Episode-1674- Where Has Critical Thinking Gone

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (13.9MB)

einst My biggest goal at The Survival Podcast is the restoration of individual liberty to people. In order for this to happen the most important thing we can all develop and encourage in others is critical thinking.

Today I ask though, where did it go?

Personally government always discourages critical thinking, I mean just look at this film from the US Government about the Japanese from WWII propaganda.

What you say that is just a cartoon for kids? Really. Okay you keep believing that.

My point is actually that even though this is the case our people did have reasonable critical thinking skills until quite recently. Where did they go and how do we get them back?

Join Me Today to Discuss…

What is critical thinking, what it is not
Why that fallacy poster has caused more harm than good
How do we actually engage in critical thinking, ask questions
- Does this even effect me, do I really care
- Can I influence this
- How is this influencing me, am I allowing it to do so
- What does this issue really mean
- Does this harm me or offer me any benefit
Until those are answered it is not worth going forward now ask
- Does this claim make sense
- Does it fit with what I believe to be true
- Am I in fact blinded by perception bias
- Do I fully understand the claim or am I picking things to object to/agree with
More questions
- Who benefits if I believe/discount this claim
- Who is the source in relation to that
- How will this knowledge change my life, my choices, etc.
Final Thoughts
- Pushed information usually has an agenda
- Pulled information may also have an agenda but it also has value
- The key is mostly in deciding what our questions are, vs. being provided answers
- Kids actually love this, they always ask why, encourage it

Resources for today’s show…

Remember to comment, chime in and tell us your thoughts, this podcast is one man’s opinion, not a lecture or sermon. Also please enter our listener appreciation contest and help spread the word about our show. Also remember you can call in your questions and comments to 866-65-THINK (866-658-4465) and you might hear yourself on the air.

Also remember we have an expert council that can answer you questions. If you have a question send it to jack at thesurvivalpodcast.com with TSPC Epert in the subject line. Ask your question in one to two sentences so it is clear then provide any additional details. Make sure to tell me what council member the question is for. You Meet the Expert Council at this Link.

Join the MSB Today

Want Every Episode of TSP Ever Produced?

Remember in addition to discounts to over 40 vendors who supply stuff you are likely buying anyway, tons of free ebooks and video content, MSB Members also get every edition of The Survival Podcast ever produced in convenient zip files in blocks of 24. More info on the MSB can be found here.

One question I pose for anyone as Jack probably won’t have time to answer. It is an annoying question that I really want an answer to that is definitely in line with critical thinking and has direct relation to Jack’s statement that “taxation is theft of property”.

Please don’t take this as some communist manifesto, because it is the opposite, it is the search for truth. I actually want to be proven wrong here.

In my path to critical thinking I like to resolve all ideas from core concepts, so I ask what is the meaning or maybe the moral basis of property.

For example, if I stole a shovel from your neighbor and then sold it to you, is it your shovel? If your neighbor saw you with the shovel and could prove that it was indisputably his shovel, would you give him his shovel back? Probably, as it is his shovel. Then you would attempt redress from me, the guy who sold you a stolen shovel. In the art world, I think this is called provenance.

Now let’s look at land. You “own” 100 acres of land that was taken from native Americans by the US or possibly by your distant relatives who then later joined the US. If your property was invaded by Canada, then hopefully the US would send troops to protect you. In return for this service you pay taxes to support this one purpose of government that many people would agree with. Is that theft or is it part of the contract attached to the land that you eventually bought.

There are places in the ocean that are shallow, but always under water. Several years ago someone found one and poured enough dirt on it to create an island. They literally created land. Sadly they were soon invaded by a neighboring island and kicked off, so that that island was added to the invaders country. Let’s say you bought that island and pay taxes to that nation. Who owns the island? If that government collapsed, could the original builders reclaim that land? I think so.

Would it be fair to say that land is only truly owned by nations or others with the force to defend them? Any other ownership is just a contract between the buyer and the government who is the real owner.

Again I ask that someone show the flaw in this logic as I hate the result.

Comments

Episode-1674- Where Has Critical Thinking Gone — 7 Comments

Alex Shrugged on November 6, 2015 at 4:18 pm said:

I remember watching a Bugs Bunny Cartoon on TV that was quite insulting to the Japanese. I had a Japanese friend in elementary school. Did I treat him badly due to this cartoon? No. I did as my parents taught me which was to be polite to others. (As polite as a kid in elementary school could expect to be.) I watched the cartoon but did not associate those caricatures on film with the friend I knew.

The reason that film could be made is because the people who made it and the people who watched it already believed it was true on some level. If you ever wondered where Hitler got the idea that race mattered… now you know. He got the idea from the good old USA and Great Britain. He just took the ideas to the next logical step. And in fact, the USA was already force-sterilizing its undesirable citizens and rounding up undesirables “for their own safety”.

A good book to read as a primary source for understanding the attitudes of those days is a science fiction novel that was made into a movie. The movie was pretty good and you can still see it occasionally on TV. However, by the time they made the movie, the thinking of the world had changed from the time the book was written. The book was written prior to World War 2 when eugenics was thought to be a good thing. The movie was made after it was shown by Hitler where eugenics led so the movie-makers excised those “bad parts”.

The books are “When Worlds Collide” and “After Worlds Collide” by Philip Wylie and Edwin Balmer

https://openlibrary.org/books/OL42355M/When_worlds_collide

The story: When it becomes clear that the Earth will be destroyed it becomes equally clear that a project to build a rocket, an Ark, could save a few… enough to rebuild the human race. The questions are, “Who will go? Who are our best?” The books suggest the idea that some races are genetically inferior and it seems natural, and acceptable to entertain such ideas. It certainly was acceptable at the time it was written… 1933.

The books are still in print in omnibus form under the single title: When Worlds Collide. I own a copy. I never want to forget.

Alex Shrugged
Steve on November 7, 2015 at 6:46 am said:

Jack, George Orwell was thinking of you.

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” George Orwell

thanks, Steve
Evelyn on November 8, 2015 at 7:02 am said:

Here is one place it went…

http://metanoia-films.org/human-resources/
Richard Hauser on November 9, 2015 at 1:55 pm said:

One question I pose for anyone as Jack probably won’t have time to answer. It is an annoying question that I really want an answer to that is definitely in line with critical thinking and has direct relation to Jack’s statement that “taxation is theft of property”.

Please don’t take this as some communist manifesto, because it is the opposite, it is the search for truth. I actually want to be proven wrong here.

In my path to critical thinking I like to resolve all ideas from core concepts, so I ask what is the meaning or maybe the moral basis of property.

For example, if I stole a shovel from your neighbor and then sold it to you, is it your shovel? If your neighbor saw you with the shovel and could prove that it was indisputably his shovel, would you give him his shovel back? Probably, as it is his shovel. Then you would attempt redress from me, the guy who sold you a stolen shovel. In the art world, I think this is called provenance.

Now let’s look at land. You “own” 100 acres of land that was taken from native Americans by the US or possibly by your distant relatives who then later joined the US. If your property was invaded by Canada, then hopefully the US would send troops to protect you. In return for this service you pay taxes to support this one purpose of government that many people would agree with. Is that theft or is it part of the contract attached to the land that you eventually bought.

There are places in the ocean that are shallow, but always under water. Several years ago someone found one and poured enough dirt on it to create an island. They literally created land. Sadly they were soon invaded by a neighboring island and kicked off, so that that island was added to the invaders country. Let’s say you bought that island and pay taxes to that nation. Who owns the island? If that government collapsed, could the original builders reclaim that land? I think so.

Would it be fair to say that land is only truly owned by nations or others with the force to defend them? Any other ownership is just a contract between the buyer and the government who is the real owner.

Again I ask that someone show the flaw in this logic as I hate the result.
- Insidious on November 9, 2015 at 2:56 pm said:
  
  @Richard –
  
  If you have something that you’ve acquired through your labor, or via a gift from someone else who has acquired it by their labor… and someone comes and attempts to forcefully take it from you… to retain ownership of the item, you will be required to respond with force.
  
  If someone steals your property, and sells it to someone else, it was not their property to sell, and it is returned to you. This is a social convention that exists for the same reason that a moral prohibition against theft exists, because it damages your personal and group well-being if it is allowed, resulting in the decay/destruction of the individual & the group.
  
  So, no. Ownership doesn’t = ability/willingness to use force. But maintaining ownership from an aggressor may require force.
  - Richard Hauser on November 9, 2015 at 3:39 pm said:
    
    So ownership cannot be encumbered. The return of stolen property is merely a social agreement between individuals to discourage theft.
    
    OK, makes sense, but onto land, once land is joined to form a larger governmental organization whether HOA, city or nation, isn’t that land in a way co-owned? Related in the way a piece of land whose mineral rights have been sold. There was a preexisting agreement or lien against the land that was disclosed in the sale.
    
    Isn’t this the same as if you owned an apartment in a building that came with building fees. Aren’t those fees just like taxes? Are fees also a theft of property?
    
    Or is it that one party can change the terms of the fees without your consent that makes it theft? (that sounds closer to correct)
Mat on November 11, 2015 at 3:38 pm said:

Speaking of perception, Five For Fighting isn’t a music group. It’s one guy. Record labels didn’t want to take on a new solo artist, so he gave himself the name ‘Five For Fighting’, he was now a ‘group’ and a label snacked him up.