Comments

Episode-1646- Let’s Talk About Liberty — 36 Comments

  1. in todays show you talked alot about how ‘if your product, food, item for purchase, doesnt hurt anybody then so be it let it be sold and purchased in a free market’ but what kind of system would be set up in an anarchist society for those times when things go awry, whether it be someone did something wrong intentionally or unintentionally. jails or prisons wouldnt exist would they? that would require rulers which dont exist in anarchy. im guessing it would be dealt with by mediation, but if they cant come to a conclusion within a reasonable (who determines what is reasonable) amt of time then it would seem that some sort of ruler would have to step in.

    • Jack has mentioned eBay as a possible example of recourse. If you sell spinach and someone gets sick then they will publicize it and your sales may be affected. If you are the only one who gets sick then, it is an anomaly. Hopefully their business will not be affected. But if a whole group of people get sick, then that is probably not an anomaly and people should justifiably avoid your business. No police, no guns, no judge except the next possible buyer. This would be a free market solution. A business operating correctly builds social capital and transgressions spend that capital. Enough transgressions, you run out of social capital and you go out of business.

  2. EXAMPLE: i buy your spinach, get sick and accuse you of having salmonella all over your spinach you say no way, i say way, no way, way etc

    • If that happened and you told everyone you knew they’d all be afraid to buy his spinach until someone either tested it and proved you wrong, or he fixed the problem… and since he can’t hide behind the bureaucracy and the in-justice system by simply having more money than you, because it doesn’t exist, he’d have to correct the problem if he wanted to stay in business. If other people also got sick they’d spread the word too. Works just fine on ebay and amazon.

      No rulers doesn’t mean no accountability… you or someone else could even set up a business that tests peoples’ food products and certifies them as safe independantly and growers would want to keep up to those standards or else lose their reputation, and their business. People want this already and some are trying to do it within the system, but the government is always IN THE WAY.

      In the “system” you might try to sue him if you had enough money to go after him, which unless he’s one guy with a farm you probably don’t have enough money to even think about doing that, and even if you did, he could be a big corporate giant with the power of the corrupt government behind him like monsanto that will make sure you lose, and lose a LOT of money fighting… Does that really sound better to you?

      • I see what you are saying guys. I was just trying to think of an example where the “one in the wrong is not all that easy to determine” and I guess the answer to that is “let the free market decide”

  3. Glenn Beck, to me, more resembles controlled opposition than anything else. There are times when I hear him say things that really make sense, and I think “yeah, this guy knows whats up”. And then he completely contradicts himself on the next show.
    He’s no freakin Libertarian. If he was, he wouldn’t have corralled his listeners to hate Ron Paul like he did when Paul was running for Pres. But now that Ron Paul is out of the way, it’s safe to be “Libertarian” because there’s no real threat to the establishment anymore.
    I don’t know….. I just think Glenn Beck is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    • I think his substance abuse past coupled with his current Mormonism is part of the issue with true libertarianism. He can’t get past the drug issue, he just can’t. I have heard him say things like, “libertarians are fine until you get to things like heroin, you gotta have your heroin if you are a libertarian”.

      As a recovering alcoholic which he is and now as a member of the LDS which forbids using drugs and alcohol and likely feeling that saved his life, he wants others to not go down that road.

      Funny thing is people like this never seem to want to ban alcohol and if you suggest it they make very convincing arguments against it, the exact same arguments that apply to drugs.

      The thing is if you can’t get over the drug hurtle you are not ready to move to libertarianism then. Drug use is NOT A CRIME now it is against the law but it is not a CRIME.

      Further drug addiction is also not a crime it is a medical disorder that needs treatment, not prison.

      People like Glenn just can’t seem to accept that many drug users go on with life just fine while some end up in a gutter, JUST LIKE ALCOHOL. In many ways I see alcohol as far more dangerous that pot for instance, and I drink myself.

      Making substances illegal helps no one, except the state. Yet people like Glenn can’t get past it and it comes down to the desire to force your morality upon others. He should spend more time with his faith because honestly the LDS people I know seem to be the most libertarian people I know. I have many friends they come here, I drink beer, they don’t even bat an eye. Several I have only found out they were LDS when I offered them a beer.

      Pugliano is one, I offered him a beer once and he was like no man, I can’t. I was like why, he says, I am a Mormon. I was like okay and that is the end of that. Same with my friend Les, he honestly could not believe I didn’t know he was a member of LDS the first time the subject came up.

  4. A good “back to basics” show! This would be a good show for new listeners, depending on where they are in their journy. The part of the American brain that processes liberty has so atrophied that it will take daily cerebral therapy over a long haul to regain it back to a healthy state. Not that it was ever perfect, but we can certainly do better than what we have today.

    The real battle is in peoples minds. That battle is the limiting factor for all other battles.

  5. Tyranny causes revolt. Revolt forms a Republic. A Republic slips into Democracy, which slowly dissolves into socialism, which crumbles into Communism. Pretty soon your back to Lord and Surfs. Which direction are we headed?

  6. Jack,

    Are humans, as a gregarious species, really capable of being free? That image of the lone wolf, as Paul would say: that’s just marketing. Wolves live in packs with very restrictive orders. They remain together for the procurement of food primarily. A white shark, on the other hand, is free, a lonesome animal that lives to eat and procreate. Neither animal understands freedom form a philosophical stand point, though. It’s just their nature.

    Humans, though, were gifted with reason and as such we like to engage in what if scenarios, but at the end of the day our nature dictates more than our reason. Look around you. Nobody is clamoring for liberty above safety. And those who do, do so within the framework of a structured government that keeps the savages at bay. The same goes for the anarchist, without the safety of government it would reconstitute into a group to provide for safety first.

    No doubt that our society has gone crazy micromanaging every aspect of life, but ask yourself if this not the natural convergence of a carefree society that has all it’s needs met with ease.

    • There is no such thing as a lone wolf, that was not the point of that photo, it isn’t just marketing.

      I expect your intelligence to be sufficient that if I choose a picture like that, you KNOW that wolves run in packs, BY CHOICE by the way. I chose that photo because I liked the animal in it, it was a good picture, nothing about it should connate “lone wolf” unless you are still brainwashed. If I show one person climbing a mountain you don’t think it is a message to be a hermit do you?

      Yes humans can be free, stop believing in bullshit.

      I think you should read this series on Anarchy where it has worked and in one place where it basically still does.

      http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/anarchy-never-been-tried-part-i/

      Like most your first objection will be but those people all had “rules”, anarchy which is the only way to true freedom is NOT THE ABSENCE OF RULES but of RULERS.

      Like I said many times today, people don’t even know what freedom is, yet they basically pray to a flag that supposedly represents it!

      The comment above serves only to prove my point and further that you absolutely in no way have any comprehension of the word anarchy.

      Keeps the savages at bay? Seriously, if you open your eyes you will see how empty that sounds. The savages are now in control.

    • Interesting comment , Jose. What is your personal choice, though? Would you like to walk towards freedom or fascism or socialism etc.? I think that once people have found freedom in their life, I think that you would be hard pressed to find someone that goes back to more control voluntarily. Anybody have any examples of this? IE ; Someone finding freedom (somewhat subjective???) and then returning to more control in their life.

      • Good observation and the truth is Jose has yet to grant himself permission to be free. It is why he took exception to the graphic and made it into what it is not. He has not yet made a choice to accept his true nature, as a totally free human and live life fully on his terms. It is a fucking frightening step. It is the same reason why when you open a gate for a young group of ducks they don’t just run out the first time. For humans it is even more scary because it isn’t just an unknown but a known.

        See to be free you have to accept that others are as well, this is frightening as shit at first. What if so and so does XYZ, well so and so does that every day anyway. Get on with life and the living there of Jose.

      • You want an example, our country is an example. Not too long ago in the late 70s and early 80s we had significantly more freedom than today. Yet, here we are…by choice.

        The government didn’t do this, society clamored for it.

        • And that is the point. The state should not have the power to enforce the will of society.

          Democracy is the belief that people not qualified to run their own lives are qualified to select people to run the lives of others.

    • Jose,
      The problem with liberty is that within it lies the potential for human abundance. Abundance leads to apathy, apathy to corruption, corruption to tyranny, tyranny to resistance, resistance back to liberty… and the cycle continues. That’s why they call it revolution.

      Yes, there is a convergence. The thing is, we’re living in what stock brokers would call a ‘dip’, the low swing of apathy-corruption on the scale. We still haven’t even seen true tyranny yet. I think some people who consider themselves intelligent still forget that the Orwellian, Dystopian stories don’t always have the happy ending.

      So to answer your question, yes we are capable of being free. We’re not always capable of remaining free.

      • This is true and it is exactly what I described in this episode. We got comfortable, turned to the state and said “protect our comfort”, well you can have your liberty protected or your comfort protected, but not both.

    • Relax, don’t get all testy. You are right, the point is not the wolf or anarchism. The point is that like wolves, humans, by choice, choose the bondage and the structure of a society at the expense of some liberty. That, inevitably leads to more bondage. Is there an optimal balance between liberty and bondage, perhaps? But in the end, and especially within a democracy, the tendency is always towards more control. Any debate on liberty is academic when dealing with a species that’s gregarious in nature.

      • It isn’t testy it is an honest response.

        Here is the deal, in an anarchy you can choose bondage for yourself, but not for me.

        Again you don’t even comprehend the word anarchy at this point. That is NOT an insult, there are a lot of words I am sure I don’t understand and if society had lied to me for years about what one of them meant, I would struggle with it too. In fact that is exactly how I felt about anarchy many years ago.

  7. Jack something you said in the podcast struck me as a great example of how deep the control and thought influencing goes even for people like us who are doing everything we can to break it.

    In the marriage example you said you decide who your married to that is between you, your partner, and whoever your version of god and faith and spirituality is including if your an atheist then it’s nothing it’s just between the two of you and who get to make that decision the people getting married.

    This is how deep the control goes it seems it never even occurred to you that poly groups might decide they are married be it a man and 50 wives or a wife and 50 husbands or 10 commingled couples or any other combination of people.

    I have not finished the episode so if it occurred to you later in the show sorry.

    • It isn’t that it occurred or didn’t occur to me. I feel polygamous marriage is pretty rare today, most people really don’t want to do it. It was a product of a different time in history.

      Though if someone wants to do it, I don’t care one bit, I think I said something about it in the show about “that would be a hell of a divorce”.

      In any event remove privilege and protection by the state from the institution marriage and no one will care.

      I love the guys who are like, “what if some guy marries his horse” or what have you, again so he is insane, but if he doesn’t hurt you who cares. I met a man once that thought he was Jesus Christ, I didn’t try to get a law passed to prohibit him from saying it.

      My standard rebuttle now to people who say shit like “gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage” is simply, “well let me tell you, if gay marriage effects your marriage, either you, your spouse or both of you are gay”.

  8. Jack, you’re missing an essential difference between the Old Testament and the New in your opening remarks to (Episode 1646 “Let’s Talk about Liberty.”) You focused on ancient Jewish religious practices that are found in the O.T. related to homosexuality but then generalized to your audience that, by implication, Jesus Christ (and therefore Christianity) fully endorsed these same draconian laws. This just isn’t true or accurate. Nowhere in the N.T. did Jesus advocate killing anyone but did virtually the opposite. He taught non-violence and love as our main response to aggression, carrying the occupying Roman soldier’s back pack and supplies a mile farther than the one mile the Roman’s had required of Jewish citizens, turning the other cheek when someone slapped you, loving your enemies, forgiving a prostitute “caught in the act”, and so on. He was the true revolutionary whose approach to living life today, to me at least, defines much of what Liberty should be about. So please do your homework, as you do so well in many other arenas, and let the N.T. speak for itself without asserting to all that because it is part of the Bible it condones everything written in the O.T.

    • Jesus advocated a LOT of things that the current church doesn’t seem to do. Jesus also never said a single WORD about homosexuality. And it was a christain church that killed a gay guy in the history segment, I didn’t make it up. You are making my point for me, Christians today pick and choose PARTICULARLY from the OT what they want to further their POLITICS.

    • Something that I’m only recently noticing is how much of an anarchist Jesus was according to his words and actions in the New Testament. He appeared to be politically averse and understood that the use of force is unethical. He was rebellious and consistently a challenger of status quo in every way. If you think about it, the non-aggression principle is core to the concept of humanity’s free will, since we were originally without a state and free to live as we pleased. Replace natural consequence with force and you get a relationship that is neither genuine nor pure.

      War is our curse, simply the logical conclusion where non-aggression is broken. It is ironic when you examine the present day beliefs of the average American evangelical – or for that matter, the frequent past behavior of Christianity’s gatekeepers.

  9. Hey Jack,
    I agree with what you just wrote that, “Jesus advocated a LOT of things that the current church doesn’t seem to do” (shame on the church) and “Christians today pick and choose PARTICULARLY from the OT what they want to further their POLITICS” (shame on these Christians). You’re right on both sub-points! But my main point was to urge you not to generalize from the Old Testament to the New. While Jesus Christ quoted hundreds of O.T. versus to His audiences He also led a movement of true Liberty to the world that has lasted a pretty long time.

    • Well I didn’t actually say a thing about the NT or Jesus did I?

      What I said is I would love to see a reality show where people that do things like object to same sex marriage due to the bible go live in a colony where they all live by the bible 100% for say 90 days.

      That actually isn’t about Jesus or the bible in reality at all, it is about how it is USED by people today.

  10. I’ll have to take everyone’s word on what the debates were like. I skipped it and watched a Rangers game. Figured my chances of going to bed angry would be a lot less.

  11. Jack, Glad to finally hear you say that Christians need to “spread the word” by their actions and not by force. As a Christ follower I am called to tell people about the saving grace of God.
    In the past it sounded like you were telling us to keep it to ourselves. I do not believe we should put any of our beliefs on others by force or laws. The Bible says they will know us by our love for one another.

    • I have said that many times and different versions of it. Did you know I am a former lay minister? Yep before my conversion to Deism.

      There are some of you I wish would “keep it to themselves” though and even when I was a believer I felt the same way. YOU KNOW the type I am talking about, or may be you are lucky and you don’t.

      I am talking about the people that go door to door handing out tracts, not all of them but this type.

      To be nice you say well thanks for coming by, you take the tract again to be nice and say something like, I hope you have a good day, I have some things to do, bye bye now. And they don’t shut up, so you say, c-ya and close the door. You look outside and they have their hands up eyes closed and are praying for you to convert on your door. YES THIS HAPPENS.

      Twice I was approached by a guy in a STORE like at the mall. To be clear twice by two different people on days a few years apart so it isn’t that rare.

      Now this is WHEN I WAS A BELIEVER and it basically went this way.

      I just saw you and your wife and felt like God was telling me to come tell you about Jesus.

      Me – Okay well thank you but we are both very active members of our church, we know all about Jesus.

      Well that is great, can we pray right now together. (as if testing to see if I mean it)

      Me sincerely responding – I am sorry but no I don’t pray this way in public, it is against what I believe. And I am sorry but I do not know you and you just told me God speaks to you, I would like to be on my way, have a good day.

      Him – Hands go up, he starts praying, “Lord Jesus I pray that this man and his wife will accept you into their hearts”.

      I almost dropped the guy, I can’t tell you how offensive this type of behavior is.

      The second time was not quite as bad by was basically the same thing, except when I cut the guy off in prayer and said, enough of this he shut up and left. But it was almost like they had the same “trainer”.

      This is not acceptable behavior in a free society.

      I don’t care if you tell people what you believe but if they tell you to shut up, well go elsewhere.

      Some of this evangelism really should check itself to in the fact that it is 2015. The followers of Christ went out to tell people “the good news” because no one knew it. Well folks today, anyone in a first world nation that wants to know, knows.

      Perhaps there are parts of the world where people don’t if you go there to spread the word do be careful that you don’t end up on the news though.

  12. Jack, great show. While listening I kept thinking of a line from an Eagles song, “so many times it happens that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key” (Already Gone). Thanks for 1. showing us our chains, 2. showing us the key, 3. urging us to use it. Love these types of shows, keep it up!

  13. And something I learned from Frank Viola that I try to live by. Condemn not, Condone not. I may not like what you are doing or think that it is right but I will not condemn you for it. It is not for me to condemn. I might tell you I don’t like it if I have a close relationship with you but I will not condemn you for it.

  14. I have started to compile a list of principals that my son or daughter, should I ever have one, can learn from and take to heart. I would like to make them into a book. Something you said(when talking about the tenth ammendment) reminded me of one. “An honerable man has only one set of rules”.