The Mindcrime Liberty Show with Dobson and Patton

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?   

Ep 76: What actually is decadence and degeneracy with Rik Storey.

The mindcrime liberty show discusses two words/concepts which conservatives,  paleo-cons, paleo-libertarians, reactionaries  and others accuse modernity of being: decadent and degenerate.   What do those concepts/words mean?  Is modern day western civilization, including the US and UK, a decadent and degenerate society?  Is this preventable? Do good times create weak men?  Was this inevitable?  Is this cyclical?  What can be done and will anything be done?  

Ep.75 Austrian Economics, the Cantillon Effect and Marxist Third Worldism.

The Mindcrime liberty show discusses one of the primary affinities or  darkside  of the moon agreements that the Austrian school of economics has with certain aspects of Marxism.  If one takes the Austrian business cycle theory/central banking critique as well as theory of state and combine them one can find an area where technically the Austrians agree with the Marxists in a way although the solutions are much different and it ironically depends on ones class (hint  Bernie Sanders supporters would not have as many victim points).  The Austrians consider much of inflation, economic crisis's and for that matter some of inequality to be the result of state banks policy which wouldn't exist if the market was free or "more free."  The state is also not merely a benevolent organization which makes mistakes or a "normal firm" as many of the classical liberals/Chicago type economists say it is rather the Marxists are correct in that it represents the ruling class.  The Austrians understand what power the central bank has in under-girding the states number one formal "soft" power weapon...ie its central bank.  Since in a scarce world there is no such thing as a free lunch the primary way one can make "printing money" "work" is through fraud/slavery/theft.  One can get irritated at that accusation as did the MMTer who debated Bob Murphy did; however, as the the Cantillon Effect explains this only works for the people who get the new printed money first combined with the state monopoly police force to enforce no counterfeiting laws This is except of course its own treasuries when they say so, thus, George Floyd at Cup's convenience store can't take a freshly printed note off his printer to buy scarce goods which is exactly what he did but the state can do it all the time. Money works because its an exchange good which preserves value and solves the double coincidence of wants problem.  The state hijacks  money as a means to pay for its expensive projects, maintain its power and give privileges out to its friends.   The way the state gets its monopoly on the production of money by most moral/philosophical/legal/religious analysis's  is also illegitimate.  As the new "counterfeit" money goes out further into the economy the purchasing benefits get less and less. The further away one is the greater the effect. What is interesting about the dissident Marxist doctrine of third worldism is that this is an area of total agreement yet both sides arguably are unaware of the technical arguments beneath it for various reasons.  One of the primary reasons we argue is that developed countries Marxists would be considered lower in the food chain in the cherished victim hierarchy. There are of course numerous other factors which explains the "Wealth of nations" such as competence, ingenuity, geography, luck and hard work but international Cantillon effects is one factor . 

Ep 74: Why do people have children?

The mindcrime liberty show discusses why people continue having more people?  Since the invention and proliferation of effective birth control the  production of children can be divorced from the act to create them.  Before then if people had sex children would most likely result "naturally" in the same way breathing happens. Of course one could abstain but that requires an act of will and self control which for the most part is uncommon.  Since child production in many places is now under the aegis of human action and not merely natural instinct why then do people choose to do so? Is it out of tradition? Is it a kind of hedonistic consumerism as Bryan Caplan describes?  Is it for religious reasons (ie fill the earth or have a quiver full of arrows).   Is it for political reasons in order to continue oneself or ones groups legacy?   What explains the reasons people choose not to do so?  Why is this a taboo topic still? Why is it for the most part so low since the invention of effective birth control?