Freedomain Radio

Hey all.
  I believe there is a lot of value in these 3 podcasts. I have gone from a sitting on the fence about Ron Paul to agreeing that his approach is the best way to go about it. My thoughts were that Ron's position would be a platform for the state to disappear.
  I have not defoo'd , for now I have taken a minarchists approach, living out of home for 21/2  years. Things are better but that final step is a big one.

 On a side note, excellent sign off on 788, Didn't see it coming at all, Cried with laugher.

.

.

raureka:

Stef, you make the claim that people support Ron Paul because they don't want to reform their parents. Do you believe this to be absolute, to be definite?

...

 Am I just the exception to the rule? Or are you so sure of the validity of your theory that you'd be willing to tell me right off-the-bat that I'm lying / in denial about the true nature of my familial and personal life?

 

I was thinking the same thing. I intend to vote for Ron Paul (though more as a protest than to actually achieve anything), and I'm pretty sure I don;t have any corrupt family relationships. I don't claim to be psychologically perfect, but I don't see voting for Ron Paul as having anything to do with anything psychological. I don't think he can change the system. I just want to do anything that helps make libertarianism more mainstream.   

Well if you're a libertarian, voting for Ron Paul is in accordance with your beliefs.

I'm an anarchist though. And a strong atheist. I won't vote to give an irrational Christian the power to deport millions of people. I made that case in 'Klan Reformer'.

I won't vote for a pope because God does not exist. I won't vote for Ron Paul because the state does not exist.

And for those with good relationships with your parents, do they truly understand, respect and share your beliefs?

jest3r:

  I believe there is a lot of value in these 3 podcasts.

Yes. We clearly need to steal people's money and force them to hear the podcasts.

 

jest3r:

 On a side note, excellent sign off on 788, Didn't see it coming at all, Cried with laugher.

 That's awesome. I am going to put it on my voice mail.

I think 789 is even better!

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_789_Family_And_Statism_Part_4.mp3 

Sweet. I'm stuck at work all day and I just ran out of podcasts.

This recent run of podcasts has been just great. Thanks so much.

I may have to take a little bit of issue with the statement that if someone is advocating a government program, then they are conceding that it has no value, since people are not willing to pay for it. It seems to me that what they believe is that people do value the program, but they cannot grasp the complex mechanisms that are required to achieve an efficient level of production. This is, of course, setting aside the fact that they are supressing the understanding that holding a gun to someone's head and taking their money is immoral..

Just as an example, let's consider security services. I think we can all agree that there is some value in having individuals that specialize in preventing us from being aggressed against by other individuals in the form of theft or physical violence. If I set up such an agency, then some people will voluntarily pay for the service, while others will not because they can just free-ride off everyone else's contributions. This leads to an inefficiently low level of security services being provided as a while.

The statist then argues that we need to pay for such services through taxation to overcome the free rider problem, as if they can determine the efficient level of production. He does not argue this because security services have no value, but because he believes this is the only mechanism that will yield efficiency in this area of service.

Fortunately, in this day and age, we have years of research in the field of economics system design to show us that efficiency can indeed be achieved by putting in place the correct voluntary pricing mechanisms through sophisticated auctions, rendering any claims of state efficiency entirely invalid.

I don't know if I am making any sense here. I should probably just get back to coding...
 

Stef, having listened to podcast 789, I have some questions. Judging from past podcasts, you posited the belief that statism is, in many cases, a reaction to corrupt familial relationships. People who tend to want to vote for Ron Paul are not statists, in my book anyway. Does this mean that they had less corrupt families, or that the corruption, in your view, just created different results?

Also, from a more personal perspective, I am hovering between libertarian and anarchist, and I'm not quite sure which I subscribe to yet. However, I do intend to vote for Ron Paul. Yet, I am not in any way an advocate of dealing with corrupt family members, because I know I am incapable of changing them. I don't have much faith in Ron Paul, but at the same time, I willing to give him a shot. Is that some sort of irrational hypocracy? I don't feel that it is; I can't really defoo from the state without seriously deteriorating my personal happiness, so for now my choices are limited.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the word 'subscribe' - do you mean that, between statism and anarxhism, you don't know which belief is true?

And you don't think that corrupt family members can be reformed - who are far less evil and over whom you have far more influence - but you do believe that the state can be reformed?

Isn't that like saying a guy can't survive a grenade, but he can survive a nuclear bomb?

Help! 

Stefan Molyneux:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the word 'subscribe' - do you mean that, between statism and anarxhism, you don't know which belief is true?

Essentially, yes.  

Stefan Molyneux:

And you don't think that corrupt family members can be reformed - who are far less evil and over whom you have far more influence - but you do believe that the state can be reformed?

I'm not sure if I would say that I believe that the state can be fully reformed, but it can be made better. History is full of examples of people who have made the state better. Both corrupt families and the state can be improved, just never made perfect. With a family, you could always break way and live a productive life, which I would recommend; but the only way to break free of the state would be to go live as a subsistence farmer in the middle of nowhere, which would be a life I would find neither productive or fulfilling. I suppose one could ignore the state, not take part in it, and pretend that it doesn't exist. But pretending it doesn't exist won't change the facts of reality, and it won't stop the state from initiating force on you. So the only solution I can think of is to take all actions necessary to weaken it, and voting is one such action.

I dunno if this is the right way to go about illustrating what you could be saying.  Maybe I could be wrong.  This is what I am hearing though. 

Chris:

I'm not sure if I would say that I believe that [my parents] can be fully reformed, but [they] can be made better. History is full of examples of people who have made their [parents] better. Corrupt families can be improved, just never made perfect. With a family, you could always break way and live a productive life, which I would recommend; but the only way to break free of [the family] would be to [endure something that may feel like living] as a subsistence farmer in the middle of nowhere, which [I'm afraid] would be a life I would find neither productive or fulfilling. I suppose one could ignore [their family], not take part in it, and pretend that [they don't] exist. But pretending [they don't] exist won't change the facts of reality, and it won't stop [me from wanting to hang on to the belief that they will change one day]. So the only solution I can think of is to take all actions necessary to [overpower them], and [begging] is one such action.

Are you really hearing that? I have a corrupt parent, and I have nothing to do with him. I realized very early on that I could not change him, so I broke away from him at the first available opportunity, and have had no contact since. You are applying a generalization to me that does not apply, and just taking for granted that just because I will vote for some politician, it means that I weakly submit to abuse. Defooing from my father was probably the best thing I have ever done for myself; my only point is its not so easy doing that when dealing with the state. 

Stefan Molyneux:

I won't vote for a pope because God does not exist. I won't vote for Ron Paul because the state does not exist.

They do not exist is one thing, but the concept is evil, that is my stance now.

Stefan Molyneux:

I think 789 is even better!

Downloading now. :D

MengerFan:

That's awesome. I am going to put it on my voice mail.

Haha,
"Please leave a message after the truth."

Chris:

Are you really hearing that? I have a corrupt parent, and I have nothing to do with him. I realized very early on that I could not change him, so I broke away from him at the first available opportunity, and have had no contact since. You are applying a generalization to me that does not apply, and just taking for granted that just because I will vote for some politician, it means that I weakly submit to abuse. Defooing from my father was probably the best thing I have ever done for myself; my only point is its not so easy doing that when dealing with the state. 

And your mom?