Search the Community

I notice a number of YouTube videos are not reflected in the podcast stream. I understand the listener calls being redundant, but there are quite a few short videos that only show up on the YouTube channel. Curious what the reason was.

In podcast 2316 Daniel Mackler, a guest host who is into self-knowledge as much if not more than Stef, asks Stefan how he would determine moral responsibility. Stefan responds by saying moral responsibility is determined via the person's use of morality to influence others' behavior. An example is used where a child molester inherently in his actions is saying to the child "the satisfaction of my wants is the good" while violating that standard with the child because sexual abuse is not something the child wants. I'm confused because I don't know if Stefan means someone is morally responsible for every decision they make following their first use of moral reasoning to another, or if a person is morally responsible for the situation to which he uses moral reasoning to justify his own actions (again to another person). For example... is it: Bob argued why it was ok for him to steal his sister's dollar when he was 6 years old, therefore Bob is morally responsible for every action forward of 6 years old because he has demonstrated an understanding of morality. Or is it... Bob argued why it was ok for him to steal his sister's dollar when he was 6 years old, therefore Bob is now morally responsible for the theft of his sister's dollar. Basically, is that specific action of justifying what you did to another person confirmation of your knowledge of ethics? Or do ethics apply regardless of whether you use ethical arguments to justify your actions to another person? The question is, how would you know someone understood ethics if they didn't try to justify what they did to another person?

producing any online content? but cant? because its hard to produce something that grandiose when you're sort of alone? Its really difficult to be creative when theres no feedback, at least thats what i'm finding out. I'm interested in creating a circle at least for now for any aspiring online creators so at least we can give each other some tips or feedbacks for our plans. Looking forward to hear from you guys

Hey, I have been looking for 2 podcasts (call-in shows) that I listened to approximatively 2 years ago. I cannot seem to be able to find them 1. A woman is talking about her relationship with her father as a child, she mentions that her father used to yell a lot. 2. A woman is talking to Stefan, I do not remember the topic but throughout the call Stefan tries to get her out of the intellectualization into accessing her feelings, and towards the end of the call Stefan says "I cannot give you what your parents didn't" Thank you.

Greetings! I am trying to find an FDR episode from either 2014 or 2015 in which Stefan so eloquently said something along the lines of "there are no grenades in love." Does anyone happen to recall which episode that is from? Thanks!

Hello Freedomain Radio community! Do you know Alice Miller? Her books and the reader’s mail helped me a lot to understand my own past and free myself from trauma. This made me a much happier and carefree person. Now I want to share them with you! Check out my podcast, where I read Alice Miller's articles and reader's mail: http://howihelpmyself.com/alice-miller-audio-english/ Please follow the Alice Miller Bot on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AliceMillerBot

Hey all, I just wanted to make people aware of my website and podcast http://unraise.com (Nearly) every morning I make an effort to walk around the neighborhood and share my thoughts into a microphone. I hope you'll check it out and follow me if you like what you hear. Best, Matt P.S. Here's a download link to my latest podcast on Judgment.

In my podcast client the FDR feed never shows up in the correct order. I think the reason is because the FDR podcasts don't have a date associated to them. Can the dates get added to the podcasts? It would really help me out. I have mostly stopped listening to the podcast because I never know when the shows are coming out. My podcast client is BeyondPod on Android.

As I have been trawling through the original podcasts I came across podcast 212 outlining Stefan's views on business management. Obviously not many people showed interest in it because it there is not a second one but I really enjoyed it and was wondering if there was any more content around this topic?

Good evening gents. Recently I had some contact with a director of the firm I work into, and his ways of arguing and questioning remminded me of socrates. I asked him if he had studied philosofy before telling him of the similarities, he said he had not, but would be interested into it, so I said I would send him a video of the subject. Does anyone have a good video to suggest? I believe he would be more insterested into a video that has "advanced material" about dialetic or logic. Thanks in advance.

Hello genius philosopher people! I need your help and guidance on a new project I'm undertaking. I'm setting up a website for the thousands of people who are newly being inducted into rational philosophy, psychology and voluntarism through resources like Freedomain Radio. It's going to be a blog, a podcast, a listener call-in, meetups in the UK, a monthly bookclub and in time also a forum. The focus is on living with integrity to our values and connecting both online and offline to build community between us everyday philosophers. First things first, the name. The one I'm liking the most at the moment is Ethical Canary, with the tagline "Virtue is the air we breathe". The name should hopefully capture our shared values of philosophy, self-knowledge and freedom but also focus on connecting as a community. What do you guys n gals think of it? Does it work? Can you think of anything else I can call it? One drawback of my idea is that it requires that everyone understands the metaphorical reference to a canary being used in a mine to test that the air is breathable. I'd love to gather your ideas and put together a poll to so we can vote for the best one. Thanks in advance for your ingenious input! I will no doubt be asking many questions like this in future so I can put the website together using the best suggestions we agree on.

It is called Village Wisdom Podcast and available via iTunes here -- https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/village-wisdom-podcast/id916496501 The target audience is young women and teens so may not be appropriate for most here. I felt that I needed to fill in that gap a little bit in educating about peaceful parenting. And specifically I felt I needed to offer the wisdom from my own mistakes to hopefully make a difference in at least one child's life. My children are grown and have children of their own and I cannot get their childhood's back for them. However, i can reach other young women and attempt to stop them from making the mistake of having a child when you are still a child. I'm no philosopher but I have lots of life experience to share. I'm completely on board with peaceful parenting and working diligently to help that movement progress forward at an even more rapid pace. A more important focus of the podcast is being prepared -- really, really prepared -- for marriage or life partnership and having children. Peaceful parenting will be a no-brainer for these women. Thanks for listening and please post reviews and comments on iTunes as they will expect it and bug me about it. More importantly, it will help me get the word out.

So at work I'm allowed to listen to podcasts, and I've pretty much grinded through every episode of everything I'm subscribed to. I'll post below my subscriptions so you can get an idea of what I'm interested in, but basically anything that's somewhat entertaining and that'll make me think. I'd really appreciate other suggestions. Thanks! Freedomain Radio (of course) Hardcore History Common Sense The Thinking Atheist Stuff You Should Know

Hi I'm experiencing really slow download speeds lately, 300Kb/s on average. Usually my speeds have been around 1.7Mb/s. My ping is avg. 225ms on 4G LTE and I'm 27 hops away and I live in Finland. Have you considered a CDN for delivering podcasts?

Hi Stefan and anyone who might be reading this, I am posting this regarding the The Art of Penis Negotiation show, and the Banning Bitcoin caller. I am not going to defend or reexamine all the points in the call but a basic reality of economics that Stefan might have missed. Stefan makes claims that a government ban would not decrease bitcoin value/price for a multitude of reasons but i feel they might miss the mark to a degree. The commodity of currency would be worth far less when its ability to freely be used as currency is hampered. Is this logical? If yes, then the caller is correct and not Stefan. Let me expound. Lets start with this analogy: if weed no longer got you high or it would take an entire 8-ball to feel a high, this would decrease the value of those drugs to consumers (thus decrease their value as a commodity). A result being, these drugs' profitability would plummet and divert interest to other alternatives (even if supply remained the same, its value or usefulness is lowered). If the drug is still useful (can still get you high MAnnnn), then when its price increases, its value doesn't. It cost more time/wealth to produce and procure and thus may divert interest to other drugs, but the drug would maintain the innate value of its use. Ex. I have $200 1 oz of weed it gets me this high, but then government makes it illegal. Prices increase the same 1oz of weed still gets me the same high but now costs $250. The vlaue of the drug to the consumer doesn't change the cost does So now lets do the same with bitcoin. The value of bitcoin is its stable supply, uses of currency in trade and exchange, easy of transfer, security of wealth, amongst other uses of similar nature. So if government makes it harder to use bitcoin by destroys wealth related to it (stealing/destroying some of it), banning its use at local and reputable stores, creating legal threat associated with usage, etc then that would destroy the value of a currency; this is its function. Unlike drugs whose function is a high etc. which restrictions of availability do not largely effect, Bit coins innate value as a medium of exchange would actually be decreased (it harder to use it to exchange wealth/value). In this it differs from most commodities, but is similar to any currency. Do to this Bitcoin would most definitely lose value unless a large percentage of a population chose to ignore government force... which is not a likely reality, currently. Ex. I have $900 in 1 bitcoin that i can freely exchange, but then the government bans it. Now i still have 1 bitcoin but far less people who will take it becuase i can no longer as freely exchange it and its value was debased by government stealing it. This would make that 1 bitcoin worth less than $900 dollars as the actuall usefulness (or possible future usefullness) to the consumer has been greatly decreased. This is my perspective from my understanding of human interaction, let me know what you guys think.

About 6 months ago, I remember at the beginning of a podcast that Stefan was talking about the Great Gatsby, giving a small sort of review. I'm pretty sure it was a call in show, but I was wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of what specific podcast it is since I cannot recall. Thanks!

I don't know about you but often it can be hard for me to listen to Stefan's podcasts effectively on the computer; I hoard good, useful news articles and read them in the same time. Even when I'd realize the podcast is important. A solution to that (at least for me) is a game that keeps one busy, while not distracting your attention too much from the podcast: Cookie Clicker, a simple yet addictive browser game that you can play for thousands of hours. Cookie Clicker I hope no one gets too addicted to it. Remember to keep clicking, buying or anything -- just make sure that your focus stays on A] cookies and B] Freedomain Radio.

I thought it might be cool and interesting to see what are people's favorite FDR podcasts and maybe a little blurb about what you like about it. Brownie points for what was the first podcast you had heard I'll start: 678 - Everything you do is... http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_678_Everything_You_Do_Is.mp3 The amount of self doubt that I've and so many others experience unnecessarily is it's own tragedy, and this is a very interesting way, I think, to not do that to myself. 356 & 357 - You Are Your Own Proof http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_356_You_Are_Your_Own_Proof.mp3 http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_357_You_Are_Your_Own_Proof_Part_2.mp3 Learning to trust my feelings and the power of my unconscious has been crucial for me. I had this idea that if I wasn't consciously working something out from first principles, then it was probably wrong was a hard thing to shake off, and understanding the principle here helped a lot. 234 - Contempt http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_234_Contempt.mp3 Contempt is completely underrated. There is a richness to contempt that I appreciate and trust and when people used to constantly tell me that contempt is bad and I shouldn't feel it,... it has always been really irritating to me. 122 - Am I Too Mean? http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/am_i_too_mean.mp3 Something that has also bothered me a lot is this idea that we need to be nice to one another or else we are being immoral or acting out, or it's sadistic or something like that. I'm still working on this, but having this perspective (that I don't remember ever hearing before) has been important for me in the necessary confrontations I've had since. 476 – The Myth of Nice Christians http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_476_Nice_Mythical_Christians.mp3 People who are portrayed as being nice and that you shouldn't criticize them is a big irritation of mine (it looks like I have a theme going here, lol). So to hear arguments like these that cut through that bullshit like warm butter is very much of interest to me. 183 – Freedom Part 4: Parents (and everything!) http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/personal_freedom_Part_4_parents_and_everything.mp3 Refusing to enable bad people and no longer pretending that there was a real relationship there to begin with when there was none, has been life changing for me. This podcast, On Truth and the But *my* parents were really nice series were the kick in the butt I needed to make one of the most important decisions of my life. 468 – Seeing Through Darkness http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_468_Seeing_Through_Darkness.mp3 Being aware of my own dark side has been crucial for me in taking responsibility for my own hypocrisies. The first FDR podcast I ever heard was: 1058 – Proof of Anarchy http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1058_Proof_of_Anarchy.mp3 So, yea. Those are some of my favorites. How 'bout you?

The Best Informative, Brain-Boosting Podcasts Worth Subscribing To Hey guys please cast your votes for FDR -- ya know, if you feel so inclined! I created an entry but I see somebody else beat me to it. You'll need to Scroll a bit to see the entry. More votes will fix that!

Listeners are having trouble getting the newest YouTube podcast to play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b_2EKk71r4&feature=c4-overview&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w Thanks! Melissa

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1329_True_News_31_Naughty_Libertarianism.mp3podcast 1555I wish every podcast was as compact as this. It's sooooooo good. and he talks fast in this one.Do you guys also find the prepared, compact podcasts to be the most epic and most enjoyable too?

Stefan, I think "The U.S. Constitution is a Warning Label" is a powerful meme that you should capitalize on. You should do a podcast on just that topic. On how the Constitution has no power beyond individual people's willingness to act on its warnings. I can see the T-shirt now: The Constitution is nothing more than A Warning Label Heed the Warning

So I have a number of acquaintances that are, I believe, fairly rational atheists, but, having been intrenched in academia, have never had anyone make a strong case to them for libertarianism. They probably have accepted a lot of the statist positions on things. Does anyone have any suggestions for Freedomain Radio videos that make an especially good introduction to Stef's work? Especially something that would especially convincing to atheists.

http://youtu.be/g8S3geFZSpM (Sorry, don't know how to embed.) Original Article: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/... I didn't think Stef did the best job on this one. Mostly because he seemed to get pretty distracted criticizing the author. So, here's my shot at it: Yes, at least in the sense that is relevant to libertarianism. A person falling from an airplane obviously isn't free to not fall, but they are free to do whatever they can in that situation. Government doesn't have any magical power to controvert the facts of reality, it only has the power to use violence against people, just like all humans do. Libertarians claim people should be free from violence, not free from the laws of nature. Yes. As Stef has pointed out, to make the above scenario even remotely plausible you have to add so many additional caveats and limiting factors to explain why she can't possibly provide anything of value other than her sexual services and/or organs, and can't possibly receive any charity that what you're left with a scenario suitable only for a farce. The fact of the matter is that humans almost always have a near unlimited number of options at any point in time, and here's the thing: the worse and more desperate your situation, the more likely any given option will improve your situation. So, if you're Bill Gates, going door to door and asking for food or a job is a huge waste of time. But for a woman who magically in such a strange situation without friends or family or any job opportunities whatsoever (yet still somehow in a free-market) that it almost seems like "God" made it up to prove a point, going door to door would be a great option. The fact of the matter is that women who prostitute themselves usually either are violently forced to do so, or pick it over a list of other options that other women have chosen over prostitution. The bottom line is that problems that are not caused by violence cannot reasonably or reliably be solved by violence. So even in this woman's situation, if your only tool is a gun, your only possible way of helping her without hurting someone else is to find the violence that is putting her in that situation and stop it. Hint: It's probably something the government is doing, like minimum wage laws. Of course not. If you believe that "ought to be legal" equals "is morally permissible" you've completely lost sight of what morality is. It's not moral to mock the disabled, but it shouldn't be illegal. Libertarians (mostly) don't claim that it's moral to ignore the plight of the starving, but we do claim that it should be legal. The libertarian claim is that the only immorality that justifies violence being used to stop it is violent immorality. Libertarians claim that it is okay for you to believe that homosexual acts are immoral and not use violence to stop people from committing those acts. Libertarians vary on this, but I believe that some immoral acts are worthy of ridicule and censure, but not violence. For example, I believe that the pickup artist lifestyle is worthy of censure, but not violence. Again, another ridiculous example. Obviously it's not moral for the land owner to try and make his neighbor do all the work for a tiny fraction of the profit, but it should be legal. However, let's examine the situation a little more: If one man is able to earn $50,000 a year simply by tending a piece of land, then there should be a plethora of well-to-do landowners and tenders for which the poor man in this example could provide other services. Let's tighten the scenario by supposing that ALL the land was concentrated in the hands of a few lazy land owners that all got together and agreed that they would only pay $1 a day. And let's assume that for some magical reason, the laborers couldn't unionize, and can't find any other jobs. The first evil baron that abandoned this scheme and competed for labor could easily corner the market on wheat and make a killing. For example, at the normal "market" value of $50,000 suggested by the scenario, the smart evil baron could afford to pay 2 workers $2 a day to work his field and another 130 workers $1 a day to just not work for the other evil barons and he would still make a profit. If the pool of potential laborers wasn't significantly larger than 130, he would, by doing this, drive up the price of wheat (or whatever they're growing) significantly and be able to pocket the extra. If he owned more fields, his ability to screw over the other barons and make an obscene profit would increase proportionally. Of course, this scenario would never happen because enough barons are too smart to deliberately screw themselves over by being "evil". Anti-free-market people never seem to understand that employers compete for employees just as employees compete for jobs, so that in a true free market, there is a pressure to normalize wages. If "deserve" means "should not by violence be dispossessed of," then people deserve all that they are able to get through free exchange as well as all that they are able to get by any other non-coercive means. The problem here is that while the ability to earn (and especially to earn big) is somewhat based on luck, no human or group of humans is able to tell someone else how much of their wealth is the result of luck versus hard work, wisdom, patience, or any other virtue. One gambler may believe that he won the jackpot because of careful cultivation of his sixth sense. How can you be so sure that he's wrong that you are morally justified in holding him up with a gun and taking his money? Second, the idea that the free market tends to concentrate money in the hands of the few is just ridiculous. Free trade is not a zero-sum game. When two people trade freely, they are each acquiring wealth. The people who get the richest usually get the richest by making many other people slightly wealthier. And, as Stefan mentioned, the children of the highly rich and successful often just spend the money their parents earned, and when they do that, the money tends to flow from them who have an excess of money and riches to the people who have a deficiency and are willing to work for it. People with an excess of wealth have less incentive to save money and more incentive to look for the best. This is why high-end goods tend to have the highest profit margins. None of them were forced by the free market to die broke. None of them were mothers forced into prostitution, like your example. They all were capable of making other economic decisions and taking other paths in life. It's libertarians that tell them that they can take whatever path in life they choose. It's you who think you have the right to make others decisions for them. Of course not, but everyone is responsible to determine for themselves what obligations they're under. This is known as "freedom of conscience" and it the basis for "freedom of religion" and most of our other freedoms. Everyone has moral obligations beyond what they want, one of those moral obligations is the moral obligation not to use violence to force somebody else to do what you think they ought to do. It's not that complicated. By now you should know that libertarians would mostly agree that you do have an obligation to save the man, but that's a red herring. You statists are constantly committing the straw-man and equivocation fallacies in this way. The debate between libertarians and statists is not whether you have an obligation to save the man, but whether you are morally justified in forcing another person at gunpoint to save the man, or shooting him after the fact if he chooses not to save the drowning man. The clear answers is, no, you don't have that right and nor does anyone else.

It would be nice to search podcasts by category or topic or tags.For instance, if you really dig anarchy, you could search that tag and get the results 1,2,64,65,131,203,563,591,803....if you dig personal freedom relationships, you'd get results...if you tag "state", you might get anarchy results plus some more that deal with criticism of the state.philosphy, religion, call in shows, women, feminism, economics, movie reviews... and my other favorite: interviews and management.I started to do a spreadsheet, but i'm not really keeping up with it all. I think it woudl be best to do it crowdsourced, or wiki style, where everyone puts tags. on, and someone checks and approves them....I imagine you would need to actually add those tags onto the podcasts, which may involve some complicated migrating... But you don't need an actual filter and search directly from the webpage. a referenced spreadsheet is that can be filtered with simple excel filters is good enough and more than does the trick. This alone would be valuable. It really is just a low-tech bypass for searching and filtering. There could be a public google docs, or we could make something on wikia.Later, it could be integrated as an actual page on the FDR website, perhaps still leaving it free to edit.It seems like a worthwhile project.