The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

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/

 

 

 

 

Ep. 96: Why do people do drugs? Is Brave New World right?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses, what is the purpose of drug use? By drugs we mean so-called recreational drugs and alcohol. Debates on what drugs are medicinal and what are recreational are quite fraught, but regardless, why do people use them? Do people use them to escape a bad reality? Do they use them for fun? Are the drug and alcohol prohibitionists right in that it ruins lives? Is Brave New World right about the usage of drugs as a way to maintain control over a population? What are the Marxists views on drugs? Why do some communist regimes like North Korea and Cuba have relatively strict drug laws? Did the Deep State create the drug culture in the west? What is Christianity's relationship to drug use? What in principle is the difference between riding a roller coaster and taking drugs? Why are certain drugs illegal while other drugs legal?

Ep 95: Can we escape ”Liberalism”? / Mark Fisher, Nick Land and Alasdair Macintyre/

The Mindcrime liberty show discusses whether “liberalism” is escapable? There are many similar words to describe the current ruling order and they can include what we used in our title, liberalism, as well as crony capitalism, late capitalism, liberal democracy or neoliberalism. It is true that Murray Rothbard wouldn’t call our current society pure capitalistic; however, the anti capitalists would call it capitalists. It is also true that Mark Fischer and David Graeber wouldn’t of course call this existing order socialists or democratic; however, many of its right wing critics would. Neoliberalism may be the most technical but very few people identify as such. Naming and categorization problems aside, whatever one wants to call this “ancien regime” is it escapable? We answer this question in the negative by using the work of three acclaimed thinkers of different backgrounds: Mark Fischer, Nick Land and Alasdair Macintyre. For all their seeming disagreements they all agree that no tolerable or likely socio political order is going to emerge to this current order unless a breakthrough form of technology emerges. Even if that emerges, that is likely to emerge within the existing liberal capitalistic democracies themselves and be somewhat under the current regime anyways.

Mark Fisher in his book Capitalist Realism makes the argument that a lot of what conservatives consider to be woke cultural victories isn’t a win for the “true” left. The universities are commonly criticized by the right as being left wing but as Fisher argues they are the ground floor of sorting and reproduction of the existing corporate capitalists' society at all levels. To him they and their students/employers aren’t a bastion of revolution and if anything a kind of woke styled regime conservatism. Selling anti capitalist movies such as Wall-e or Black Panther, in the capitalist mode by mega corporations like Disney or Netflix to Fischer/Zizek is arguably a draw. Fischer and Zizek think a lot of the LGBT issues if anything strengthen the appeal of the current order. Disney of course isn’t a pure capitalists' corporation on Rothbardian terms but is technically competent compared to most of its competitors. So called socialists like a Bernie Sanders can’t even beat a Hillary Clinton let alone be in the position to seize the means of production. Maybe reactionaries should be happier considering the grim condition that self described lefties view themselves?

Speaking of reactionaries Macintyre in After Virtue attacks the spectre of pessimistic Marxists arguing that in some sense they cease to be Marxists by losing their optimism in human society. Once they become pessimists they in a way become reactionaries of some variety in practice which leads to the odd categorization problem of actual existing socialist revolutions being functionally “right wing.” Stalin has show trials and gulags which make the historical ancien regime look like humanistic lightweights. By Rawlsian terms arguably a lot of so called western capitalist societies are more "humanist" than any actual existing socialist society. In North Korea today a kind of horrific parody of socialism exists. Paradoxically some paleo conservatives today look with some amount of affinity at the historical USSR as being moderately cultural conservative which kept a lid on social lifestyle issues as well keeping out the megacorps like Disney and McDonalds.

Our third thinker we included is Nick land who has direct ties to our first thinker in Mark Fischer. Nick Land is a kind of hyper capitalists who views China as the future but China seems to be looking more backward by the day even before the shutdown. If China is the society of the future it seems that it may not exist demographically or politically if you take the work of Peter Zeihan seriously. Its entire economic rise is based on cheap manufacturing exports to the so called enemy liberal democracies themselves all backed up by the US Navy (a service which it can’t provide currently). It seems that the liberal capitalist democracies have a lot of punch left in them compared to their likely competitors. For all the collapse narratives is this ruling order of the US and its allies/vassals along with the megacorp culture escapable internally or externally? Is “neoliberalism” more secure than ever?

Ep 94: What is a woman? Ft. Natty.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Natty to discuss, what is a woman? What is the biological basis of male and female? Is there a third sex? Some in the Dissident Right have argued that women are childlike. Is this true? Either way, what are the general psychological differences between men and women? Given typical female psychology, are the Pick-up Artists right or are they only correct about more K strategist women? What kind of relationship do women want with their husband? Do they want the dominant Alpha Chad telling them what to do all the time or do they want their own space and agency? Given how many tasks have been outsourced from the home, do traditionally minded wives need to home educate to bring the sense of female agency back within the home? Would arranged marriages for daughters on average improve the quality of their husbands? Are arranged marriages even possible in the modern West with the level of geographical mobility?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ep 93: Why is wealth inequality a problem? W/Todd Lewis

The Mindcrime liberty show is joined by Todd Lewis to discuss whether wealth inequality is a problem and why? What are the causes of wealth inequality? Is wealth inequality just an extension of talent inequality? Who or what ideology is to blame? What can be done? Would wealth inequality be a problem for Ancapistan? Are interest and absentee landlordism always going to cause excessive wealth inequality?

Ep 92: What is the purpose of sex?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what is the purpose of sex, especially in developed societies with effective birth control? The “natural” answer, whether one is dealing with animals or humans, is to create offspring which is no longer the answer since the invention of birth control. With its rise, things have changed significantly, with pleasure and peer bonding added into the mix of reasons to do it; they have arguably become the central reason. For much of human history there wasn’t really any cheap, reliable, available and effective birth control. If healthy fertile people did the act then children would result. As Walter Block’s opponent argued, this is what is “supposed” to happen if everything is working. The invention of effective inhibiting measures has arguably changed society even more than steam engines. Everyone in a sense family plans, which has led to the drop of birth rates almost everywhere. The post-Soviet states and East Asia are in demographic collapse. Even Iran has declined and arguably the Third World will follow. Abortion and the rise of people having no children are commonly brought up but what tends to be forgotten is the pro-natal people are having fewer children.

 

If one goes back three generations, most westerners can find people with ten plus children. In the past high birth rates did coincide with high infant mortality rates but the number of live children is quite historically low all things considered. Is this entirely due to family planning? What are the other reasons if any? If sex isn’t mainly for child production then what are the consequences for the family and society? Is the left-wing Anglican Giles Fraser right to support same-sex marriage for the purposes of peer bonding? Is the infamous Mr Spencer right that abortion is mainly birth control for certain classes of people? Is the campus “rape culture” and “date rape” an extension of the divorcing of sex from reproduction?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ep 91: Is Arranged marriage defensible?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether arranged marriage is defensible. The divorce rate in the UK is 33% and 50% in the USA so alternative marriage arrangements need to be considered. Is an approved list of marriage candidates preferable to parental veto or typical American dating? Are the lower divorce rates with arranged marriage good evidence for its desirability? Is arranged marriage possibly in modern western with high levels of geographical mobility? In that case, what is the best way to encourage good spousal choice? Would treating marriage more like a standard financial investment help?