The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep. 40 Ed Feser's Roman Catholic theory of the state. #Iraq War #Anarchism #Rothbard

The mindcrime liberty show discusses Ed Feser’s “statism”  with regards to the functioning of the Roman Catholic  Church  as well as war.  Do traditional Roman Catholics have the best theory to defend  the state in both domestic as well as foreign affairs? Would the traditional historical catholic church even recognize the state which Ed Feser is defending, ie the US state (a protestant founded liberal Lockean  republic), not the Holy Roman Empire led by the papacy on the chair of St Peter.  Are the Lockean principles which many ground rights or property on in it themselves baseless?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of Ed Feser's natural law approach to defending the state as well as private property? Ed Feser in various parts of his writings includes a truck load of provisos to attack  property but still admittingly defends private property itself saying its natural if not outright good.  Same thing with the state.  At what point do the provisos and emergencies make private property functionally “public” property controlled by a state which leads to all the problems identified by anarchists, minarchists and the lockean liberals.  Why isn’t Ed Feser a socialist?

When it comes to foreign affairs Ed Feser may do a fairly effective job at saying that Roman Catholic Christianity isn’t compatible with anarchism (or at least Roman Catholics can’t be anarchists …..we will leave the Protestant Christian part out of it for the purposes of this conversation) but nonetheless is Ed Feser crying wolf when it comes to his advocacy of the Iraq War.  Why did Ed Feser lend support to such a ruinous and pointless war even if in theory the Catholic just war theory fought by a legitimate actor is justified by Ed Feser’s natural law Catholicism.  Didn't in the long run the pacifists and "Rothbardian Catholics" who he says more or less are   a contradiction in terms get vindicated by the actual outcome of the war which he defended?  

 

Ed Feser on the Holy Roman Empire.

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/12/what-was-holy-roman-empire.html

Ep. 39 Interview with former teacher/administrator on the California Public school system.

The Mindcrime Liberty show interviews a former public school teacher and administrator on what exactly is the state of education in the very large state of California.  What changed over the years regarding funding and curriculum? Was there ever a golden age of public schools?  What is the politics or viewpoint of  the teachers themselves or the curriculum. Who controls the education system? The local parents or the state bureaucracy?  What is the future of education in particular public schooling? 

Ep. 38: What would punishment look like in an ideal or free society?

 

The mindcrime liberty show discusses punishment theory.  What would punishment look like in an ideal society or a stateless society? What is the purpose of punishment: to repay property damages, deter future crimes, a moral crusade on behalf of god or some secular god/creed or class oppression to protect the ruling class?  Is punishment (or “justice”) merely a sociological construction to maintain one groups dominance?  That definitely explains why Julian Assange is being “punished” (as well as historically Christ, Paul, and Socrates all of which got punished by the ruling powers).  If someone like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden for example was to be freed then the existing ruling powers would be unmasked and there maybe more future leakers or as  Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama refers to as "29 year hold hackers" or as Hillary Clinton refers to as "tools of Russian intelligence."  We both hold that punishment must in a way exist of some kind (even if it's merely extreme social ostracism) otherwise arguably there would be more murders and thefts even if they are only small time murderers and small time thieves not large states.  It's not only right wing libertarians or angry religious theonomists that punish people even in some sort of Chomsky style anarcho syndicalist commune there must be some kind of punishment for those who want to concentrate power or start a state/megacorporation.  Actual existing socialists or communists countries clearly punished people quite ruthlessly. The most ruthless prison system today is probably the North Korean prison system and the most ruthless historical system probably was East Germany with its mixture of high functioning society and tyrannical occupier state.  So punishment must be meted out to those who violate the creed of a society be whatever creed that is. If the creed is property rights then anyone who violates property rights must be punished. If the creed is anarcho syndicalism then anyone who wants to start a capitalist enterprise must be punished.  If the creed is progressive totalitarian humanism then anyone who wants to think otherwise must be punished.   After all feminists clearly think rape ought to be punished and most “right thinking persons” think that certain current and historical boogieman ought to be shot or removed even from photos as Stalin did.  In all of these possible societies and instances what ought to be done?  Is mass incarceration a solution? The trouble with this is it requires a huge amount of societal resources to imprison people long term and is a strictly modern phenomena.  Swithun thinks that corporal punishments and the death penalty are an improvement over the current system. Tim largely agrees even citing Michel Foucault pointing out that the modern totalitarian “humanist” therapeutic state has grown significantly on its various moral crusades to unfathomable levels and arguably is the most inhuman system ever built. The welfare state and the public school system system are arguably just an extension of them to warehouse unruly people who don’t fit into the current society which is not that different then historical societies. Maybe public caning or hanging would be an improvement over mass incarceration.

Ep 37. Is Moldbug's Ultracalvinism theory right?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses the work of Curtis Yarvin (also known as Moldbug) and whether his Ultracalvinism/super protestant theory is right.  The super protestant or ultracalvinism theory states that a certain form of Christianity which began in the reformation in parts of continental Europe then was transferred to England and then finally to the US is behind much of the social revolutions and change one has seen for better or worse.  Did Christianity cause all the social reform movements and revolutions which at times some conservatives and reactionaries dislike?   Did a certain form of Christianity cause/create the anti-slavery movement, feminism or  even forms of communism/socialism. Its worth pointing out that Engels was raised in a strict Calvinist family and Hegel and Kant had huge Christian influences or are outright Christians.  Cornel West (who is probably the English speaking worlds most famous "mainstream" public christian intellectual ) clearly is an example par excellence of what a modern day ultracalvinists looks like.  Even Slavoj Zizek considers himself a "Christian atheist."  Now West and Zizek of course  would reject Moldbug grand theory to explain it because of Moldbug's tone and some other views which won't be mentioned but nonetheless plenty of somewhat normie Christian evanglicals including NT Wright don't really differ that much in terms of social theory then say the then radical George Fox's Quakers when it comes to marriage or the then radical social democrats when it comes to politics or increasingly on theology.  Rothbard and Gary North for the most part agree with much of the moldbug framework of the ultracalvinists pipeline in there earlier writings.

Finally are conservatives, from NT Wright to William Buckley, that "conservative." What does NT Wright, William Buckley, and Barack Obama/Dave Cameron actually disagree about? What does a modern evangelical actually disagree about compared to a liberal Christian 30 or 50 years ago. Now it could be that these groups or persons aren't "true" Christians in the same way the Stalinists aren't "true" communists but nonetheless for better or worse certain forms of Protestantism has had a huge influence on topics ranging from democracy to family life.  Is Moldbug theory of social change being caused by certain forms of Protestantism which have spread indirectly or directly for better or worse almost everywhere right? 

Ep. 36 What is education for?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses education and what is it for?  Is there a difference between schooling and learning?  Is education in the mainstream state schools merely obedience training, signaling and an exercise in taking tests/writing papers to appease ones teachers or professors?  What ought an ideal education system's purpose be?  Swithun defines this as the cultivation of ones mind and body to do meaningful productive work and be a (good) whatever role one wants or is capable of (bus driver, father, mother, scientist, philosopher or electrician).  It is quite clear that the existing education system in the developed world does not provide many or all people with the opportunity described for development and meaningful work and worse still in-debts many persons in the US and wastes there time (opportunity cost) only to work at jobs which don't really need 4 to 8 years of formal education on top of the 13 years in primary/secondary schools.  The state schooling system doesn't even provide many people with community either and actually many boys in particular do not like school at all and are drugged in order to stay in school.  We then discuss homeschooling, deschooling and private  schooling and whether this provides a solution or a "less bad" solution.  Tim pushes back reluctantly at certain aspects of the deschooling and homeschooling movement as rather idealistic suggesting that considering how crooked society is at times you must learn to "play the game" (ie cheat, lie and appease a master such as a teacher or professor). It is quite clear that school sucks but is unclear whether it can be replaced.

Ep 35. What is the purpose of education? Money, class oppression, or indoctrination?

The Mindcrime liberty show discusses education, schooling, and the classroom. Why is it that the classroom at all levels is the least criticized institution in society? Is it because college professors and teachers have cushy and high status jobs and want to protect their privilege? Are professors and teachers prison guards? What is the purpose or telos of education? To make money? To achieve technical skills? Promote left wing ideas? Many historical universities were set up as “minister training” schools or theological schools of some variety which have changed far from this purpose. Is the purpose of education effectively obedience training to teach children and these new persons known as “adolescents” how to be good corporate slaves and good soldiers to fight in the states armies. Interestingly after their loss in the Franco Prussian war a Frenchman commented that the schoolmaster would win the next war. Furthermore, if you scrape away the idealist rhetoric of the civil rights movement one of the purposes of universal schooling, in particular for blacks, is to “Americanize” them in order to fight uncle Sam’s wars and be good citizens. So its quite clear that schools under traditional Christian or Socratic merits for the most part fallen far from the mark . Is schooling today merely ideological indoctrination and is there such a thing as “neutral” education free from ideology or theology. Is education merely sheepskin signaling as Bryan Caplan argues? What exactly is education’s purpose?

Ep.34 What is power? Who has the power? Is wielding power "bad."

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses power. Who has the power and what exactly is it? Does the "patriarchy," "matriarchy," "ruling class," "elites," "the state" "corporations," "white coat priesthood," "the deep state" or anyone have the power? Is wielding power "bad”? Who exactly gets to say what is "bad" and "good", or what is legal and illegal. Are there such things as powerless persons and does power flow both ways as Michel Foucault and Thaddeus Russell argued? Does the slave have more freedom in certain ways then the master as Thaddeus Russell has argued in his book Renegade History of the US and Michel Foucault's concept of the "shade." Even Christ and Paul in a way have a kind of inverted power hierarchy saying that the first shall be last and the last shall be first (Nietzsche of course argues that Christianity is a slave morality for weak people).

Isn't power a great thing? Man has the ability to turn buried fossils, running rivers, and atoms into productive energy. The population of the earth has exploded and if one is an honest humanist isn't more people a good thing? I know John Stuart Mill and Margaret Sanger  thought otherwise as well as many climate change fundamentalists.  Man also has come to some understanding of the way in which diseases and other ailments work and have reduced the infant mortality rate to the lowest in history and life expectancy still remains fairly high even with a recent slight drop off. After all classical Marxists believe that communism is superior to capitalism in terms of productive capability as a social organization and its not some sort of "anarcho-primitivism."  Marx himself praises capitalisms as breaking down the idiocy of ruling life and although complexities and nuances exist rural life tends to be quite "patriarchal" or backward.  So its quite clear that liberals, many conservatives, Marxists, and feminists (not merely randian objectivists,  misean libertarians or fascists) believe that exercising ones will or power upon nature or fellow man through social or material processes is a useful thing. Without industrialism its unclear that the feminist or Marxists would have anything to complain about.  Long live the bourgeoisie!  

 

"“The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."  Karl Marx.

Ep. 33 A politically incorrect discussion about Abortion, Pro choice, Murder, and what is life.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses abortion. We open up by pointing out that one of the world’s biggest boogieman especially according to the Left, as well as normie libertarians and conservatives, Richard Spencer, is pro choice for extremely politically incorrect reasons. It’s worth pointing out according to the CDC that in states that report by race/ethnicity whites and blacks both have roughly equal total numbers of abortions yet blacks only represent about 13 percent of the population. A large portion of this debate hinges on what exactly that thing is or isn’t. If it is merely a toothache or cow (animal rights activists aside) then we should kill it, trade it, experiment with it, sell it, or whatever one wants to do with “it.” If it’s a person then we should treat it as a person. One of the reasons why Tim is skeptical of the pro-life movement is the fact that much of the pro-life movement (including the pro-life woman who debated Walter Block) will disavow the “punish the mothers and doctors” position. Trump had a Freudian slip a while back and of course all the moderate Christians as well as the Left totally disavowed this viewpoint. I know prison abolitionists movement and crime is merely a social construction viewpoints exist but most people, in particular the Left/Left liberals/politically correct libertarian, think that school shooters should be punished. Effectively they are the same actions from an entity viewpoint (killing children). Swithun lays out what he describes as the anti-murder position quite effectively and its implications. We also discuss that pragmatically by allowing more free choices in particular when it comes to healthcare it would eliminate much of the supply. In a possible Ancapistan situation one could imagine that “Gary North Inc” will compete with “Margarat Sanger Inc.” for the right to control that entity. No solutions just tradeoff but its worth pointing out that depending on one's worldview things can be both features and bugs.  If your for the right for woman to choose that is a feature (and vice versa).  Ancapistan might allow for both in theory for better or worse.  

Ep 32. Mistaken, Evil, Ignorant or Good? Meno dialogue, human action, and choice.

The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses how Socrates/Plato’s concept in the Meno dialogue, as well as book one of The Republic, have wide ranging effects on ethics, theology, and what exactly is the good life. If you take the formalistic approach of ethics adopted by Plato it appears that no one really does evil and we discuss the implications small and large. Isn’t this the view that shows up in Misesian style economics where the choice you act upon by definition is the choice you thought was the best use of one’s time? The actions can vary from small things such as the small time thief to the murderer, or someone who wants to sit in bed all day smoking weed (or homeless on the street) and merely take advantage of charity or welfare from some benefactor. The actions can get comparatively larger such as going on a shooting rampage in a church or school, creating a party to hijack a state to kill certain ethnic groups, bomb Dresden, bomb Pearl Harbor, bomb Hiroshima, bomb the Federal Building or fly planes into the World Trade Center. In any of these cases do the various “theys” do these actions out of benevolence and for good in this formalistic way? Does malice as defined by Thomas Aquinas or evil as its colloquially known exist? Are any of the “bad men” in history truly evil or are they just making mistakes and have differing views about what the good life is and how to achieve it?

Ep 31 Why no one including Marxist and left anarchists (not merely H. Hoppe) believes in Democracy

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses Hans Hoppe’s criticism of democracy and why no else really believes in Democracy including various groups of the left: Left libertarians, Marxists, left anarchists, social democrats, and other factions who often times hide behind the word democracy when they in fact have other goals than just majority decision making. For all the criticism that Hoppe’s book the Democracy the God the Failed got, we subject that criticism toward the left. For example if a 51 percent group in a given area votes to outlaw homosexuality or no “fill in the blank group” allowed, would Kevin Carson, Richard Wolff, Cornel West, or you average leftists think that is legitimate even if it’s done “democratically”?

 

What if an elected party or person (and does so while campaigning) intends to abolish democracy and create a personal dictatorship? It is highly unlikely in either case the left or left-liberal groups would support these parties. Another problem about democracy is the existence of power, truth/science, division of labor, and class/gender/ethnic divisions. There is the classic 1984 line about the state saying that 2+2=5 whereas everyone would clearly say the answer is still four even if a democratic state did so. Whatever the actual “truth” of the matter on origins of the species, it is the case that in plenty of areas if the matter was put up for election intelligent design would be taught in school for better or worse.

One could always take the Foucauldian version of truth and say it’s merely power and that truth doesn’t exist which then you wind up with the Foucauldian critique of science as well as scientific imperialism (destroying traditional teachings on the grounds that they aren’t true...although if you read Stephen Meyer or watch him debate I am unsure if that is actually proven). which interestingly even itself ends up falsifying democracy as well.

There is also the classic elitists position as Michael Malice and Moldbug puts it that the “idiots who need leaders don’t have the ability or the right to pick them.” This dovetails with the classic claim that the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. Finally the hardcore Marxists, just as the hardcore libertarians, think of there are socio economic theories as being true regardless if they are elected and of course actual existing socialism/marxism tends to be quite undemocratic. It’s not like minorities under Fidel Castro or Stalin got treated well (just see the treatment of Afro-Cubans
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/26/1604234/-Fidel-Castro-s-Racist-legacy).

 

 

Finally we end with a discussion of why workplace democracy is a flawed idea which if executed needs work. This is what someone like Richard Wolff tends to argue for but as David Friedman points out the small dictatorship model (i.e. a restaurant or business run by a boss) with the right for employees to leave and start their own firm or get a different job is actually more effective, and as pointed out above, actual existing socialism is a dictatorship too where workers do not have very good choices. The advocates of workplace democracy and trade unionism also have to deal with the problems of outsiders and innovation. Do unions represent the interest of the consumers or foreigners or merely the workers? Arguably in the US, cops and teachers are too protected by trade unions. As far as technology is concerned trade unions can also promote backwardness by forcing higher prices and inefficient modes of production merely because workers are protected.