The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ep 46. Black Swans and the Precautionary Principle part 1

The mindcrime liberty show discusses the work of Nassim Taleb and his Black Swan book/idea and precautionary principle.  Today we will discuss black swan events and are they a rigorous concept. The term black swan comes from the medieval expression that said "you’d sooner see a black swan than some (fill in rare seemingly unpredictable event...say George Bush, Barack Obama and Osama Bin laden share a win in the nobel prize in chemistry)."  Unfortunately European explorers found a black swan in Australia!  Maybe the chemistry prize might not be so rare and unpredictable.  What exactly is and isn’t a predictable event.  What exactly is science?  Is science merely making correct predictions or is it a prior theorizing? How much data does one need in a sample before the 100 year flood  (or financial crash) or thousand year flood shows up in the data sample (clearly more then 50 years of data).  If that event doesn’t show up in ones empirical data does it even exist?  Is that a blind spot of empiricism and statistics? Furthermore, are some things just in principle unpredictable?  Is Nassim Taleb a proto Misean (either richard or ludwig)?    Another key concept which Taleb may not have invented but definitely made mainstream is the idea of fat tails or that one event represents 90 percent (or higher) of the total.  WWII represents (contra Pinker) more deaths than most other wars.  No one cares or should care about the average war or the average height of a river or average height of a flood.  Its useless information.  The outliers are the events that are significant. WWI and WWII are clearly more significant than a series of small conflicts or small recessions.  Katrina is clearly a more significant hurricane than any minor tropical storm.    Nassim Taleb has clearly had “influence” for better or worse and arguably up until recent events Tim would argue for better. Next episode we discuss the precautionary principle and whether anything can be done to mitigate or prevent these high consequence events which may or may not be predictable as well as if one actually can do anything and want to do anything.   

 

Nassim Taleb work to critique Pinker and the idea of the long Peace.

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pinker.pdf

 

Gary North's great criticism of Taleb 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/gary-north/einstein-and-keynes/

 

Mises institute on Taleb 

https://mises.org/wire/when-nassim-taleb-channels-ludwig-von-mises 

 

Some Fundamental differences between Taleb and Mises.

https://mises.org/wire/some-fundamental-differences-between-ludwig-von-mises-and-nassim-taleb

 

 

 

 

 

Ep. 45 Taboos with Terminal Philosophy

The mindcrime liberty show discusses 3 taboo topics including scientism, the crusades and the US Israeli relationship with Terminal Philosophy. 

Ep. 44.Was Yuri Bezmenov right? #Call of duty trailer.

Awhile back there was a trailer which included a talk made by ex KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov.  He argues that there is a four step process of propaganda including demoralization, destabilization, crisis and finally normalization. Did the USSR's active measures have the ability to actually influence the west from the outside in the way he describes or is it homegrown?    Was the USSR as bad as he says it was considering that he thinks demoralization is over-fulfilled in the West?    Does Bezmenov have a solution to fix the problem he identified? 

Ep 43. Moldbug vs Chomsky hypothetical debate on #power #democracy #media

The mindcrime liberty show discusses what a hypothetical Noam Chomsky versus Moldbug (aka Curtis Yarvin) debate might look like comparing and contrasting their agreements and disagreements. This conversation is structured in the format done by Alasdair MacIntyre in  his book After Virtue, Dallas Willard in Nietzsche versus Christ at the veritas forum or especially the book the Great Debate Burke and Paine (ie it’s not a real  live debate if one is thinking that).  Both Chomsky and Moldbug somewhat ironically end up with the same view of America and its various Satellites/vassal states around the world: they are undemocratic oligarchies. This is clearly demonstrated in Chomsky's book manufacturing consent which takes aim at the corporate press and if you examine what Moldbug would call the cathedral they both end up with roughly analogous models albeit with quite different visions of what a better society would look like. Moldbug and Chomsky mainly differ on the question of democracy on both its feasibility and desirability. Moldbug of course has a low view of democracy which mirrors David Friedman's competitive dictatorship model as well as Hoppe's monarchy theory while Chomsky is a left anarchist. We also discuss Chomsky’s at times bizarre relationship with both academy and the corporate press considering his stance otherwise.

 

We selected these two thinkers because both Chomksy and Moldbug have similar class and social backgrounds and are two central figures in modern American/Western discourse for better or worse.  Chomsky casts quite the long shadow and is the Bertrand Russel of our time while Moldbug has cast his own influence with a seemingly small platform and for many years operating under his pen name.  Certain aspects of the mainstream right and left would regard both of them as dangerous or even quite frankly stupid.  That may be the case but their influence cannot be discounted and we both think they are very good representees of a certain intellectual debate existing in the current age  over democracy and its feasibility/desirability while at the same time having similar models of the existing society i.e an undemocratic oligarchy managed mainly by the corporate press and to some extent the education system.

Is Kim Jong-il (or the dear leader) right about math?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses the philosophy of mathematics using a statement made by the "dear leader" of North Korea.  In a statement during a school class of whether 1+1=2 the "dear leader" purportedly  stated that it doesn't always equal 2 rather that sometimes it can equal 1. If you take one drop of water plus another drop of water do you get 1 big drop?  The statement made by the dear leader is obvious alarming propaganda representing an Orwellian nightmarish state, nonetheless, we use this as an inroad to discuss various philosophical issues relating to math. 

Do numbers exist? Are numbers merely a useful fiction or do they have some platonic or abstract existence. We  discuss the different numbering systems including the roman system which arguably is more intuitive as Herbert Spencer argues.    We finally end with a  discussion of  the dearth of "philosophy of mathematics" training or interest from professional mathematicians who tend to treat math as something that just exists and isn't to be questioned.  Why is that the case? Does math need to be knocked off its perch a few levels? 

Ep. 41 Power, Democracy and pessimism with James Lawrence.

The mindcrime liberty show discusses power, democracy and pessimism or commonly known as the black pill with James Lawrence. What is power and what kinds of power are there?  We also discuss what ideology that rules the west namely Progressivism or its various synonyms given by Curtis Yarvin (aka Moldbug).   We also discuss the concept of democracy and what exactly is it.  We finally end with a discussion of whether one should "give up" or at least give up on voting due to the fact that "non left wing parties" (conservative or republican) have done hardly anything in both the UK and the USA.   If electoral politics are out what exactly must be done?