The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep 79: Is Oliver Cromwell and Ayn Rand right about Santa Claus?

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? 

Ep 78: Analyzing the Assange, Zizek and Horowitz conversation.

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

Ep 77: Is the household or a hotel a state?

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?   

Ep 76: What actually is decadence and degeneracy with Rik Storey.

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?  

Ep.75 Austrian Economics, the Cantillon Effect and Marxist Third Worldism.

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 . 

Ep 74: Why do people have children?

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? 

Ep 73: Has Bitcoin/Crypto currency already saved the world?

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? 

Ep. 72: What is a good environment?

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?  

Ep 71: Do the Amish and Ancaps need Woodrow Wilson and B. Kristol to protect them?

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?  

Ep.70 Are we all grifters now?

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?