The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep. 131: Who won the Nassim Taleb vs. Gary North debate?

Who won the Nassim Taleb and Gary North “debate"? There was no actual debate that happened; rather, the Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses an early essay written by the legendary Mises institute speaker and author Gary North, which critiqued Nassim Taleb’s very first and arguably best book, Fooled by Randomness. In that essay North perceptively picks up that Taleb is a Hayekian by adapting the evolutionary defense of the market and for that matter society. North, a Misean and Creationist, is of course opposed to this randomized view of society which is further strengthened by the fact that a robust account of evolution isn’t exactly random either. What does Taleb get right and what does Gary North get right? Is Taleb (as well as Hayek) really an intellectual suicide bomber as North argues? North does praise Taleb at times but even that praise is somewhat backhanded. How predictable is the world and what kind of mathematical models can be used to understand social and physical reality? Does not Taleb and the Miseans, like North, agree that most mathematical models used in social sciences are quite useless, if not harmful? The only difference is that Taleb thinks his mathematical empiricism is better because it takes into account rare events and extreme risks where current models don’t. Would a Taleb informed mathematical economics (as well as social sciences) be an improved enemy for the a prior praxeological based Miseans to deal with?

 

Ep. 130: The Euthyphro dilemma of art, music and films

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses the Euthyphro dilemma of art, music and films. To paraphrase the Euthyphro dilemma of theology, is good art merely good because powerful people and institutions say it's good, or are there some timeless propaganda-free and power-free ways to judge art? If the New York Times or Guardian reviews a film highly but more independent critics and the audience “pan” it, can they make a bad film (or other forms of art) “good.”? Can powerful persons and institutions deem “bad” art “good” merely by using their clout to create tastes? More practically how should lay persons treat professional critics and reviewers?

Ep. 129: If abortion is murder, is contraception murder?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether contraception, including natural family planning, is murder, if indeed abortion is murder? If humans, in particular couples who view abortion as murder, engage in sex while knowingly frustrating the natural consequences of the act, what is the difference between that and many abortions (in particular those that occur early on which are the majority)? The humans doing this intercourse are not ignorant of the mechanics of the act, unlike certain supposed isolated tribes or animals, thus ignorance is not a defence. Even if this process isn’t murder, what is the ethics of “family planning?” If one "steelmans" the pro-choice argument, as well as looking at the empirical data, abortion is a kind of ersatz family planning which is used by people of low impulse control which was infamously pointed out by Richard Spencer. Even if contraception isn’t murder and abortion is, what are the ethics of using contraception especially if one thinks abortion is murder? Will the pro-life movement go after contraception? Should they? How many children ought a couple, or a society, have? If sex is merely about peer bonding and not procreation what exactly do so many paleo-conservatives have to complain about with respect to other sexual acts?

Ep. 128: Is marriage a form of slavery?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether marriage is a form of slavery. Feminists, as well as other radical thinkers, view marriage as a form of slavery from which the individual needs to be liberated. Currently many men's rights advocates would posit that men of all classes can and do get exploited by marriage laws. It seems that both sides have a low view of marriage, yet unlike chattel slavery, marriage is a social institution which continues on. Marriage rates may not be as high as in the past but why do both men and woman (as well as same sex couples) choose to become part of this seemingly reactionary institution? Free love seems to be the revolutionary position as opposed to monogamy, and if one asks Plato/Socrates the ideal system is a kind of common ownership of children. Why don’t other forms of human relationships get tried and what explains the persistence of this seemingly reactionary institution? Is it a killer app and the only reasonable way to raise children? Is marriage really a form slavery? Are people choosing to “sign” themselves up for slavery?

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.