The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep. 127: Can the vegans be stopped?

The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses veganism. Why don’t vegans care about plants? Can the vegans (hopefully) be stopped? Are frugivores the most consistent? Is being a vegetarian, let alone a frugivore, healthy? Are vegans anti-human? Are environmentalism or animal rights the primary pro-vegan argument? What is the best way to refute the growing vegan movement? Is veganism a form of post-Christian secular religion?

 

Ep. 126: Who exploits whom? Hoppe, Marx and Kaczynski.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses who exploits whom? Is modern society merely exploitative a la Ted Kaczynski? Is the modern state exploitative? Do the unemployed exploit the employed? Is capitalism as defined by Marx exploitative? Is everyone in the periphery exploited by the first world? Are absentee landlords exploitative? Are central banks defined by Mises exploitative? If exploitation does indeed exist, who exploits whom?

 

Ep 125: Did Christianity create modern feminism? Is feminism orthodox or heretical? Ft. Rik Storey

Rik Storey joins The Mindcrime Liberty show to discuss, did Christianity create feminism? The idea that Christianity raised the status of woman in the 1st century is fairly undisputed; however, are the forms of feminism practiced today still Christian? The right to vote both in the US and UK was largely pushed through at the behest of Christian organizations. The suffrage movement was very Christian in its aims, and as historian Thaddeus Russell would joke, the first thing they did is ban alcohol in the US. Is the growth of Islam in the West, Paganism and Men's rights movement a reaction to this? Are the modern Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, increasingly full of and run by women? Is the feminist interpretation of Christianity correct or merely a heresy? When did this heresy begin and how could it be corrected?

 

Ep. 124: Why do Sean Gabb and Chris Cutrone agree so much?

The Mindcrime LIberty Show discusses why do seeming diametrically opposed intellectuals agree on so much? For instance, Sean Gabb, whom we interviewed twice, has given talks at forums ranging from the Libertarian Alliance to the Property and Freedom Society, and Chris Cutrone, a Marxists-Leninist who is a key member of the Platypus affiliated society? Is this agreement only surface level? They both agree that the War in Ukraine is a pointless proxy war, both have similar views of the current existing political and economic ruling class of the West, both view that their side's strategy has failed and both are rather pessimistic about any radical change in the near to medium future. Both Gabb and Cutrone think that art in the broad sense will play a central role, if ever changes do occur. The fact that Sean Gabb and Chris Cutrone agree seemingly on so much isn’t merely rooted to them. If you go down the list of radical libertarians and radical Marxists there is seemingly much common ground on the fringes. Cutrone himself gets accused of being “right-wing” by students, faculty, as well as other left wingers. Marx himself at times gets viewed as “right-wing” by the current day left. Is this common ground only apparent common ground? Why is this the case? Does this have to do with a seemingly shared lineage of Adam Smith?

Ep 123: Was Jeffrey Tucker and Ron Paul Right, and Hans Hoppe and the ”Bordertarians” wrong?

The Mindcrime Liberty show discusses whether Jeffrey Tucker, as well as Ron Paul, was right about Trump and the broader issues of the national security state with respect to immigration, as compared to Hans Hoppe. In his lecture/essay on realistic libertarianism Hans Hoppe goes after Jeffrey Tucker by name and argues for what is pejoratively called by left libertarians the “bordertarian” position. Regardless of whether this position is desirable, what ought libertarians do if the state is hostile to their tribe? Ron Paul in his failed presidential campaign made the deeply pessimistic point that the “walls,” broadly considered, would be used against the existing majority populations which advocated them. With the rise of the war on covid the West was subjected to varying forms of border control. Jeffrey Tucker very publicly opposed this security state whilst Trump bragged about operation warp speed and being boosted! This conversation predates this question and dates at least as far back as the War on Terror where normie conservatives inaugurated a huge amount of intrusive measures and programs which now have been used against the domestic population including lockdown skeptics, traditional catholics, dissident bloggers and gun owners. Would a tough on crime and immigration security apparatus be used against many of the people who advocate it? Is the cost worth the benefit? Was Ron Paul and Jeffrey Tucker right?

 

Ep. 122: Why Hoppe and Paul are right & Mises and Moldbug are wrong.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why Hans Hoppe and St. Paul provide a better answer to the origins of laws, as well as why the state is an outlaw to them, than compared to Mises and Moldbug (Curtis Yarvin). Mises and Moldbug are both classical liberals who support a minimum state monopolist of law and order. As Hans Hoppe argues in the Democracy the G** that Failed, the classical liberals criticized monarchical states as being “above” the law; however, this problem is also true of so-called democratic states and their officials/politicians. Hoppe goes after classical liberal democratic states as being probably worse on praxeological grounds than monarchical ones because of time preference. These classical liberal small states where everyone is ostensibly equal to the law and has in theory equal access to becoming a politician over time become large bloated managerial, and at times totalitarian states, which either fail or become anarcho-tyrannical. Far from supporting order, these states are promoting disorder.  A clear case of this is somebody who is defending his home from a violent intruder and shoots them. In Canada and the UK the state will go after you for murdering the intruder. Mises and Moldbug have no clear way of preventing this state action. The virus of the state on an intellectual level must be stopped at the root, not merely kept in check. 

If one is going to have a private law society or “anarchy”, what kinds of laws without a state will be enforced? How will they be enforced and why will people obey? To answer that question one must ask where do laws come from and why do people obey them in the current existing society. To answer this question, one must either turn to the apostle Paul who represents a kind of transcendental answer as to what laws should exist and why people obey them, or turn to Hayek who is a more thorough going naturalist. If there is one error of Hoppe, it is the origin story of Mises is incomplete unless some kind of theism is true. If naturalism is true, then laws emerge via evolution. Reasonable laws could be enforced without a state if one takes austro-libertarian class analysis seriously. Those laws will be obeyed if people are good natured enough and mostly act out of self-interest. If people aren’t good natured then why would giving some men a monopoly and allowing them to operate in practice above the law be a solution anyways? This solution is the solution which Moldbug and Mises in practice advocate.

Ep. 121: What is a good life? Does Bill Gates live a better life than a homeless man?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, what is the nature of the good or ideal life? Are Amish farmers, McDonald's workers or the homeless living a better life than billionaires, trust fund babies and the power elite? Does work or some form of productive activity a component of a good life and make one "happier"? Is having friends and family a part of a good life or is being a reclusive hermit preferable? Is the Nozick experience machine or Zizek's joke about lemonade and pornography really a good life? Is merely consuming for base pleasures that pleasurable?

Ep. 120: Is selfishness a virtue? W/Rik Storey

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses with Rik Storey, whether seflishness is a virtue? Is Ayn Rand right? Or are the Christian and some communist critics of her right? Does not one need to care for oneself in order to care for others? Is selfishness merely the excess of necessary love to oneself? Aren't most uses of be less selfish by the state and society merely tools of more exploitation? For example, take this Big Pharma unproven j@b, or pay higher gas prices to help the environment and the Ukraine. Was Christ himself purely selfless?

Who is the freest man: Boss, Employee, Master or Slave?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses who is the freest man: the slave, employee, boss or owner? Is Thaddeus Russell's Renegade History of the United States correct in arguing that many abolitionists thought that slaves were too free? Is Aristotle's theory of slavery right? Does this analysis extend into other forms of so called modern "slavery" such as so called wage slavery? Do Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates "work" longer hours than there minimum wage employees? Was Thaddeus Russell right when he debated with Michael Brooks, in that workers managing the means of production would require lots of meetings which not everyone wants to do? Do all people desire or have the capability to be a "boss"? Is there a slavery of being an owner in either the modern form or the historical forms? Are "leaders" held to higher standards or lower standards than their subordinates?

 

Ep 118: Is free speech a Unicorn?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether anyone believes in free speech without limitations? Free speech is commonly cited as a value of certain groups; however, does any society live up to that standard at any time? Can free speech exist in a fashion which meets the SlateStarCodex/GK Chesterton standard, whereby the genuine outgroup gets to say whatever it wants without consequences, formal or informal? What level of punishment or consequences given to verboten ideas means free speech no longer exists? Did free speech exist for Communists in America in the 1950s? Did free speech exist for Christians in the USSR? Did free speech exist for atheists in Zwingli’s Geneva? Did free speech exist during the world wars in any society? Did free speech exist during the “War on Covid”? It is quite clear in all these cases that the outgroup faced consequences or merely the inability to spread the message they wanted to a large audience. Does harassment and doxxing count as free speech? Should right-libertarians support free speech? Does free speech in areas which are genuinely relevant even exist? If an issue is important enough, wouldn’t the cost of being right/wrong or politically correct/incorrect be high? Is free speech a unicorn?