The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

Ep. 86: Should public intellectuals be more like Ric Flair?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy to discuss whether Public intellectuals should be more like Ric Flair. Flair in a way invented professional wrestling, in particular the part that makes it fun: the flamboyant gregarious trash talking promos. Should public intellectuals adopt this posture at times especially when they are right or think they will be right? Would this make learning and politics more “ fun” and make it easier to pay attention? In our previous discussion with Terminal Philosophy we discussed how both Alex Jones and Graham Hancock are public figures who are extremely entertaining compared to the aging dinosaur establishments they are up against. The big danger is that sophists will of course use this tactic to their full advantage but it is not clear that established institutions can be capable of engaging in this behavior over the long term with any authenticity. Are intellectuals headed this way anyway? Ought intellectuals act this way?

Ep 85: Does grammar exist? w/Rik Storey.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether grammar exists with Rik Storey. What are the rules of grammar and where do they come from? Is grammar merely a useful social construction? Is there such a thing as universal grammar and is Chomksy right? Does grammar’s existence imply a kind of divine order? Is there such thing as “correct” grammar or does it evolve over time and in different places? How does one improve on grammar if it is indeed so subjective? Is grammar authoritarian or libertarian?

Ep 84: What does a community devoted to Free Speech look like? Feat. Right Ruminations

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Right Ruminations to discuss what a community devoted to free speech would look like. Is free speech in decline and if so when did it reach its zenith? Why is free speech valuable? What is the relationship between free speech and excellence? How would a free speech society deal with heretics? What place would the university have in a free society? Would they encourage public debates with the heretical views? How should employers view speech of employees outside of work? Does freedom of speech conflict with freedom of association?

Ep 83: Are rent and interest slavery?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether interest and rent are a form of soft slavery? Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State and Utopia assumes no one defends slavery and the Marxists view capitalism as just an updated form of serfdom defined by exploitation. Two of the key aspects of capitalism are interest on capital and rents collected on property. Are landlords and rent collectors the beneficiaries of a form of exploitative soft slavery? Are those persons who collect gains on capital indirectly benefiting from a form of exploitative toil? For the economic left, what would be the attributes of a system which isn’t defined by exploitation? Is this the contents of an empty box? What are the benefits of interest and rent? Why would anyone save and grow the amount of capital goods in a society if there wasn’t a benefit to deferred gratification?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ep 82: Why do Feminists want to work for Capitalists if Marxism is true?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses why Feminist woman want to work for or become capitalists themselves if Marxism is true? The classical Marxist doctrine is roughly that working for capitalists is a form of exploitative slavery and enriches the owner. Feminism for the most part comes out of, or has serious overlaps, with the Marxist left viewing the patriarchy as a form of slavery. Most self-described Marxists today are feminist or at least not against it and vice versa. Exceptions of course exist but the affinity and overlap remains. If all the above is the case, then why is career woman feminism so rampant? Why is much of mainstream modern western culture all about woman empowering themselves in the workplace as leaders, owners and of course employees (i.e. wage slaves under the Marxists left’s own description)? Now it could be that Marxism is false and no exploitation exists. It also could be the case that feminism is false and the sexual division of labor is either natural or voluntarily desired by most people including by woman themselves. The right-wing traditionalist anti-capitalist position makes sense if a form of progressive Marxism is true (i.e. capitalism is exploitative, greedy and too individualistic) but right-wing traditionalists by in large don’t advocate careerist girl power feminism. The right wing anti-capitalists say woman should be at home raising children or doing charity. This is of course anathema to the left position. The left-wing position seemingly makes no sense. Being an employee is merely a form of slavery so all one is doing is trading one pair of chains (the patriarchy at home) for another (the boss) based on their own analysis. As far as the issue of leadership is concerned the absurdity gets even worse. CEOs, heads of state, soldiers seeking glory and so on are forms of “toxic masculinity,” “bossism” and “male chauvinism” so woman should go ahead and become bosses, state leaders and generals. The left's bizarre relationship with Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher bear this absurdity out. Apparently toxic masculinity isn’t toxic if woman do it (or is it)? One could argue that current existing non-pure corporate “capitalism,” ironically or un-ironically, is the driver of women's empowerment. Is Deidre McCloskey right to argue that it is the driver in her Oxford debate? If left wing anarchists such as David Graeber want to abolish currency and transition to a gift economy, then why are they so averse to the family which is a kind of an actually functioning gift economy?

Ep 81: Are politicians stupid, mistaken or evil?

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses whether politicians are stupid, mistaken or evil? Are politicians good intentioned at heart and merely making honest mistakes? Are they evil and purposely pursuing bad policy and engaging in malice? Is the situation a bit of both? This issue is an issue which divides the anti-conspiracy theory minded beltway libertarians with the more radical ones who suggest the politicians are evil criminals. This issue also divides minarchists (and almost everyone else) and anarchist libertarians. What exactly is a criminal other than what the state says so? If the state has legal privilege and immunity, then can politicians ever be considered guilty under the minarchists’ standards?

Ep 80: The Graham Hancock and Alex Jones Theory of History.

The Mindcrime Liberty Show is joined by Terminal Philosophy for the third time to discuss two popular figures who dispense taboo ideas to the public and offer an alternative view. What is the role of persons like Graham Hancock and Alex Jones? Are they merely lying grifters, trying to sell content to gullible "idiots" as their mainstream critiques argue? Are they more right about the past than the mainstream itself even though they don't have the prestige and institutional resources that the mainstream has? Are they at minimum a necessary corrective or counterbalance which asks questions which one isn't allowed to ask? For Hancock two question he asks are how can these large stone buildings be built considering that it would be difficult to do so today and why does Plato seem to think advanced civilization existed before a huge flood? For Jones it is why are politicians going to private meetings where an owl god is worshiped and why is there this guy with a private island who has lots of money who mysteriously died? Do Jones and Hancock have a better theory of the past than the mainstream? What is the future of them and figures like them?

Ep 79: Is Oliver Cromwell and Ayn Rand right about Santa Claus?

Ayn Rand, who is secular, and Oliver Cromwell, who isn't, have interestingly the opposite view of Christmas.  Rand loved Christmas because she thought it was a celebration of greed, consumerism and capitalism.  On the contrary  Cromwell who represents the Calvinists, puritans and some other protestants has a quite negative view of Christmas and possibly even tried to ban the celebration of it.  Cromwell among others view it as a holiday inherited from the Romans and an excuse to get drunk and engage in biblical mischief. Is Christmas "biblical" or "christian"?  Where did Christmas and some of the traditions such as Santa Claus (or Father Christmas) come from?  Should they continue? Will certain aspects of Christmas be eventually banned by the politically correct crowd?  Is Santa Claus an alien?  Should kids believe in Santa Claus? Who has more of the correct view of Christmas? Oliver Cromwell or Ayn Rand? 

Ep 78: Analyzing the Assange, Zizek and Horowitz conversation.

The mindcrime liberty show discusses the old gem of a conversation which appeared on Julian Assange's show for Russia Today when he was in asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy.  What unfolds in this conversation is quite memorable not only considering the high profile names but the interesting insights provided.   Assange has the show and the two guests are Slavoj Zizek and David Horowitz.  Topics discussed include the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars,  is Obama a secret Marxist or not, Hobbesianism, whether liberalism is Utopian and the absurdity of using the word freedom by the military industrial complex.  We show selected clips from the interview and why we think its still relevant and interesting after 10 years.

 

The youtube link for the longer conversation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM0I5k50XsY

Ep 77: Is the household or a hotel a state?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses whether a  household or hotel become a "micro" state when it enforces certain rules, or any rules, within its boundaries?  If the hotel owners and management say no smoking in rooms and will  evict/fine you the cleaning cost if you engage in said behavior a kind of authoritarianism?  What if the father or mother in a family have a similar kind of rule within their own household which the children and those who visit must follow?   In both instances are these organizations becoming a microcosm of the state?  In the case of no alcohol or no weed it might be the case that the hotel/household is either voluntarily or involuntarily enforcing the states rules considering the state has a war on drugs of some kind but there is clearly a market for different tastes, lifestyles and preferences so some places might have different rules. What are the aspects of the state which are different then the household or the hotel?