women more or less happy? Was female education merely an almost inevitable consequence of modernity/industrialization rather than some sort of constructed movement? On the other hand, was female education a byproduct (or consequence) of Christianity, in particular Protestant education with its focus on reading the Bible for individual salvation?

The Mindcrime LIberty Show discusses why elites were never truly woke. If elites really cared about “brown and black people” they wouldn’t be bombing or sanctioning countries made up of them. On the domestic front in Western countries the concept may have more merit but it is arguably more “anti-white” than pro-black/brown in that elites view the existing entrenched populations as a threat and want to dilute them - this is something that “normie conservatives” either miss or is too cynical for their worldview to understand.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether or not “people exist”. Every 5 years the physical contents of one’s body is rebuilt a la ship of theseus. Considering there is no physical part of one’s body that is still there from 5 years ago how do we socially view others and ourselves? Are humans a kind of “intellectual property”? Are secular thinkers forced into a kind of non-physical essence of humans? How do these issues play out in political philosophy considering most intellectuals infer a kind of “body ownership” or “labor ownership”?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what “fringe” dissident intellectuals want people to do with their free time or their time in general. If people aren’t working, what are they supposed to do? What do intellectuals such as Guy Debord, Roger Scruton, Jeff Deist, or Peter Hitchens want us to do which isn’t merely "degenerate" or “inauthentic consumerism"? If you abolish the working system, yet somehow maintain industrial society, what then are people supposed to do with all their time? What is the macro relationship between work and consumption? Isn’t it the case that even Amish carpenters and bakers are effectively a part of the “machine” insofar as a significant proportion of the demand for their services is dependent on outsiders with extra money to buy their services? Why are so many intellectuals from different perspectives critical of mainstream consumer capitalism such as popular music, sports, and films? Are people really only supposed to read books, debate arguments, raise children in a minimalist manner, pray, and make a revolution? Do most people even want to do that or are even able to do that?

The Mindcrime LIberty Show discusses the case against children. If life has some amount of suffering, and suffering is a negative, then why create new life? On a theological level unless one is a universalist there is no guarantee of a happy outcome for children. What are the best arguments against having children? Do children make their parents lives better or worse? Would the people who currently don’t have children really be better off if they had children? Or is this a kind of selection effect whereby those who would be happy having children already have them?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show makes the case for why Libertarians, Paleoconservatives, and other reactionaries shouldn't be overly concerned about Mamdani's recent victory in the New York City mayor's race.

First, Mamdani is likely neither a radical socialist nor a radical jihadist. But even if he were, what power does he truly have? Culturally, Mamdani is highly representative of New York City—a city whose very character has been shaped by the forces of the normie right, the neoconservative right, and the types who read the Babylon Bee. If Mamdani is to be condemned as a "foreigner," then so is much of New York City, including many of the outraged neoconservatives themselves. If only Protestant Christians can hold office, that would preclude many people whom the Babylon Bee also supports.

As for socialism, this is something radical Rothbardian libertarians understand far better than the so-called "liberal libertarians" who are expressing outrage. High taxes are not socialism. Nor are free buses. New York City is the center of the fiat financial system, which is arguably a far greater "welfare system" than any free bus program. If your enemy is free buses running on state-subsidized roads in a city whose main industry—banking—relies on massive subsidies and regulatory protection (which, by the way, devastates other regions and drives more immigration), then you are arguably the biggest defender of the status quo. If you are a neoconservative or a conservative who doesn't like Mamdani being mayor—despite having advocated for wars of aggression in Arab countries or economic policies that have destroyed the homelands of immigrants you now oppose—perhaps you should reconsider your own positions before expressing outrage over Mamdani.

Besides, Mamdani himself is probably just an empty suit anyway, so who cares?

The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses time and its relationship to the industrialized managerial state. Did "time," as we now measure it, even exist before industrialization and the rise of clocks? Are seasonal clock changes a good idea? Are centralized time zones beneficial? What exactly is "natural time," considering that historical societies have had varied numbers of days in a week and different starting points for their days?

Furthermore, couldn't it be argued that many complaints about clock changes are actually criticisms of nature itself, given that day length varies outside the equator? Evenings and mornings will naturally grow shorter in the northern hemisphere regardless of any clock policy. If one could have days of uniform length, what would be the ideal times for sunrise and sunset?

Finally, would a private law or anarchist society establish a timekeeping arrangement similar to our current one?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show explores the intricate link between technology and bureaucracy. We ask: Can a society advance technologically without being suffocated by red tape? What fuels the parallel growth of technology and bureaucratic systems? We then turn to the world of insurance: Is it an inevitable social institution, or, as theorist Hans Hoppe argues, mostly welfare in disguise? Finally, we examine who holds the power: in a world of complex rules, are the state or private companies ultimately in control?