The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep 106: Is Collapse and Decline Inevitable?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses decline and collapse.  Why are so many dissident and fringe thinkers, as well as many mainstream ones, often believers in some form of coming collapse? For both the Left and Right this could be economic, cultural and/or an environmental collapse. Do the thinkers really believe in the decline (i.e. performative contradiction) and is it happening? What does it mean for a civilization to be in decline for 100s of years or in some cases thousands of years? Is this just a form of crying wolf (or rather collapse)? What institutions or metrics are weaker now than they were years ago?

Ep 105: Does Humility Exist?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses humility and whether it exists. Bishop Barron as well as many other Christians and ethicists praise humility. If it does exist what is it and is it a virtue? Can someone actually be humble in a non-contradictory manner without it becoming humble bragging? What is humility in the context of knowledge? Is extreme skepticism the most or least “humble” position? Are state appointed experts acting with “humility” when they prescribe certain policies or actions to be done? Are the people who question them more humble?

 

Ep. 104: Is War Popular? W/Keith Preston.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Keith Preston to discuss whether war is popular. War seems to be popular amongst a variety of classes, sectors and worldviews throughout time and places, especially in modernity or bourgeois society. Whether war was more or less common before the 1800s is a good question but seemingly most of the populace, including the soldiers themselves, go along with most wars.

The armies of modernity especially in the major conflicts are quite large and are equipped at great expense. There are structural ways one could argue oneself out of this seeming popularity but most wars are supported for a time. Although there are drafts and propaganda many soldiers willingly sign up and public support generally remains. Furthermore, plenty of frontline soldiers enjoy the fighting, the danger and camaraderie. Of course there is the PTSD story which needn’t be forgotten but this is arguably not the main takeaway. It couldn’t be considering the size of the armies in conflicts such as the Napoleonic Wars, WWI and 2.

Is modern bourgeois society too peaceful and boring? One could of course try to say it isn't that peaceful but the critique of alienation or boredom is a common criticism of modernity. Do people have a psychological need for conflict against an enemy? Is the media to blame? Why does the “mainstream” media seem to support many wars? Why is there so much popular demand for stories about wars both fictional and real? Is perpetual peace possible or even desirable? What would make wars, in particular state wars, less popular?

Ep 103: Who owns the land: Marx, Hoppe or Crazy Horse?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses who owns the land by using three figures to represent differing positions: Karl Marx, Hans Hoppe and Crazy Horse.  We argue that there is much overlap between the Marxists and Hoppean position as opposed to the Crazy Horse position. If in order to own land one must mix one's labor with it, then there is no way that Crazy Horse, or any nomadic group, could own all the land.  Marxists themselves, as much as they ridicule libertarian property theory, have a kind of ownership theory themselves which has more affinities than commonly thought as Hans Hoppe demonstrates in his lecture what Marx gets right. 
If laborers are entitled to the full value of their labor, as well as the means of production which in this case includes the land, then there is no room for absentee landlords.  The Marxists analysis arguably leads to the politically incorrect conclusion that the hunter gatherer natives are absentee landlords engaged in hoarding and monopolizing large swaths of valuable land which isn’t theirs. This is especially true if Left Libertarians want to advocate open borders in the current existing society on the grounds that there is open land considering that in the past more “open” land was available.  Even if the natives could demonstrate they own the land, which for much of it would be rather difficult, the current existing landowners tend to be the best land users. The conflict between a more technologically advanced society and a nomadic one is a conflict which arguably the Marxists are on the side of Columbus, Custer and numerous others.  Karl Marx praises the breakdown of rural idiocy which in this case could well include the natives. University of Washington Professor Stuart Reges was arguably channelling Marx when he said “[the] Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington”. 

Ep 102: Can children consent to anything at all?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses consent especially with respect to children and minors. When ought an ideal society start treating children as adults? Is consent itself a sound doctrine? Even though some anti-liberals and natural law advocates criticize the doctrine of consent, could a society function without it? It seems as if even in tyrannical societies or older ones, certain aspects of consent exist. Children and minors don’t have as many rights and are under the aegis of their parents or the state. Are children a kind of slave? Should children be granted more rights at a younger age? Why has modern society continuously raised the seeming age in which children are “full adult humans” and not merely dependents of a kind? Is this “slavery” by their parents/state/teachers a kind of “benevolent” slavery which is necessary?

Ep 101: What is health and can public health exist?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses health, or more precisely the incoherent and tyrannical concept known as “public” health.  If by public one means the state, the current state has no interest in health and flourishing outside of some narrow do gooder definition. One needn’t go full conspiracy to recognize this fact, rather, the state doesn’t have the right incentives to care for individuals, let alone the general public. De facto state subsidized and regulated monopoly megacorporations aren’t worthy of trust either. 

Health itself is a disputed term, and the tradeoffs which go into what is and isn’t healthy have changed over time. What defines a healthy individual let alone a healthy public isn’t entirely clear and the bureaucratic state has no right in answering that question. The health industry, centered in the modern hospital, has a mediocre track record to put it generously since the start of the industrial revolution. 

There are certain areas which have had breakthrough treatments but the phenomena of iatrogenics (harm done by the healer) cannot be understated. State run or regulated hospitals themselves, much like public schools or prison, are a dreary prison-like building which can cost the individual or society a fortune while only adding a few years at high “human” quality of life cost. 
Many treatments administered by the healthcare industry may ultimately be not worth the added misery which ignores the financial/opportunity cost to a given procedure. 

Furthermore, the public health industry ends up treating all patients as being homogenous forgetting how much heterogeneity exists within humans. Whether the American “model” or single payer is “better” is a good question; however, neither seems particularly desirable overall. 
Both models are highly state centered. The state itself and the highly regulated “market” have in the narrow and wide sense promoted and implemented policies which are contra health. Numerous examples exist and one of the best is the FDA pyramid guidelines which are now recognized as promoting obesity and diabetes. Requiring young children to sit all day and even medicating boys is surely not healthy. Promoting two working parents as an ideal clearly means the quality of food eaten is less than ideal. 

The very fact that many societies are aging, or even in decline, one has to ask…is this a healthy population? To paraphrase Murray Rothbard, anytime someone mentions public health one should keep a keen eye on your wallet and your own health, because it's about to be wrecked.

Ep. 100: Is following ”politics” or podcasting a waste of time?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether “following” politics, and more broadly culture, then podcasting about it is a waste of time?  Why bother doing it all? Are “apolitical” “unaware” people happier?  Can these classes of persons really exist?  Are we doomed to be interested in these subjects? Are most political and social commentators who are sufficiently “radicalized” largely a pessimistic, dreary lot? Why not get another hobby which makes one "happier" or work more? Is influence even desirable?  Aren’t most successful political podcasters and commentators merely government/megacorp backed narrative builders, or petit bourgeois grifters after money?  Can one actually “unplug?”  What are the costs and benefits of being somewhat aware of the nature of the world and discussing it somewhat publicly via a podcast?  Is the online world now more important than the offline world?  Is podcasting and blogging an improvement over historical means of communication and information dissemination?

Ep. 99: Is the death penalty more humane than life imprisonment?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses the death penalty by inverting the usual way it is discussed: is it more humane then life in prison? If punishment in itself is just and an institution or individual desires to carry it out, which is the best form? Generally punishment is done for reasons of justice, isolation or deterrence. Maybe punishment in itself is unjust but if a heinous act occurs (someone murders an innocent person’s entire family) are most people or societies going to go full Anabaptist and forgive them? Thus, for most societies and individuals some form of punishment is required. 

Lifetime incarceration, especially if it’s done humanely, is expensive (which requires taxing the innocent or using charity) and doesn’t really function as a punishment. It only meets the isolation criterium. Oftentimes actual existing lifetime incarceration isn’t that humane. For one thing the conditions of many prison’s aren’t particularly humane either (hence it’s inhumane to keep someone locked up for ones whole life): take a look at some second or third world prisoners, or for that matter American prisoners in Guantanamo Bay or where Julian Assange is being kept. Some prisoners are locked in solitary confinement without human interaction, sunlight or for that matter any stimulus. Other prisons are inhumane precisely because the other prisoners create a very toxic culture. One solution to resolve the cost problem is to make prisoners labour. This is not a new phenomenon and as Jimmy Dore points out California has used prison labour to fight forest fires while paying them next to nothing. Making prisoners work resolves the cost problem; however, creates an incentive problem that could promote entrapment of some kind. It also furthers the prison industrial complex as well which gives the prison ward a kind of free revenue. The dilemma seems to be that lifetime incarceration if done “humanely” is expensive for the broader society and doesn’t really function as a punishment if a particular heinous act is done. If prison labour is used to fund it this creates inhumane conditions which create incentives problems and undermines the usual way society operates. Would the death penalty be more humane then the actual existing alternatives while not undermining the broader labour market? The death penalty can be quite cheap and quick. Finally, what is the death penalty’s relationship to Christianity? Is punishment “Christian”? Wouldn’t most criticisms of the death penalty also apply to the brutal forms of lifetime incarceration? If the prison isn’t “brutal” then why bother with punishment at all? Would the death penalty resolve many of these issues?

Ep. 98: Are Ad Hominem Arguments Useful? /w/terminal philosophy/

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss whether ad hominem arguments are useful. The ad hominem fallacy as well as the closely related whataboutism point is routinely viewed as an invalid form of argumentation. It is not a logical inconsistency rather a pragmatic inconsistency. In best practice, it is pointing out that the person does the very thing that they are against in their formal argumentation. A common example is the smoker who tells their child not to smoke. The child asks, “If smoking is so bad, why are you doing it? What about your own smoking habit?” Another example is, someone complaining about the Ukraine being invaded by Russia and you point out “what about the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq”? A third example of this is in the case of climate change. If climate change is so bad why are you living by the sea and flying around in private jets? A fourth example is with respect to lockdowns: if lockdowns do really save lives, why are the elites themselves not following the rules they advocate?  In all these circumstances the whataboutism point seems to be not only relevant but more relevant then the abstract logical point.  In all these circumstances it seems that the arguer doesn’t take the argument they are making seriously in their own case. Why is that not relevant and salient information?

Ep 97: Can societies exist without elites? / w/Keith Preston /

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Keith Preston to discuss whether a society without elites or a ruling class could exist? What exactly are elites and do they occur in most societies? Is there such a thing as a non-exploitative “elite”? Is Hayek right in why the worst get on top? If having power over others is the defining feature of elites what exactly is the power that they have? Where does that power come from? Do democracies create worse elites than autocracies or monarchies? Are elites a kind of category of people or are they merely the result of the system? Are first generation elites more innovative and dynamic then later iterations of elites?

 

Link to 3 part essay mentioned by Keith Preston entitled Sheep, Wolves, and Owls 

https://attackthesystem.com/2011/07/03/a-reply-to-matthew-lyons-part-three-sheep-wolves-and-owls/