13 tough libertarian questions...

[jpahmad]

I thought this was a very fun style of youtube interview for FDR. i.e., different faces apearing infront of the computer and asking quesitons.  I would imagine that this format resonates differently for some, more so, than just watching the one-on-one interviews.  It's more "down to earth" (for lack of a better expression)  and might just bring a wider appeal, reaching out to those that are not so "philosophically minded."  Please do more!

 

 

That being said, I thought that Stefan could have answered that last question, the one by the moderator, with a little bit more ease.  The last question was along the lines of how do we know if mans' nature is good or bad.  This of course is implying the statist viewpoint that man is flawed, selfish, and naturally prone to conflict, therefore, he needs to be controlled by government.

 

Stefan did effectly counter this assertion by stating the irrelevance of such a belief.  To paraphrase, Stefan states that bad or good, if you want to have a certain result (happiness, peace, etc...) and you have to "learn swahili" to get there, well, good, or bad, you learn swahili.  The moderator understood this and conceded the validity of what Stefan was saying. 

 

But why didn't Stefan just ask the moderator if he thought he himself was evil?  Or his child?  Or anyone he cares about?  Stefan made his point, but still didn't extinguish the statists' main gripe with freedom.  That is we cannot be free because "human beings are selfish bastards."

 

If the guy then answers no, I'm not evil, or immoral, then that whole premis can just be tossed out. 

 

Also, it seems pretty obvious to me that if man were innately evil, we would have never developed empathy and would have never survived our plight through pre-history humanity ( cave-man days). 

 

We had to be compassionate and empathetic to conquer our early environment.  I mean, empathy developed for a reason, that reason is survival, life, flourishing of our species.  Now it's very clear to me, that you cannot be empathetic and evil.  And the only way to not have empathy, is to have it literaly beaten out of you, or be completely neglected as a child.  The second of which is a statistical freak. 

 

I think it is very clear and easy to prove logically that man is naturally "good."  All you have to do is link "good" to having empathy.  Then show how empathy is as much a part of the human organisim as having a heart or a lung.  It's a cognitive faculty that has evolved for survival purposes and is present in every human being unless it is removed by force.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

[wdiaz03]

Well,

 

I don't understand why the proof is dependent on whether the moderator and his kids are good or moral.

 

The moderator might believe he is one of the anointed ones, blessed with goodness and the power to control those that are evil.

 

or he might believe he is good now, but without restrain from the government he might turn evil.

 

What if we are all "selfish bastards" wouldn't that be evidence that a government is a bad idea since eventually it will be controlled by selfish bastards?

 

I don't understand why it is important to generalize and group man as naturally good or naturally bad. I like to value each individual for their actions.

 

Also I'm not sure one can make the leap that empathy evolved for a reason. It might have no big enough negative or positive benefit to have been naturally selected, Noise in the gene pool.

 

Or empathy might not necessarily mean a tool for good. It's advantageous to develop a tool that predicts what another person is thinking as a way to control that person.

[jpahmad]

Well,

 

I don't understand why the proof is dependent on whether the moderator and his kids are good or moral.

 

 

A catagorical defining trait must be applied universally.  You can't say "I am good" and then say "all humans are bad."  That's a contradiction.  So, once you get someone to admit that they believe themselves to be "good", then they must then say that either "all humans are good", or "some humans are good."  Then you take the argument from there and move forward.

 

 

 

What if we are all "selfish bastards" wouldn't that be evidence that a government is a bad idea since eventually it will be controlled by selfish bastards?

 

 

Yes I agree

 

 

 

Well,

 

 

I don't understand why it is important to generalize and group man as naturally good or naturally bad. I like to value each individual for their actions.

 

This is important.  Becaue it's at the very core of what drives a statist to become a statist.  If you get a statist to believe that human nature is naturally composed of traits that we all find virtuous, then you have won half the battle. 

 

 

 

 

Also I'm not sure one can make the leap that empathy evolved for a reason.

 

Everything evolved for a reason.  That reason is survial.  If I'm wrong on this, which I might be, can you give me an exampe of a facutly which science has determined to be useless?  I mean, penguins are birds with wings.  They don't fly, but this doesn't mean their wings are non-funcitonal.

 

 

 

 

Or empathy might not necessarily mean a tool for good. It's advantageous to develop a tool that predicts what another person is thinking as a way to control that person.

 

By definition, that wouldn't be empathy.  Empathy involves the use of so called "mirror neurons" which effectively put ourselves in the place of another person when we perceive that person experiencing a sensation.  We then are able to vicariously experience what that person is experiencing.  It is the basis for what we call compassion. 

 

Sociopaths, who do manipulate people, by definition, don't experience empathy.  That is because this faculty, which is inherent in all of us, was forcibly removed through abuse or neglect.

[wdiaz03]

A catagorical defining trait must be applied universally.  You can't say "I am good" and then say "all humans are bad."  That's a contradiction.  So, once you get someone to admit that they believe themselves to be "good", then they must then say that either "all humans are good", or "some humans are good."  Then you take the argument from there and move forward.

Right, but they can claim that man is bad but some can control it better than others.

This is important.  Becaue it's at the very core of what drives a statist to become a statist.  If you get a statist to believe that human nature is naturally composed of traits that we all find virtuous, then you have won half the battle.

I can't say this is the case, I don't know how you can generalize and claim to know what drives statists.

Everything evolved for a reason.  That reason is survial.  If I'm wrong on this, which I might be, can you give me an exampe of a facutly which science has determined to be useless?  I mean, penguins are birds with wings.  They don't fly, but this doesn't mean their wings are non-funcitonal.

Look at the many vestigial organs and dead genes that exist. that is, I read humans have genes to make egg yolk etc.

By definition, that wouldn't be empathy.  Empathy involves the use of so called "mirror neurons" which effectively put ourselves in the place of another person when we perceive that person experiencing a sensation.  We then are able to vicariously experience what that person is experiencing.  It is the basis for what we call compassion.  Sociopaths, who do manipulate people, by definition, don't experience empathy.  That is because this faculty, which is inherent in all of us, was forcibly removed through abuse or neglect.

You seem to be discribing sympathy or compasion. Not empathy.From Wikipedia.Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being. One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience accurate sympathy or compassion.I have also heard Stef define it like that.

[philomd]

Hello,

 

Listening to the podcast I've noticed an economic sophism that Stefan fell in. This is not the precise wording but the idea is that Stephan said that economic problem in third world countries in Africa are partly caused by agriculture gouvernment subsidies in US that makes agricultural products in Africa non competitive and thus eliminates farmer jobs in these countries. This is true that subsidies render the African farmers non competitive and destroys jobs in that sector. Nevertheless this doesn`t render African poorer. In fact it is the opposite. For instance, if you give a car, a house, free food, fuel, electricity, and everything else free to everybody in Africa, then Africa will be the richest continent on earth. The goal of a perfect economy is not to have jobs but to have stuff. If you can have stuff without work then you have the best economic system ever. So the subsidies to US agriculture enrich Africa and US Farmers in detriment of the US tax payers. I totaly agree with Stefan on the rest of his explanation, Africa is poor simply because work is forbiden by multiple fascist laws and there is absolutely no respect for properties.     

[wdiaz03]

Hello,

 

Listening to the podcast I've noticed an economic sophism that Stefan fell in. This is not the precise wording but the idea is that Stephan said that economic problem in third world countries in Africa are partly caused by agriculture gouvernment subsidies in US that makes agricultural products in Africa non competitive and thus eliminates farmer jobs in these countries. This is true that subsidies render the African farmers non competitive and destroys jobs in that sector. Nevertheless this doesn`t render African poorer. In fact it is the opposite. For instance, if you give a car, a house, free food, fuel, electricity, and everything else free to everybody in Africa, then Africa will be the richest continent on earth. The goal of a perfect economy is not to have jobs but to have stuff. If you can have stuff without work then you have the best economic system ever. So the subsidies to US agriculture enrich Africa and US Farmers in detriment of the US tax payers. I totaly agree with Stefan on the rest of his explanation, Africa is poor simply because work is forbiden by multiple fascist laws and there is absolutely no respect for properties.     

 

I agree, but in order for the subsidies to have a positive effect in the long term, the economy must be free and fluid for the farmers to engage in more productive activities. Subsidies give the illusion that the food problem in the economy has been solved, but it is an artificial stimulus. when the subsidies stop the economy is not suited to pick up the slack. For example if pizzas started to fall from the sky tomorrow, the pizza problem would seem to have been solved, pizza restaurants would close and reopen as something else, everyone is better off. But if regulations and economic activity is restricted by the government then the pizza restaurant owners and employees will suffer since they are left with little choices to earn money. restaurants will remain closed and equipment will deteriorate, once the pizzas stop falling pizza restaurants will be ill equipped to ramp-up production

[jpahmad]

Right, but they can claim that man is bad but some can control it better than others. 

 

 I've never met anyone in my life who claims that they themselves are bad.  Furthermore, If you and I are both "bad", but I can control it much better than you, then that would make me less bad than you.  It would make me better than you.  It would make me "good" in the eyes of an objective observer.  It's a contradiction.  You can't be bad and good at the same time. 

 

 

 

I can't say this is the case, I don't know how you can generalize and claim to know what drives statists. 

 

My claim is based on discussions with statists.  I remember a few of them telling me that private enterprise cannot be trusted because "man is greedy and will sacrifice ethics for material gain."  Now they might be lying to me, but how else are you supposed to understand someone's motives unless you ask them?

 

 

 

Look at the many vestigial organs and dead genes that exist. that is, I read humans have genes to make egg yolk etc. 

 

 

Our genes, alive or dead, are all part of our ancestral histroy dating back to when we were fish.  They all evolved for the purpose of survival and some became apparently useless, like the gene for making egg yolk.  Although, we can't be certain that this same gene doesn't code for other things as well. 

 

Our faculty for reason was naturally selected to continue to reproduce.  You cant say that our ability to reason served no purpose in the survival of our species.  Why wouldn't empathy?  It seems obvious to me how empathy leads to the flourishing of our species. 

 

 

 One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience accurate sympathy or compassion. 

 

 

I certainy agree with you on that.