The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep 56: Is murder wrong? What is murder? What is "justified" killing? What is harm?

The mind crime liberty show discusses the very relevant question of whether murder is wrong and if murder is wrong what makes it wrong.  Murders apparent wrongness tends to be more or less assumed and we investigate this assumption.  If one digs deeper "murder" is a key concept in almost all areas of philosophy, theology, history, war and ethics which is mostly just assumed as a starting point. If one removes this starting point (ie murder is wrong)  what then is the big deal about wars, genocides and abortions?  Why is it the case that certain organizations, namely the state, is allowed to "justly" murder someone.  What is the difference between murder and justified killing (ie an executioner or say a soldier).  Is there actually a distinction? 

What are the best and most persuasive arguments in favor of not killing/murdering others.  Why is it the case that its so weakly argued considering its alleged importance to all facets of life.  What do golden rule or Kantian type arguments miss? How do these ethical theories deal with outliers or exceptions? Is Divine command theory or natural law a more effective and persuasive argument?  

 

 

Ep 55 Is wage "slavery" (ie working at McDonald's) a form of slavery that ought to be abolished?

The Mindcrime libertyshow discusses whether wage "slavery," such as working for McDonald's, Amazon or Walmart at a low wage, ought to be abolished?  Would low wage jobs in large firms exist in a free society?  Would anyone choose to work at these kinds of jobs if better options existed and why do these jobs exist?  What exactly defines slavery? What is the difference between working for amazon as a picker, serfdom and classic chattel slavery?  Does dignity and autonomy matter?  What exactly is a dignified job and would paying them more make them less "slave" like. Why aren't interns, adjunct professors and TA's considered wage slaves even though at times they can make as much money if one does a full hourly accounting?  What does Marx, Hoppe, Nozick and Walter Block agree on and disagree on when it comes to technical economics related to free labor under capitalism and slavery? Are people as free and creative as many of the left libertarians claim people are?  If barriers to entry were removed would there be more small business owners and self employed people?  

Ep 54 Crypto currency skepticism or crytpo to the moon? #Bitcoin #Eth #Doge

The Mindcrime libertyshow is joined by Duncan Whitmore of Mises UK who wrote an essay entitled Crypto Skepticism to discuss both his essay and crypto currency in general.  Does crypto currency ranging from the very well established Bitcoin and Ethereum to the plethora of startup alt coins and even meme coins like dogecoin have any future?  Is crypto currency merely a ponzi scheme for lunatics, a Chinese weapon against the FED as Peter Thiel has described it or is it a fascinating technology which can wrestle away the states control of the money supply?  Why is money needed anyways (why not just barter?) and can money exist without the state controlling it?  Why not go back to gold and silver?  What are the strengths and weakness of crypto currency?  We discuss all of this in this episode. 

 

A link to Duncan Whitmore's excellent essay.

https://misesuk.org/2021/03/12/crypto-scepticism/

Ep 53: Is Moldbug (Yarvin) or Mises right about banking and finance?

The Mindcrime liberty show discusses whether Curtis Yarvin (ie Moldbug) is right about banking and finance based on two old posts from his blog Unqualified Reservations entitled The Misean Explanation of the Bank Crisis and Maturity Transformation Considered.  Yarvin describes the financial system fairly effectively noting that Maturity transformation which the most common form is known as fractional reserve banking is the dominant feature.   Yarvin, like Mises and most Austrian economists, note how unstable this system is and describes why it blows up every so often. To quote yarvin himself this poorly engineered system  "coats the entire area with radioactive material" in his excellent analogy. Why is fractional reserve banking so unstable?  Could fractional reserve banking work without the state as a lender of last resort. What would banking look like in a stateless society, ancapistan or a freed market?  Would there be any fractional reserve banks? Why is the state so interested in controlling the money supply? How did this current system come about?  How does Moldbug's solution of nationalizing the banks compares to other solutions in particular various Austrian economists solutions?  

 

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/10/misesian-explanation-of-bank-crisis/ 

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2008/09/maturity-transformation-considered/

Ep 52 Why Hoppe is right and Kant is wrong about perpetual peace and democracy.

The Mindcrime liberty show discusses Kant's democratic peace theory with  regard to Hans Hoppe private law society theory.  Kant and most modern day liberals including Mises thought that the key to perpetual peace was to democratize all societies internally along with  mutual trade and a federation of nations. As we see with the general trajectory of many organizations and Hoppe quite clearly elaborates this is that they centralize. This one world federation once it has enough power is functionally a one world government where in the customers have no competition for security/law even disregarding the obvious contradiction of an expropriating property protector (ie taxation is theft and slavery).  Hans Hoppe in his chapter called the errors of classical liberalism  in the democracy the god that failed attacks  his intellectual master Ludwig Von Mises for holding this incorrect view on the nature of monopoly and peace.  If monopolies are bad from the point of view of consumers then why in this very important area of production such as protection of property and the production of law and order are monopolies are justified?  If milk or car monopolies produce comparatively worse cars then why would a monopoly on "government" be any better? Importantly this monopoly thanks to modern technology in addition to taking the logic of both Kant and MIses theories seriously  cannot exist in one regional area and must eventually contain the entire earth into a one world centralized government. 

Hoppe writes in Chapter 11:

"Once it is incorrectly accepted that in order to protect and enforce
peaceful cooperation between two individuals A and B, it is justified and
necessary to have a judicial monopolist X, a twofold conclusion follows.
If more than one territorial monopolist exists, X, Y, and Z, then, just as
there can presumably be no peace among A and B without X, so can there
be no peace between the monopolists X, Y, and Z as long as they remain
in a "state of anarchy" with each other. Hence, in order to fulfill the
liberal desideratum of universal and eternal peace, all political centralization and unification, and ultimately the establishment of a single world
government, is justified and necessary."

 

All statists, classical liberals, liberals and minarchists  (unless for cultural or even other taboo  and unspeakable reasons which arguably Kant, Mill and of course Marx held) must eventually advocate a one world state in order to get peace.  How does this differ from Hobbes Leviathan and of course how does this come about other then by some single local empire (IE the US) indirectly or directly "conquering" or subduing the world? Is that really a "liberal" peace theory? Hoppe in this regard using private property and self ownership as preceding the creation of the state has a theoretical pathway for perpetual peace and reinstates the Westphalian peace  system taking the correct insights of Mises libertarian economics and applying them more thoroughly. Territory X follows these laws and territory Y follows these laws.  Both territories will compete for "customers" and must treat there customers well.  If the two territories want to trade with each other or individual members within the areas want to trade then they can do so but one doesn't need a labyrinth of "free" trade agreements which are merely a way to increase state power and kickbacks. If there is the danger of piracy or foreign aggression regarding trade the those who want to engage in trade must bear the costs rather then externalize them through taxes.    The key to a true liberal peace is not a unilateral worldwide UN or League of nations  with strong teeth as even Mises unfortunately advocates rather independent "states" or better yet private law societies.  Here competition can occur which will decrease the cost and increase the quality of good just as Mises economic theory predicts which was incorrectly applied to the state which has a monopoly and by logical standards must be expanded to the globe if one wants peace.

To quote Hoppe again:

"Liberalism's erroneous acceptance of the institution of government
as consistent with the basic liberal principles of self-ownership, original
appropriation, property, and contract, consequently led to its own destruction. "

 

Hans Hoppe Democracy the god that failed and in it contains his excellent chapter the errors of classical liberalism.

https://portalconservador.com/livros/Hans-Hermann-Hoppe-Democracy-The-God-That-Failed.pdf  

 

 

 

 

 

Ep 51 Keith Preston on whether Thomas Hobbes is right about the necessity state.

The mindcrime liberty show is joined by Keith Preston to discuss whether Thomas Hobbes, the author of the leviathan, is right about the necessity of the state. Is it true that without the state/leviathan humans life would be short, brute and nasty?  What would an anarchist criticism of Thomas Hobbes leviathan be?  How does Thomas Hobbes differ with his rejection of natural telelogy.  What does Thomas Hobbes share and differ with other thinks like Carl Schmitt and Max Stirner both of which Keith Preston has written at length about in his great book Thinkers Against Modernity (and other works).  What would Thomas Hobbes think of dictators like Pinochet or Franco.  Would Thomas Hobbes be more of an anarchist considering the size and scale of the current national state as well as the increasingly growing international system in the past few decades.   Would Hobbes be a "liberal Hobbesian" and advocate an international global government of some kind which so many Hobbesian arguments seem to implicitly or explicitly infer.  Keith Preston also explains why nationalists already have one foot in the door towards the anarchist camp considering existing nation states are in a position of international anarchy as described by most political scientists. Finally what exactly is the peace which Hobbes describes considering that many "liberal" societies have large prison populations and of course many illiberal societies have done mass killings which thinkers like Hummel argue have killed at least 270 million people (and arguably more).     Keith Preston is the author of many books and can be found at attackthesystem.com. 

 

. 

Ep. 50 The sexual ethics of a Christian and post Christian society with Rik Storey.

The mind crime liberty show discusses sexual ethics in Christianity as well as what might a post Christian society's sexual ethics look like. Is Christianity pro or anti sex?  Is Christianity pro or anti marriage and family? Is it an accommodation and something to be avoided and done as little as possible?  What is to be made of Paul's and Christ's singleness and is that to be emulated. Are the monastic orders "biblical" or "Christ like." 

 

If "traditional" Christianity's influence continues to decline what will the sexual ethics look like of that society? For all the criticism levied by feminists at marriage isn't Christianity the thing which raised the status of woman and children especially compared to the Roman system.  Will we see a return to a system which rewards high status males at the expense of almost everyone else if monogamy continues to decline. Will feminists become (or for that matter return to arguably considering there suffragette influence) being anti sex.  How stable and for that matter fertile will a post Christian society be.  

 

What is to be made of the phenomena of both cuties and Jeffrey Epstein which have dominated headlines in recent times.  Are the parents of the child actors engaging in abuse?   What explains the outrage (and non outrage) toward Jeffery Epstein.  Were the girls innocent victims or were they in it for money and gifts.  Will we see more phenomena like this if the influence of Christianity continues to decline. Will prostitution be legalized as it is in much of Europe or will we get affirmative consent laws which at every stage of the act one must ask for permission.

 

 

Ep 49. Are the conspiracy theories right?

The Mindcrime liberty show discusses conspiracy theories. What conspiracy theories are true? What motivates the “debunkers” or the “Vox explainers” or fact checkers. What motivates the conspiracy theorist themselves? Is it not the case that the conspiracy  theory is a kind of telos/purpose or even “human action” driven model of the world which explains that events happen for a particular reason not merely chance, accident, mistake or spontaneous order? People and large organizations leadership is making plans that are somewhat “secretive” and possibly not in everybody’s or particular groups interest? What is so hard to believe about that? Why are the "mainstream" so reluctant to believe in conspiracy theories yet so willing to accept the mainstream account? For all the criticism which gets thrown at the conspiracy theorists motives one could argue that the payoff for the mainstream to not believe or even ponder is much bigger. We at the show argue that both sides are probably compromised and not entirely honest either way.

One key motivating factor is that there is a kind of romanticism behind conspiracy theories in the sense that some organization or group is behind much of the “bad things” that occur. Certain intellectual ideologies are arguably borderline "conspiracy" theories depending on ones definition of a conspiracy theory or hold certain aspects of what Rothbard calls a conspiratorial worldview. Is libertarianism, anarchism or Marxism a kind of macro level conspiracy theory which suggests that certain actors or bad actors using imperfect systems to take advantage of the masses?

Are conspiracy theories due to worldview blind spots such as the case of Bigfoot or various anomalous events or "out of place artifacts." Big foot or Lake monsters could exist in theory in small numbers if the world isn’t millions of years old and rather a few thousand or 100,000 years old. If the world is much younger (as people like David Berlinski and Stephen Meyer have argued) then a few river monsters may still be alive floating around various lakes. In a related topic the age of the earth debate also shows up in historical geology and ancient architecture which gets popularized by the show ancient aliens. Plato does seem to suggest a mega historical city of some kind existed in the past. As Jacques Vallee argues anomalous sightings of "fairies" or "aliens" are common in almost every culture throughout history. These events don't fit the normal worldview framework even though as Jacques Vallee documents "high profile" and respectable people have seen things.

We at the mindcrime liberty show are well aware that many conspiracy theories are untrue (if of course truth exists and isn’t some dialectical or social construct) and that the “mainstream” may be right about many things; however, it is worth pointing out many historical conspiracy theories of high consequence are true or probably closer to the truth if it could be known then what the state was saying (or not saying) at the time. Some examples which people of the left or liberal persuasion might find of interest that are arguably true historical “conspiracy” theories are the gulf of tonkin, spying on cell phone users (Ed Snowden revelations), project MK Ultra as well as the WMDs in iraq. Is Noam Chomsky a conspiracy theorist? By the standards of plenty of current fact checkers and debunkers if applied at the time arguably yes. Many conspiracy theories are untrue but nonetheless plenty of them are worth further investigation and quite fun. The stigma surrounding even discussion should only further the inquiry.

NPR on MK ultra and Timothy Leary https://www.npr.org/transcripts/758989641

Errol Morris Fog of War

Transcript https://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html

Rothbard on conspiracy theories

https://mises.org/library/conspiracy-theory-history-revisited

 

Ep 48: What would the police look like in a free society or ancapistan? Would they exist?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses what “law enforcement” would look like in a “free” society, ancapistan or what Hans Hoppe would call a private law society.  Would there be public law enforcement or police (or whatever parlance one wants to use) at all?  What would private security look like?  Would it be private corporate tyranny as many critics of ancapistan argue it is?  Would the warlords take over as private security companies and enslave/exploit the masses for profit?  Isn’t that what many left wing critics argue the already existing police already do/does? We at the mindcrime liberty generally agree with the standard anarchist and for that matter marxist critique of the police where the police exist to defend the property and status of the ruling class. Although it’s worth pointing out for all their signaling that most historical  actual existing Marxists societies had massive police states which were arguably even more secretive and exploitative then the “capitalistic” societies while being materially poorer. I’d rather deal with Minneapolis police than the Moscow police of the 30s or 70s (read Peter Hitchens chronicles about his time dealing with the Moscow Soviet police). Furthermore for all the anti police posturing social democrats and progressives throughout the developed world are arguably as big if not on some substantial level bigger defenders of the blue then the center right defenders such as PragerU when the police are going after hate speech, lockdown protests, people carrying weapons in capitol buildings, sexual “assaults” on campuses when most parties are drunk, family law courts and a litany of other offences. You could argue that social democrats and culturally left anarchists in a way might have a much longer list of what is illegal and thereby reasonable for public or private security forces to go after.  

 

We at the mindcrime libertyshow do think what is narrowly defined as property or violent crime will continue to exist even in an ideal society. That may sound like an oxymoron but in this regard we have a more pessimistic or skeptical view of what humans are.  Its worth pointing out to those on the left (as well as some liberal libertarians) who think that if poverty goes away theft will go away that people from great family or material circumstances who have everything still commit murder and theft!   They may commit them for different reasons such as boredom, thrill seeking or even jealousy but nonetheless we think murder and crime will continue to exist. Outside of certain pacifist groups namely the Amish and Mennonites we do think that some form of legal sanction would be required in order for conflicts to be dissipated. 

 

The mindcrime liberty show doesn’t think crime merely is a social construct or merely something which certain societies only have as “crimes.”  For one thing Liberalism of some variety (Marxism and anarchism not merely anarcho capitalism or Christianity) has spread around the world.  Anyone who thinks theft doesn’t exist or murder isn’t a crime needs to explain to us right libertarians whatever historical boogieman the left hates did wrong. All the Abrahamic religions have many commonalities when it comes to murder and property and of course are being “liberalized” or westernized.  Historical non western societies like the Aztecs or Chinese also viewed attacking the emperor or state property a a crime of some sort and aren't some paradise for any lefty or police critic.  So it appears there are very few “advanced” societies (maybe the primitivists are right?) without some form of legal system and to enforce those legal rules and the exceptions you need an organization to do so.  In the current existing society it is the tax funded police which increasingly makes no one happy.

We think the best solution is to have a private law society where the legal system is run for profit and is privatized.  It isn’t profitable to go on crusades against other groups when there isn’t a legalized privileged monopoly to maintain your revenue source and one has immunity. The state rarely if ever goes after the state itself and the cops are a classic example of this.   Maybe it might not work and result in tyranny but again its worth pointing out most people on the left, including left anarchists and Marxist, think the already existing system does that anyways so what is to lose?  Henceforth are they closeted conservatives who are defending the current system as being superior to our somewhat proposed hypothetical system which has some partial historical examples as well? If so then they are merely social democrats who as we pointed out back the blue just as much as the center right/neocons yet are much less honest and upfront about the matter. The police are the front lines of the state and we as ancaps want them privatized as well as removing their privileged position and we see no one else having any better alternative other than virtue signaling, more reforms or making a worse system. 

EP. 47: Part 2 Nassim Taleb's precautionary principle, infinity and Black Swans.

The mindcrime liberty show continues its discussion of Nassim Taleb's black swan theory and precautionary principle. This time it focuses on the precautionary principle especially in regard to the lock-down as well as other extreme events. What exactly is Nassim Taleb's position on extreme risks and how does he differ from other analysts/scientists in particular mathematical ones ranging from mainstream climate scientists to Fauci and Ferguson. Taleb, like Mises and Hoppe, is very critical of most mathematical models and statistical methods. This is a key part of his work and for that matter for better or worse his "fame," however, unlike Hoppe  Taleb has adapted an alarmist position and maintained it and at times uses mathematical models.

 Swithun's critique of Taleb's non naive precautionary principle is on his usage of probability and infinity.  If one plays a game which is ruinous infinite numbers of time one will eventually be ruined.  Defining ruin is itself a continuum problem but even if one does define systemic ruin one still must play the game an infinite number of times which one can't.   Taleb has an arbitrary difference between zero probability and events with functional zero probability. Taleb claims that certain events have been observed to be non ruinous so we can give them a functionally zero probability yet we have never seen a virus cause total global ruin yet we have to assign a non zero probably to it.   The planet and mankind itself will eventually die the question is only when. Plenty of extreme events to paraphrase Thomas Sowell have no solutions just trade-offs.   

Taleb's precautionary principle is useful but his idea of skin in the game and iatragenics which follows standard libertarian analysts of complexity (including Hayek not just Mises) is more useful and sound.  Taleb is only doing cost benefit analysis  which he is disguising as the non naive precautionary principle while throwing out all his previous ideas to be what amounts to a big government alarmist. When one interferes with a complex system one should be careful about its unintended consequences.  The lock-down, as well as most draconian proposals to fix climate change quickly if it exists and is really dangerous may not work anyways as we can see with the heuristic of  Sweden or parts of the US that didn't lock-down as much.  Nonetheless, even if  draconian actions do "work" do they have other costs and do they outweigh the benefits? Its quite clear that Megacorps like Amazon, healthcare apparatuses and the state have increased there power and thereby benefited enormously but has everyone else? Lets look at the most vulnerable themselves like the elderly. Has the nursing home patients in Cuomo's New York which may have one of the highest death-rates in the world (who could have predicted that other then the mindcrime liberty show). Furthermore to discuss other costs many elderly are isolated and can't see there grandchildren or even there spouses.  Most of the "cautious" (or hysterical) actions taken especially after 2 weeks are only brought about by using an aggressive police and managerial state all of whom  have benefited! Hence had skin in the game the wrong way!  They got richer, more prestigious and more powerful thanks to the event. 

Speaking of costs, certainty and aggression Taleb has used aggression from the NAP to claim that libertarians should be extra alarmists and minimize travel and wear masks proudly. Although I didn't here Taleb condemn  the littany of fiery and peaceful   large public gatherings (nor many others) nonetheless it is unknown if going out is actually a superspreader event or not wearing a mask is an  aggressive act.  Having a gathering while not wearing mask by common law standards is a very beneficial thing to do (not just fiery yet peaceful protests) and not having them has huge known costs.  Here is Murray Rothbard on aggression, complexity and uncertainty (which Taleb should know a thing or too about):

If we are unsure, it is far better to let an aggressive act slip through than to impose coercion and therefore to commit aggression ourselves. A fundamental tenet of the Hippocratic oath, “at least, do not harm,” should apply to legal or judicial agencies as well. -Murray Rothbard.