The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep. 151: Is Plato's Guardian model of the family right? Cutrone, Fraser & Caplan.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether Plato is right in his guardian family model where children are raised without knowing their precise parents. Will keeping parents anonymous cut down on favoritism (as well as disfavoritism) and make society more cohesive and less individualistic? Why are intellectuals so boring and traditional when it comes to family and marriage? Isn’t gay marriage “conservative” as opposed to free love or the platonic guardian system outlined in Plato’s Republic? If any kind of "Heaven" or Kingdom of God exists would monogamous marriage exist in that place or would it be more like Plato's proposed system? 

Ep. 150: Is there a market for truth?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether there is a market for truth? Do people want to know the truth, if it does indeed exist, and can it be produced on the “market”? What are the incentives for those who want to spread the truth? Do the so-called “traditional” print media and “journalists” do so? Did the internet make things better or worse? What exactly do so-called reporters and journalists do? Can someone “report” on an event such as a war which takes place in many different locations plenty of which have restricted access or only "selected" access by local authorities? Does everyone have a bias? Why even bother reading the so-called news if you aren’t sure it isn’t merely propaganda? Outside of voting better, which as good theoretical anarchists and libertarians know is a probably a waste of time, what can a news or truth consumer do?

Ep. 149: If Anarchism existed, would it be right-wing?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether anarchism, or abolishing the state, would lead to what is normally understood as right wing. There is a movement to try to transcend or render meaningless the terms left and right; however, even though the terms may not be entirely useful in all areas, this axis still reveals a lot of truth. Anarchism done in the 21st century and beyond will be abolishing the modern secular liberal managerial state not the ancien regime. If abolishing the modern managerial state one will also abolish state welfare, what Michel Foucault and Charles Murray would call warehousing the poor, as well as the state school system. If these institutions are abolished who will care for and educate the children? Who would care for the elderly and poor? The likely organizations or systems would commonly be called "right wing" or traditional. If abolishing the state merely leads to the abolishment of modern technology what scenarios will that lead to? If there is no birth control, maternity care, medicines and various other technologies it is unlikely modern gender norms will be sustained in this primitive society. Thus by common usage of the terms left and right it is unlikely that abolishing the modern state will lead to any scenario which is left-wing. Whilst there maybe fewer megacorps the left anarchists and left libertarian critics of megacorps misunderstand the progressive role they actually play in modern society. These aren't your grandad’s megacorps nor is this your great-great granddad's state which is being abolished. 

Ep. 148: Does the Left hate the poor? Are Charles Murray and Michel Foucault right?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether Charles Murray and Michel Foucault are right that the left hates the poor? Murray and Foucault are two intellectuals whom some might categorize as being at opposite purposes, they are in fact both critical of the modern managerial welfare state. When the modern left speaks of helping the poor arguably they are “warehousing” the poor by providing them a steady dose of just enough necessities which thereby creates dependency on the state.

Are those dependent on the state likely to criticize, let alone overthrow it? Welfare robs the poor of what Murray would call agency while also demobilizing them. Certain thinkers who at times are associated with the “right” have in the past defended welfare precisely on the grounds to co-op/prevent the revolution. The revolutionary left should appreciate this argument, which is arguably Foucault's leftwing part, by saying that warehoused poor won’t make very effective elite revolutionaries. Murray of course would make the point in coming apart and losing ground that undisciplined and unskilled persons aren’t exactly “flourishing.” Murray himself states that he first recognized this in a rather anthropological manner by working for the peace corp seeing how academics treated the so called “natives.” In this manner Foucault and Murray might be much closer than some think. As the classic aphorism states, if you give a man a fish he isn’t hungry for a day, but teach a man to fish he won't be hungry for a lifetime.

Ep 147: Is saving possible? #Bitcoin #Gold

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether it is possible to save for the future outside of actual material goods. Austro-Libertarians are famous for their criticisms of government backed fiat currency as either outright criminal or just a known fraud. If that criticism is the case, what value does anything denominated in US currency, as well as other fiat currencies such as the Euro, Yen and Pound, have considering state central banks have an incentive to create inflation as a silent tax? What value do the various stock markets have considering that a good portion of its value is backed up by central bankers creating “loose” fiscal conditions through a labyrinth of complicated measures? What value do public and private pensions have considering that a good portion of its value is backed up by the stocks and bond markets which in turn are backed by the printing press? What is the alternative? Is Bitcoin or precious metals the solution for long term savings? One of the problems which gold funds have is that if you don’t own the physical gold you are basically investing in a product which is only worth as much as the gold fund certificate states. In a crunch how much would that be worth? Bitcoin maybe a solution as well but considering the fact that mainstream institutions like Coinbase are very much tied into the financial system combined with the fact it uses lots of energy it poses problems. Land maybe a solution to save for the future but state expropriation through hard and soft means remains a problem. If the state makes it illegal to build anything on your land, or mine your land, it isn’t really your land. Effectively your land has been stolen from you but you keep the title. That land isn’t any more valuable than Hans Hoppe’s parents land in Eastern Europe which was stolen by the USSR (an example of hard state expropriation). How ought one to save for the future? Is the only way to reliably save for the future in material goods?

Ep. 146: Does universal voting damage family and friendships? #democracy #oligarchy #deepstate

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether eliminating voting would make family and friendships stronger. With the growing polarization which is occurring in the major "democracies” there is a growing trend of family, friendships, churches, marriages and business relationships being broken up on the grounds of who one votes for. Is this "rational" or a good state of affairs? Are friendships and families stronger in societies where voting obviously doesn't matter as much and/or the political system is more closed? Is this an argument against democracies? Should people date/marry and make friends with those who are strong supporters of the "other team"? Ought people care less about voting considering the likelihood of affecting the system is mathematically very low combined with the iron law of bureaucratic oligarchy?

Ep. 145: Was the Covid 19 regime failure a Black Pill or a White Pill?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether the “War on Covid regime failure” is a white pill (or provided many of what Sean Gabb calls collateral benefits) or was it a black pill? All three aspects of the war on Covid including vaccine mandates, masks and social distancing are retrospectively being renounced, or walked back/distanced, by most so-called experts. To paraphrase Peter Hitchens everyone thought they were a skeptic at the time but I can clearly recall that they were not. Does the fact that “the trust the science establishment” was dealt such a rhetorical blow count as a victory or is this merely a “cope”? There was no giant victory parade through London led by Neil Ferguson, nor one in Los Angeles with Fauci. Covid, which some at the time have attempted to describe as the biggest story since WWII, is being memory holed. Is the total embarrassment of the mainstream media, pharmaceutical companies and the “pink state”, counterbalance any of the nasty things that did occur or is the black pilled/pessimistic line the more correct and sober view? What should people on the Dissident Right and Libertarian movement think about the memory holed event which occurred almost 4 years ago?

Ep.144: Are non-profits profitable for society?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether non-profits are profitable? How does one judge an organization which doesn’t have profits and losses? Are some non-profits merely front organizations for billionaires to further enrich themselves and create good PR for them? Are some non-profits merely rackets to gain further donations to keep the organization alive? Are non-profits merely holding centers for people who can’t find effective employment in a “real” job so one must work at a fake job? Do non-profits pursue goals which are in principle unable to be judged? Are non-profit organizations nobler than for profit ones? Are many effective non profit-organizations, such as Churches, really just driven by egoism?

Ep. 143: Are extremists more logical than moderates?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether the extremists are more logical and clear than moderates? On a variety of issues it seems that those with the extreme viewpoints are more clear than those who are considered moderate. Is this merely a kind of genetic horseshoe fallacy or do the extremists have a commitment to consistency and rigor that “the adults in the room” don’t have? Extremists are often painted by the mainstream as being unintelligent un-nuanced persons but based on certain research, those with higher intelligence tend to hold extreme economic views. Is this the case in most areas? Do the Taliban, Leninists, Black Panthers, Maoists, Double Predestination Calvinists, Sedevacantists, Universalists, Southern Antebellum fire eaters, Jacobins, certain Feminists and Rothbardian anarchists have a kind of intellectual clarity that the moderate representatives of the positions don’t have? Are there any virtues to holding a middle position especially if it's an unprincipled compromise as Walter Block describes? Does history only remember the extremists? Do we only ever read so called extremists? Are extremist positions unliveable for the vast majority who work for and manage the state bureaucracy, state military, mainstream church or megacorps?

Ep. 142: How would an ideal society deal with low ability persons?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what an ideal, or libertarian, society ought to do with those of low abilities? One can dispute whether there would be as many in an ideal society with a freed market and stateless institutions; however, it seems that there would be a class of persons who aren’t competitive. Christians of the left and the right often times criticize libertarians for not caring about the poor namely not supporting welfare and various social programs. Libertarians would be quick to counter that many of the so-called programs are not effective and are probably harmful such as the mass schooling system as described by thinkers like Ivan Illich and Brian Caplan. Welfare itself is a system of warehousing the poor as Michel Foucault argues and destroys mutual aid networks by replacing it with State bureaucracy. What are some solutions for this problem and why would a libertarian society have less of them?