The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep 111: What causes the decline of civilization? W/Rik Storey.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, what causes the decline of the civilisations? Does improved material standard of living lead to selfishness? Do late stage civilisations value artistic endeavours above ancient military heroes? Do the populations then neglect public institutions which are needed to maintain social order? Does the increased political participation of women, historically and presently, aid the decline? Does specialisation lead to the feminisation of men? How can we arrest the decline?

Ep 110:Are nuclear weapons a win for liberty and decentralization?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether nuclear weapons are a win for liberty and decentralization. Since nuclear weapons exist and one can’t put the genie back in the bottle, what should libertarians, anarchists and the Right think about them? Are they an a priori offensive weapon? Are nuclear weapons a way for small states (or a hypothetical libertarian society) to project force against large states to prevent aggression? Should Libya, and for that matter Ukraine, kept its nuclear weapons? Are North Korea and Israel pursuing a rational strategy?  Do Nukes protect Russia from regime change? Do nukes put skin in the game for elites of a given society to seek diplomacy instead of escalation? Is mutually assured nuclear annihilation an improvement over the previous eras’ weapons systems? Do nuclear weapons explain the so-called long peace, if indeed there is a long peace, better than other theories such as the monstrosity known as the Kantian democratic peace theory?

Ep. 109: Is voting a waste of time?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether voting is a waste of one’s scarce time? Is voting cooperating with evil? Is voting for the lesser of two evils or a third party a useful strategy? Is Walter Block right? What are the dangers of third parties? 
Aren’t things like the “socialist” or “libertarian” party merely a theoretical contradiction? If they do win, what will the existing bureaucracy, military industrial complex and deep state “allow” them to do? If John F. Kennedy allegedly told De Gaul that he didn’t know who was in charge of this government back then, what would a Jill Stein, Ron Paul or Jo Jorgensen be “allowed” to do? Are “outsider” or “disrupter” politicians, both left and right, useful? Is voting for Thomas Massie or Ron Paul a good thing to do? If the deep state and bureaucracy is really in charge the accusation of formally cooperating with evil becomes less salient considering that no elected official actually decides anything so voting for the official is no cooperation at all. 
Are the formal voting mechanisms of the so-called liberal democracies like the US, Canada, France and UK much different than say Chinese, Russian or North Korean elections which the former like to accuse the latter of being compromised? Can a case still be made to head out to the polls especially if the opportunity cost is quite low? What are the benefits and costs of dropping out? Is the discrediting by low turnout a useful strategy? Are there dangers in identifying with politicians and political parties?

Ep 107: How do people come to believe what they believe?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss belief formation. Why and how do people come to believe what they believe? Is it reason, genetics, social environment or simply opportunistic pragmatism? Or more malevolently is it propaganda and indoctrination combined with cowardice and weakness of will that are the real causes of beliefs in most people? Does ignorance, living in a bubble and lack of self reflection play a role? Is there any difference between so called elites and everyday people? Who has a more robust usage of reason and a greater degree of self-reflection? Are many of today's western media and political elites mostly blind ignoramuses? Do most people generally only reflect on means, rather than ends?

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.